| Revision as of 17:46, 2 March 2017 editKierzek (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, IP block exemptions, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers53,827 edits →Removing awards and rank lists from SS articles: cmt← Previous edit | Revision as of 18:27, 2 March 2017 edit undo173.230.139.45 (talk) →Removing awards and rank lists from SS articlesNext edit → | ||
| Line 172: | Line 172: | ||
| ::::::: I had some suspicions of that at first, but the ip above seems to be stressing that Nazi articles are slanted because they focus entirely on the World War II actions and omit post war information. That is actually a platform that {{ping|User:K.e.coffman}} has not ever really been involved with. Also, as these appear to be brand new ip edits with no other article activity (which, in itself is strange), there is really no case here for a violation of ]. -]<sup>]</sup> 17:23, 2 March 2017 (UTC) | ::::::: I had some suspicions of that at first, but the ip above seems to be stressing that Nazi articles are slanted because they focus entirely on the World War II actions and omit post war information. That is actually a platform that {{ping|User:K.e.coffman}} has not ever really been involved with. Also, as these appear to be brand new ip edits with no other article activity (which, in itself is strange), there is really no case here for a violation of ]. -]<sup>]</sup> 17:23, 2 March 2017 (UTC) | ||
| ::::::::I don't see evidence of this allegation. And frankly coffman has no reason to hide behind ip edits; he writes his position and arguments without hesitation under his own user name, from what I have seen. ] (]) 17:46, 2 March 2017 (UTC) | ::::::::I don't see evidence of this allegation. And frankly coffman has no reason to hide behind ip edits; he writes his position and arguments without hesitation under his own user name, from what I have seen. ] (]) 17:46, 2 March 2017 (UTC) | ||
| :::::::: He does this and hide behind ip addresses from time to time. He confessed using IP address to make deletionists edits on multiple pages and later as he was annoyed by reverting he confessed it was him. You can find it here: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk%3AWerner_Mölders&type=revision&diff=765483301&oldid=706844198 | |||
| ::::I don't see where anyone above has stated the Waffen-SS was a "military organization like any other"; ofcourse, they were "political soldiers"; the point is that even if they were just members of the SA, ''Allgemeine SS'', NSKK or "a union leader", one example Peacemaker used, there is no reason not the present rank progression and awards, with citations. ] (]) 18:26, 24 February 2017 (UTC) | ::::I don't see where anyone above has stated the Waffen-SS was a "military organization like any other"; ofcourse, they were "political soldiers"; the point is that even if they were just members of the SA, ''Allgemeine SS'', NSKK or "a union leader", one example Peacemaker used, there is no reason not the present rank progression and awards, with citations. ] (]) 18:26, 24 February 2017 (UTC) | ||
| :::::About the SS records on the SSO files of RG 242, we are talking about the SS service records themselves which have a cover page listing the dates of ranks and the awards the person earned. (See ] as an example). That isn't Original Research, it is recording information from a service record as maintained in the personnel department of the organization. Also, the National Archives has a series of "Finding Aides" which actually have the biographical data already listed from the microfilm itself (they are typically not cited separately since the finding aid of a record group is considered part of the record group itself). In any event, to suggest that listing dates of rank taken off the front of a service record, maintained by the agency itself, requires any kind of interpretation doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Also, if you look back in the archives of this military history page, as well as few others, you will find ''broad'' consensus that information taken from military personnel records, especially documents like a ], is considered extremely reliable. National Archives Record Group 242 (Foreign records seized) has also been cited in numerous books, journal articles, research papers, and was a key source of material for evidence in war crimes trials. One can't get much more reliable than that. -]<sup>]</sup> 18:33, 24 February 2017 (UTC) | :::::About the SS records on the SSO files of RG 242, we are talking about the SS service records themselves which have a cover page listing the dates of ranks and the awards the person earned. (See ] as an example). That isn't Original Research, it is recording information from a service record as maintained in the personnel department of the organization. Also, the National Archives has a series of "Finding Aides" which actually have the biographical data already listed from the microfilm itself (they are typically not cited separately since the finding aid of a record group is considered part of the record group itself). In any event, to suggest that listing dates of rank taken off the front of a service record, maintained by the agency itself, requires any kind of interpretation doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Also, if you look back in the archives of this military history page, as well as few others, you will find ''broad'' consensus that information taken from military personnel records, especially documents like a ], is considered extremely reliable. National Archives Record Group 242 (Foreign records seized) has also been cited in numerous books, journal articles, research papers, and was a key source of material for evidence in war crimes trials. One can't get much more reliable than that. -]<sup>]</sup> 18:33, 24 February 2017 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 18:27, 2 March 2017
| Main page | Discussion | News & open tasks | Academy | Assessment | A-Class review | Contest | Awards | Members |
Need help to restore content of military personnel infoboxes that has been deleted in Nazi-hunt
Hey folks,
as always our dear User:K.e.coffman is on his Nazi-hunt by simply deleting stuff. Now he is doing so by deleting infobox content - places of birth and death, service in World War I, list of battles, service in pre-Wehrmacht armed forces and the foregoing German countries etc. This content is perfetly following the infobox parameters and has not been contested for correctness - saying it to be non-notable is wrong, otherwise there wouldn´t be the respecive entry in the template and it would be non-notable for non-Wehrmacht soldiers, too (which it isn´t becaues it is important). Recently User:ÄDA - DÄP has joined him in some of this (though I generally have no problem with his overall work, he´s just trying to clean up). I´m trying to restore this stuff as it belongs there and has been deleted for a personal agenda and nothing else; but I´m just one slow-working person that also has other stuff to do. If some of you with a little spare time or AWB etc. could help me I´d appreciate it. ... GELongstreet (talk) 18:02, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
- You need to be careful that any information re-added to the infobox is cited somewhere, either in the infobox itself or elsewhere in the article - your changes to Dietrich Kraiss and Curt von Jesser re-added unsourced information, which really needs a source to be readded. The infobox clearout appears less a case of a "Nazi-hunt" and more applying proper standards about sourcing.Nigel Ish (talk) 18:34, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
- Most infobox stuff in stub articles isn´t sourced on its own as long as there is no dispute about the content. Everywhere. As I said I´m only one person, but if you want to source every line you are welcome to do so. ...GELongstreet (talk) 18:42, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
- Just because WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is no excuse for unsourced content. The act of removing unsourced information challenges it, so it should NOT be reinstated without a source.Nigel Ish (talk) 18:50, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
- The first line of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS has These "other stuff exists" arguments can be valid or invalid ... I see it as valid. I never said that the articles couldn´t or shouldn´t be improved. I said they shouldn´t fall to a deletionist personal agenda which, if you follow the tracks for just a second, they clearly do. ... GELongstreet (talk) 18:57, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
- Just because WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is no excuse for unsourced content. The act of removing unsourced information challenges it, so it should NOT be reinstated without a source.Nigel Ish (talk) 18:50, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
- Most infobox stuff in stub articles isn´t sourced on its own as long as there is no dispute about the content. Everywhere. As I said I´m only one person, but if you want to source every line you are welcome to do so. ...GELongstreet (talk) 18:42, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
Comment
- Unless I am much mistaken, I have removed only data from the infoboxes regarding prior service in other military formations which are not relevant to the notability of the person in question. Should I have accidentally removed relevant information, please let me know, and I will cease and persist to do so. ÄDA - DÄP VA (talk) 19:25, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
- As I said before I´v generally no objection to your work; but in this case think that every of those services deserves to be there. Not just the (mostly) final one in the Wehrmacht. ...GELongstreet (talk) 19:34, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
- The primary issue with this is an ongoing and basic misunderstanding of how notability applies on en WP. Not everything in an article has to be notable in and of itself, or go to the notability of the subject. Once the notability of the subject of the article has been established (ie why they are notable, why we have an article on them), then all relevant detail on the person should be included, so long as it can be reliably sourced. That includes date/place of birth and death, what wars they fought in etc, not just the war for which they are notable. If (as is often the case), a WWII general served in WWI (usually at a much lower rank), that is information that should be in the infobox and in the article, as it is relevant biographical information. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:04, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
- Of course all information should be recorded. In the article, not the infobox. The infobox is for a summary. In the case at hand - Hans Cramer - it is redundant to list the Deutsches Heer or Reichswehr because it is clear from the years of service that Cramer served in the army throughout his career. For the same reason it is only necessary to list the Knight's Cross, because that implies he was awarded both classes of the Iron Cross, too. Cramer did not change country, allegiance, or branch/service, there was only a change in names - and size. ÄDA - DÄP VA (talk) 06:02, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
- Then mention of what wars he was involved in is part of the summary. It is common practice to include both world wars and the fronts they served on in each war in the infobox. The Knight's Cross did not exist in WWI, so whether an individual received the Iron Cross in WWI is relevant to the summary in the infobox, as are other awards from WWI, especially Austrian awards where applicable. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:04, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
- All service is listed in the infobox, not just that which goes to notability. The infobox is a summary of the article. Hawkeye7 (talk) 06:36, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
- Then mention of what wars he was involved in is part of the summary. It is common practice to include both world wars and the fronts they served on in each war in the infobox. The Knight's Cross did not exist in WWI, so whether an individual received the Iron Cross in WWI is relevant to the summary in the infobox, as are other awards from WWI, especially Austrian awards where applicable. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:04, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
- Of course all information should be recorded. In the article, not the infobox. The infobox is for a summary. In the case at hand - Hans Cramer - it is redundant to list the Deutsches Heer or Reichswehr because it is clear from the years of service that Cramer served in the army throughout his career. For the same reason it is only necessary to list the Knight's Cross, because that implies he was awarded both classes of the Iron Cross, too. Cramer did not change country, allegiance, or branch/service, there was only a change in names - and size. ÄDA - DÄP VA (talk) 06:02, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
- The primary issue with this is an ongoing and basic misunderstanding of how notability applies on en WP. Not everything in an article has to be notable in and of itself, or go to the notability of the subject. Once the notability of the subject of the article has been established (ie why they are notable, why we have an article on them), then all relevant detail on the person should be included, so long as it can be reliably sourced. That includes date/place of birth and death, what wars they fought in etc, not just the war for which they are notable. If (as is often the case), a WWII general served in WWI (usually at a much lower rank), that is information that should be in the infobox and in the article, as it is relevant biographical information. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:04, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
- As I said before I´v generally no objection to your work; but in this case think that every of those services deserves to be there. Not just the (mostly) final one in the Wehrmacht. ...GELongstreet (talk) 19:34, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
Response
No issues with material being in the infobox, if it's covered and cited in the article. In all instances that the OP requested help with, the material was not cited in the article. This sometimes results in almost comical situations where the infobox is twice as long as the article, including the references. See, for example, before GELongstreet's edit and after, which also includes a non-existing battle.
Since I was called out by the OP by name, I'd like also to express my concern about this latest installment of "anti-Nazi" shaming. Most people (and I hope, almost all) are anti-Nazi, as Nazism came to represent genocide, war of conquest and annihilation, mass enslavement of populations of the occupied territories, war crimes authorised at the highest levels, etc. etc. I find such pejorative references ("Nazi-hunt") to be troubling. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:20, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
- I consider myself anti-Nazi, too, and share your hope that most others are the same. I in no way focus on that but this is my personal decision that I´m as free to chose as you are in yours. However my trouble is with deleting history - I think that burning the books is not the way to go. And that you´re going that way far too much. ... GELongstreet (talk) 03:48, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
- How does the present situation relate to book burning? K.e.coffman (talk) 05:25, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
- Let's see. You take birth and death places and service in different armed forces and wars and delete those, saying that it´s either not sourced, not written in the article itself or simply not notable - which there are very different opinions about and the non-notability is not agreed on as some others have written above. Kinda like you did with the respective medals&awards sections before - whose existence countered your "comical situation" of infoboxes longer than articles. One could have improved many of those articles with a fraction of that effort that you put into deleting but it doesn´t happen. Guess it´s pretty clear that I´m no wiki-deletionist. You´re doing that on a pretty large scale and interestingly it seems that this happens almost only to German WW2 soldiers. That´s why I say Nazi-hunt. I know that the creation of many of those stubs were a rather ambiguous thing and know that they´re far from good. But in my opinion you´re not making them better, you´re making them worse by deleting important information and making what stands there practically wrong. I think the lack of acknowlegement to previous armed forces and services is unwarranted and ill-placed for articles about military history in general and in this infobox in particular. I think you´re, basically, limiting it to "He was a Nazi-soldier, that´s all that needs to be in the article." As you´re doing so and delete anything beside the Wehrmacht service, I call it the equivalent of burning books. Savy? ... GELongstreet (talk) 00:29, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
- How does the present situation relate to book burning? K.e.coffman (talk) 05:25, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
- I find it curious that the editor wants another contributor to source the material (
One could have improved many of those articles with a fraction of that effort that you put into deleting...
), while making no effort to do it himself. Yes, the problem seems to be localised to German WWII personnel, because one editor started 2000 stubs on Wehrmacht personnel based on unknown sources, while another created 500 articles on the Waffen-SS using various fan pages. The fact that these pages exist does not make it anyone's obligation to cite the content that the original contributors did not. We are all volunteers here.
- I find it curious that the editor wants another contributor to source the material (
- These subjects are indeed notable as "Nazi soldiers", per GELongstreet, because it was during WWII that they were generals, commanded divisions, or met any other criteria of WP:SOLDIER. The rest is "uncited intricate detail unrelated to subject's notability", as I put it. Please see WP:BURDEN: the onus of providing citations is on those who wish to retain material that has been challenged. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:06, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
- I believe all of us should work to improve articles: including npov wording, grammar, structure and also add RS citations when we can. I also believe that service history should be mentioned in the info box. I agree that RS citing is important and when not present, sentences can be removed or changed, depending on the circumstances. With that said, when removing or deleting, discernment should be used and there should be no rush to do it. Kierzek (talk) 22:08, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
- These subjects are indeed notable as "Nazi soldiers", per GELongstreet, because it was during WWII that they were generals, commanded divisions, or met any other criteria of WP:SOLDIER. The rest is "uncited intricate detail unrelated to subject's notability", as I put it. Please see WP:BURDEN: the onus of providing citations is on those who wish to retain material that has been challenged. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:06, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
General comment
The matter of uncited materials comes up periodically. The result is usually the same; please see diffs of responses to several WP:3O requests:
Much of this material is a throwback to the times when Misplaced Pages content was routinely based on non RS web sites, such as AxisHistory, AchtungPanzer!, Aces of the Luftwaffe, and various Waffen-SS fan pages, often uncited at all. Misplaced Pages's notability and verifiability standards have been significantly tightened since then. A consensus has also developed that many subjects lack sufficient RS to build NPOV articles, and these articles are being redirected to lists (see: Notability in Knight's Cross winner articles).
Overall, this is nothing more than routine quality improvements for such articles. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:53, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
Reddit stuff / Continuing on AN/I
Just posting here to inform you that @ K.e.coffman Deleted the the SS honor dagger page turned it into a redirect to a page with no actual information of the original or anything mentioning it. I added it back and plan to dig up some more sources to fix up the article proper at a later date. As I've told GELongstreet, he has been encouraging some folks to go around and mess with articles on Reddit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.13.183.111 (talk) 16:10, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
- Just for the records, that reddit stuff. Also tagging User:K.e.coffman as he is concerned and User:Hawkeye7 as his talk page is linked there on reddit. ... GELongstreet (talk) 16:18, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
- And the discussion is partially shifted to Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Doxing_by_Special:Contributions.2F144.13.183.111 ... GELongstreet (talk) 17:13, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
Raqqa's strategy ?
.svg)
Hey, the current Raqqa campaign seems to use a recurring pattern to move straight, then create a large isolated ISIS pocket which it then nearly peacefully subdues. It reminds me of a WW2 strategy, in Western Europe, where Americans main forces where purposefully avoiding towns and major cities, which included fortress and nazi troups with correct firepower, leaving them lightly behind the frontline on US side, and where ultimatums and negociations allowed minimal fights and nazi surrenders.
Does anyone knows the name of this (these?) strategies/tactics ?
Please message me if you know. Yug (talk) 18:12, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
- Island-hopping is what I think that you're referring to.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:00, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
- Sturmvogel 66: Leapfrogging (strategy) (aka Island-hopping) seems to be quite naval... I think there is a more 'army' term. --Yug (talk) 18:19, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
- If I were writing an OPORD, I'd use the terms "bypass", "isolate" and "reduce" etc... Not sure if that helps at all, though. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:53, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
- Sturmvogel 66: Leapfrogging (strategy) (aka Island-hopping) seems to be quite naval... I think there is a more 'army' term. --Yug (talk) 18:19, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
- An anonymous user contacted me with :
- Raqqa operational technique
- Not sure there is a strictly defined term for it, although "bypass and reduction" are both terms used by the U.S. forces for such actions. In the Second World War, the U.S. tank force had an unofficial "rule" of Haul Ass and Bypass for positions strongly defended by the enemy. The term "reduction" can be found in lines like, "The result of the attack on 5 August proved that the reduction of St. Malo would take some time", found at http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USA/USA-E-Breakout/USA-E-Breakout-21.html
- Hopefully a bit helpful.
- Cheers
- Oh thanks Anonymous, that's a good lead. --Yug (talk) 10:41, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
- It converge with your statement ;) --Yug (talk) 22:56, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
List of surviving veterans of World War II
I'm not sure what the List of surviving veterans of World War II page is accomplishing. It's a page which will eventually reach a content count of zero. It's not necessarily inclusive and probably never will be. There was a discussion about deleting the article but it was conducted at the the article's talk page rather than at AfD. I don't think it has previously been discussed here or at AfD. Is it worth taking this to AfD?--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 18:46, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
- Definitely, and the same for any other similar lists.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:59, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
- Agree. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:47, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
- Agree with one asterisk: this list will have some utility as a function for determining the eventual List of last World War II veterans by country, whose predecessor, the List of last World War I veterans by country already exists and notes the last surviving veteran of World War I by country and the date they died, among other things. TomStar81 (Talk) 09:55, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
- I'm not so sure. This seems to be a list of "notable" surviving veterans. It seems inevitable that the last survivor will have been an underage rating, private or airman, someone highly unlikely to have been notable except for surviving longest after the war. That was the case with WWI, and I see no reason to think it will be any different with WWII. In my hometown, a state capital, 150 WWII veterans marched on ANZAC Day last year. Of them, maybe two would meet WP:SOLDIER. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:05, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
- Agree. Mztourist (talk) 10:46, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
- Comment. I agree with utility of a list of the last surviving veteran (apparently from the talk page of the list in question there's some question about the propriety of the term "veteran") of each country. There are about nine hundred people on the current list. I think it would be easier to clone the current WW I list to get a format for a WW II list.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 14:56, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
- Comment AfD submitted.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 15:32, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
- Comment. Well, that worked well: Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of surviving veterans of World War II (2nd nomination).--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 13:43, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
Operation Jupiter
Our article on the Quebec Conference, 1943, says: "It was agreed that Overlord would commence on May 1, 1944, but this was subsequently disregarded and a later date was finalised. However, Overlord was not the only option; for example, Operation Jupiter remained a strong possibility had the Germans proved too powerful on the French coast". Now "Operation Jupiter" is linked to Operation Jupiter (1944), an article about British breakout from the Caen area a month after D-Day and so couldn't possibly be an alternative to Overlord as it could not have happened without Overlord. We have a disambiguation page called Operation Jupiter which also lists "in 1942, a failed Soviet offensive against the Rzhev salient" which is wikilinked to our Operation Mars page.
A bit of Googling finds that another Operation Jupiter was a scheme devised by Churchill in 1942 to capture the north of Norway, which consumed a large amount of staff time and was rubbished by just about everybody, but later became a useful deception plan. I thought that a stub article would be possible, but what to call it? Operation Jupiter (1942) would cause confusion with the Soviet one. Any suggestions? Alansplodge (talk) 18:43, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
- Noway and Operation Jupiter (1942–1944)?Keith-264 (talk) 18:50, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
- Or something like "Operation Jupiter (Norway)". -Fnlayson (talk) 18:53, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
- That sounds good. I believe that the Soviet Jupiter was a follow on offensive to Mars, if it had been successful, BTW.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 06:20, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
- Is this the same as Project Plough? Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:39, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
- That's interesting, but apparently Plough was intended to be an airborne operation whereas Jupiter was an amphibious one, the shipping was to be disguised as an Arctic convoy. The relationship between the two plans might need some research. Keeping it as simple as possible, I may go for Operation Jupiter (Norway) if I have time tomorrow. Thanks for your input everyone. Alansplodge (talk)
- This will be a great topic for an article Nick-D (talk) 00:10, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
- That's interesting, but apparently Plough was intended to be an airborne operation whereas Jupiter was an amphibious one, the shipping was to be disguised as an Arctic convoy. The relationship between the two plans might need some research. Keeping it as simple as possible, I may go for Operation Jupiter (Norway) if I have time tomorrow. Thanks for your input everyone. Alansplodge (talk)
- That sounds good. I believe that the Soviet Jupiter was a follow on offensive to Mars, if it had been successful, BTW.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 06:20, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
- Now done, but further contributions more than welcome. I still haven't unravelled the Jupiter / Plough connection, but I've had enough for now. Alansplodge (talk) 21:42, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
Medal for Humane Action
Is there a phaleristics expert in the house? The colours on the medal ribbon for the Medal for Humane Action don't seem to match those on the medal. Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:36, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
- Interestingly, the Institute of Heraldry - Medal for Humane Action page also shows two different blue colours. The text clearly states "teal blue", which is a "a medium-saturated, blue-green color, similar to medium green and dark cyan" according to our article. However, all the photographs I can find on Google (see ) show a sort of blue-grey colour. Who knows? Alansplodge (talk) 14:22, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
- I've been bold and corrected the images to be consistent, and more in line with the evidence. Used this image as a .mil reference source. The heraldry site seems to have used the simple gif-for-web definition of teal, probably in error. (Hohum ) 21:58, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
- THnks Hohum. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:41, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
- I've been bold and corrected the images to be consistent, and more in line with the evidence. Used this image as a .mil reference source. The heraldry site seems to have used the simple gif-for-web definition of teal, probably in error. (Hohum ) 21:58, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
Assigning Task Forces
I hope I haven't made a mess of things. I've gong through the backlog of articles that needed a task force assigned and assigned what seemed like the appropriate task force. I should have asked long ago what was the appropriate task force for redirects and disambiguation pages. What should I have used? I'm happy to go back through the list I worked on and reassign if I assigned the wrong task force(s). Thank you.--Trilotat (talk) 15:08, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
- G'day, there are no specific task forces for redirects and dabs that I'm aware of. They are simply placed into the task forces that they would fall under if they were articles, e.g. country or time period specific etc. For instance 32nd Battalion. Thanks for your efforts in this area. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:00, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
Old merger List of British military equipment of World War II
Hello all! If someone with some knowledge or interest in the topic could take a look at finally completing the merger of List of British military equipment of World War II and List of World War II weapons of the United Kingdom that would be very much appreciated! Happy editing!! Ajpolino (talk) 06:12, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
- Not sure if the rationale was different between the lists but both the List of World War II weapons of the United Kingdom and List of British military equipment of World War II include non-British equipment where as you would have thought the "British military equipment" would not include foreign stuff. MilborneOne (talk) 08:51, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
- since there has been no serious discussion that I can see since tag applied, it looks like the merger suggestion has withered on the vine. Removing the tags would be a completion. GraemeLeggett (talk) 10:05, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
- Is there some intended difference between the articles? Pardon my ignorance, but it seems like those titles cover the same topic. Even if there has been no discussion in a long while, perhaps a merge is still in order? Ajpolino (talk) 17:22, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
- OK I read "weapons of the United Kingdom" as any weapon used by the UK and "British military equipment" as British-produced equipment which is not the same which why the inclusion of American weapons in the British military equipment confused me but I would expect them in the "weapons of the United Kingdom". Whatever my confusion they need to have a clear inclusion criteria unless I am the only one with a dizzy brain. MilborneOne (talk) 17:27, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
- Agree that they ought to merge somehow. Alansplodge (talk) 21:39, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
- Perhaps List of British military equipment of World War II (LoBmeoWWII) could be a higher level list and the individual sections could be replaced with links to other lists - as at the moment with List_of_British_military_equipment_of_World_War_II#Navy_ships_and_war_vessels and #Aircraft. Less of a merge and more of a prune of the duplicated content in LoBmeoWWII. GraemeLeggett (talk) 16:09, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
Milhist March Madness 2017
G'day all, please be advised that throughout March 2017 the Military history Wikiproject is running its March Madness drive. This is a backlog drive that is focused on several key areas:
- tagging and assessing articles that fall within the project's scope
- updating the project's currently listed A-class articles to ensure their ongoing compliance with the listed criteria
- creating articles that are listed as "requested" on the project's various task force pages or other lists of missing articles.
As with past Milhist drives, there are points awarded for working on articles in the targeted areas, with barnstars being awarded at the end for different levels of achievement.
The drive is open to all Wikipedians, not just members of the Military history project, although only work on articles that fall (broadly) within the military history scope will be considered eligible. More information can be found here for those that are interested, and members can sign up as participants at that page also.
The drive starts at 00:01 UTC on 1 March and runs until 23:59 UTC on 31 March 2017, so please sign up now.
For the Milhist co-ordinators. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:27, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
Jacob Griffin
Jacob Griffin has just been created via AFC. Would someone from WP:MILHIST mind taking a look at it and assessing it. The article's creator also asked about adding a photo to the article at WP:THQ#how do I add a photo from Wikimedia to my Misplaced Pages article?. Perhaps someone could help them out with the photo as well? Thanks in advance. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:51, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
Removing awards and rank lists from SS articles
There has recently been a push by certain users on Misplaced Pages to remove lists of Nazi awards and dates of ranks from certain articles, in particular articles of SS generals. This matter has come up before, and nearly always was the result of strong personal feelings about whether Misplaced Pages should include lists of ranks and awards for Nazi personnel. There was recently a very heated and lengthy discussion at Talk:Karl_Wolff#Awards_removal and now the issue has come up again at Talk:Theodor_Eicke#Removal_of_dates_of_rank_and_awards. An older discussion can be found here and there was a also one several years back on Talk:Reinhard_Heydrich/Archive_3#Notable_decorations. Third party comments are needed from some experienced editors as this issue continues and is leading to a lot of removal of cited material about Nazi awards and ranks from military articles. -O.R. 04:25, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
- I know I am repeating myself but, "...especially for high ranking members, awards and decorations should be included; and given ... it is reasonable to include for that reason, as well. Like everything being considered for inclusion or to be removed, discernment should be used. It is fair that they be cited". With that said, just removing in mass is not the answer, either. At least, if in question, a cn should be placed next to the subject rank, award or medal in an article and it should remain for a reasonable timeframe. Being a volunteer project and having to work long hours, I for one, cannot go around and add cites to all these articles; as I am sure we all don't have the time. There needs to be a consensus and the same policy used for all; German, American, British, Soviet (Russian, included), Japanese, etc. Kierzek (talk) 14:39, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
- We're not here to make value judgments. We don't to like or respect the people or governments involved in awards or promotions.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 16:22, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
- This looks like selective notification to me: diff. I would suggest that the OP also notifies other participants of the Talk:Karl_Wolff#Awards_removal discussion.
- I would note that the content was ultimately removed from the Wolff article, with the closer noting: "There is no clear consensus below about appropriateness of including SS awards in military/paramilitary bios, and it is not likely to be found here" (link). K.e.coffman (talk) 00:34, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
- Highly misleading statement. The material was actually transmigrated to "Service record of Karl Wolff" and the discussion closed as moot since the material was no longer on the article in question. -O.R. 03:10, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
- I wonder how this thread will draw "third party comments", but maybe the emphasis is on "some experienced editors". I will keep my remarks short anyway: First, I would point to WP:ONUS (not all verifiable information must be included in an article) and argue that these awards are presented with an undue depth of detail. Second, a career in the SS should not be conflated with a career in the military. The SS, including the Waffen-SS, was basically a Nazi party organization and not part of the Wehrmacht. Third, speaking of verifiability those career sections seem quite often to be based upon primary sources like personal files hosted at archives. In the case of Eicke there are discrepancies in the dates given by a recent scholarly biography (Niels Weise, Eicke, Paderborn, 2013) and the English Misplaced Pages.--Assayer (talk) 01:53, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
- As there is the apparent start of edit warring now I am hoping that others can get involved in this debate. Most who have contributed to this discussion already can see this for the duck that it is, mainly blanking of Nazi and SS material due to distaste for the material. There are literally hundreds of articles listing medals and dates of ranks, yet this particular group of Misplaced Pages editors is focused solely on blanking this material from only SS articles. I'm backing off of this one for now, pages are off the watch list, and will let others sort it out. -O.R. 03:10, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
- We're not here to make value judgments. We don't to like or respect the people or governments involved in awards or promotions.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 16:22, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
I've added a link to the discussion in the milhist template to solicit greater feedback; if the edit warring in the article(s) given here reaches a point of mass disruption then I'll start protecting articles. Given that the disagreement currently concerns established editors though I'm loath to resort to this option from the get go since it would mean requiring admin access to edit the articles in question. TomStar81 (Talk) 06:14, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
- I'll make the observation that the SS was a paramilitary organisation, SS advancement had meaning within the Nazi Party and SS itself, showing greater levels of responsibility, and was often in parallel with Army or police ranks; so promotion through SS ranks is relevant to a biographical article. To suggest that the Waffen-SS was a just a political organisation and not a military one is contrary to the facts. But even if it was right, we would mark the progress of a union leader through various levels of their hierarchy, so we do that with these people too. I fail to see why anyone would wish to remove such basic biographical information from any article, assuming it can be reliably sourced. Eicke was a member of the Reichstag, so there is definitely information available on his various promotions both within the SS then in the Waffen-SS, as well as other basic biographical info. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:25, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
- I have to agree with Peacemaker67, to say the Waffen-SS was only a Nazi Party organization is just not correct. True, they were not legally part of the Wehrmacht, but it was a "de facto" branch in a practical sense. However, even if it was just a Nazi Party organization, akin to the Allgemeine SS or NSKK, the ranks and promotions obtained by the person should be listed. Especially for high ranking members. The major awards should be listed, as well. Again, as I have said before, in the end, it is reasonable for the info to be RS sourced somewhere in the article. It is too bad that for some of these articles, when editors were adding such information originally, the sources they were using for said information was not added then. It seems that some of the information was written at a time when RS citing was not such a requirement on Misplaced Pages. Kierzek (talk) 13:51, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
- With all this persistent talk about a particular group of Misplaced Pages editors focused solely on blanking this material from only SS articles I might as well turn the tables and speak of a particular group of Misplaced Pages editors who are focused upon adding that material to SS articles. But I will try to make my concerns clear. The SS was not merely a paramilitary organization. It was also a party organization and an intelligence agency. It staffed the concentration camps and built a major industrial complex. Himmler allotted it police powers and tried to merge it with the regular police. He saw the Waffen-SS as a nucleus of a future pan-European Germanic army. My point is not, to suggest that the Waffen-SS was just a political organization. (But keep in mind the title of Bernd Wegner's seminal work Hitler's political soldiers.) Rather I am strongly opposed to suggest that the Waffen-SS was a military organization like any other, because that is a major apologetic rationale. It is misleading to focus upon a "practical sense", because the very definition of "being a branch" goes beyond that. The difference between Wehrmacht and Waffen-SS was both programmatic and practical. In the words of Eicke: "We do not carry weapons to appear like the army, but to use them, when Führer and movement are in danger." (Wir tragen keine Waffen, um dem Heere ähnlich zusehen, sondern um sie zu gebrauchen, wenn Führer und Bewegung in Gefahr sind.) Himmler was very careful to preserve the organizational distance between Waffen-SS and army. He planned, as he expressed in his Posen speech of 3 August 1944, to organize a Nazi people's army through the SS some time in the future. Thus it doesn't matter whether the Waffen-SS fought side by side with the Wehrmacht. The formal, organizational, ideological and programmatical differences prevail, not to mention the competition for resources and the often mutual distaste. The Waffen-SS was a branch of the SS, not of the Wehrmacht.
- I have no problem to feature information on careers in biographical articles. I routinely add them myself. I am questioning the way these information are presented. Eicke is a good case in point, because his SS career was a twisted one and has to be put into context. But even that he was a member of the Reichtag, for example, isn't mentioned in the article. Besides, it is problematic to create such rank lists only from the SSO files. That is a primary source which needs to be interpreted. The same is true with the Dienstalterslisten der SS and the SS-Stammrollen. By that I do not wish to imply that those are unreliable sources by the odd Wikipedian definition. But to use them is WP:OR and I am sceptical that anonymous Misplaced Pages editors are fully qualified to use these files properly. In fact, some dates given in the English Misplaced Pages differ from the dates given in secondary literature such as Joachim Lilla, Statisten in Uniform (2004). Editors who add such information based on archival documents are certainly advised to add the source of that information. But they are also liable to be challenged for WP:OR. In short, I am arguing for a contextualized presentation of the information based upon secondary literature, instead of a mere decorative listing based upon primary sources.--Assayer (talk) 18:13, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
- Assayer hits on a key point here, and it addresses more than just SS or Knight's Cross winners military biography articles in en.wikipedia -- German military personnel biographies are incomplete in the sense that they focus almost exclusively on the Second World War activities of these men. Some prewar material is included, but postwar -- a vast emptiness in these articles. Whether intentional or not, such a bounded focus gives the impression that the only reason these articles exist is to celebrate the wartime experiences of selected German military personnel. That is not encyclopaedic and smells of "fan-boy" activity. Certainly, many of these men lived into the 1970s at least -- are we to believe that nothing in their lives was notable after 1945 ? 83.20.105.165 (talk) 19:28, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
- This discussion is (was) about including dates of SS rank and Nazi era awards in the articles. Of course there wouldn't be any mention of this post war, since the SS was gone and most of these men never served in the military again and had no post war military decorations. As far as post war information lacking from the articles in general, the majority of articles on the German military figures contain plenty of information about those who survived the war. For those who were in prison, who were executed, or died before the war was over, of course there wouldn't be very much. -O.R. 20:46, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
- "plenty of information" is only correct in instances. Take a look at Christian Hansen (general), Maximilian de Angelis, or Friedrich-Jobst Volckamer von Kirchensittenbach as examples where there is practically nothing about their lives postwar. And there are plenty of others like this ... I only point out that as biographical articles, their focus is pretty much on 1945 and prior, although they lived decades beyond the war. 217.96.246.122 (talk) 10:40, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
- You should take those concerns to the talk pages of the individual articles. This discussion here is with regards to including awards and rank histories on the articles of Nazi figures and doesn't relate much to the specific articles you mentioned. -O.R. 14:52, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
- And as has been pointed out, hardly a surprise as that is what they are famous for, and in many cases have lived (deliberately) obscure lives. I can think of a few non Nazi blp'S that (similarly) only really talk about what the person is notable for.Slatersteven (talk) 13:27, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
- The two IP above is coffman. He is being described as agenda driven editor and on a mission. His edits are labeled in terms such as "vandalism" and "disruptive". It's not mistake to say that he should not be taken seriously and should be oppose and ignored most of the time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.230.139.45 (talk) 16:14, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
- I had some suspicions of that at first, but the ip above seems to be stressing that Nazi articles are slanted because they focus entirely on the World War II actions and omit post war information. That is actually a platform that @K.e.coffman: has not ever really been involved with. Also, as these appear to be brand new ip edits with no other article activity (which, in itself is strange), there is really no case here for a violation of WP:SP. -O.R. 17:23, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
- I don't see evidence of this allegation. And frankly coffman has no reason to hide behind ip edits; he writes his position and arguments without hesitation under his own user name, from what I have seen. Kierzek (talk) 17:46, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
- He does this and hide behind ip addresses from time to time. He confessed using IP address to make deletionists edits on multiple pages and later as he was annoyed by reverting he confessed it was him. You can find it here: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk%3AWerner_Mölders&type=revision&diff=765483301&oldid=706844198
- I had some suspicions of that at first, but the ip above seems to be stressing that Nazi articles are slanted because they focus entirely on the World War II actions and omit post war information. That is actually a platform that @K.e.coffman: has not ever really been involved with. Also, as these appear to be brand new ip edits with no other article activity (which, in itself is strange), there is really no case here for a violation of WP:SP. -O.R. 17:23, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
- Assayer hits on a key point here, and it addresses more than just SS or Knight's Cross winners military biography articles in en.wikipedia -- German military personnel biographies are incomplete in the sense that they focus almost exclusively on the Second World War activities of these men. Some prewar material is included, but postwar -- a vast emptiness in these articles. Whether intentional or not, such a bounded focus gives the impression that the only reason these articles exist is to celebrate the wartime experiences of selected German military personnel. That is not encyclopaedic and smells of "fan-boy" activity. Certainly, many of these men lived into the 1970s at least -- are we to believe that nothing in their lives was notable after 1945 ? 83.20.105.165 (talk) 19:28, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
- I don't see where anyone above has stated the Waffen-SS was a "military organization like any other"; ofcourse, they were "political soldiers"; the point is that even if they were just members of the SA, Allgemeine SS, NSKK or "a union leader", one example Peacemaker used, there is no reason not the present rank progression and awards, with citations. Kierzek (talk) 18:26, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
- About the SS records on the SSO files of RG 242, we are talking about the SS service records themselves which have a cover page listing the dates of ranks and the awards the person earned. (See Service record of Reinhard Heydrich as an example). That isn't Original Research, it is recording information from a service record as maintained in the personnel department of the organization. Also, the National Archives has a series of "Finding Aides" which actually have the biographical data already listed from the microfilm itself (they are typically not cited separately since the finding aid of a record group is considered part of the record group itself). In any event, to suggest that listing dates of rank taken off the front of a service record, maintained by the agency itself, requires any kind of interpretation doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Also, if you look back in the archives of this military history page, as well as few others, you will find broad consensus that information taken from military personnel records, especially documents like a DD Form 214, is considered extremely reliable. National Archives Record Group 242 (Foreign records seized) has also been cited in numerous books, journal articles, research papers, and was a key source of material for evidence in war crimes trials. One can't get much more reliable than that. -O.R. 18:33, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
- We can use primary sources, we just have to be careful in doing so, so avoid biases in the material. But simple factual stuff like dates of awards, promotions or assignments from a soldier's service records would be fine, and certainly not OR. Claiming otherwise is simply ludicrous.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:23, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
- To be clear: WP:OR states The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Misplaced Pages to refer to material — such as facts, allegations, and ideas — for which no reliable, published sources exist. And it is not "reliable or published", but "reliable and published" which you can tell by the combined wikilink. And it is also stated in an explanatory footnote: By "exists", the community means that the reliable source must have been published and still exist. As long as you refer to unpublished sources, and many personnel files have not been published, it is by definition OR. (That alone does not turn an unpublished source into a primary source, as secondary sources can also be unpublished and vice versa.) I happened to notice that WP:VERIFIABILITY has been somehow softened in 2013 based upon only brief discussion (Misplaced Pages talk:Verifiability/Archive 61#Published means made available to the public), but I beg your pardon that I rather stick to the definition followed by various manuals of style and I also use the definition of primary source as it is common in historiography and may seek consensus for that view in the future.
- But let's take an example to see what we are actually talking about: According to his official personnel file Karl Wolff was promoted to SS-Sturmführer on 18/19 February 1932. That date is also given by Lilla. On 19 January 1932 he had been ordered to be Führer (mit der Führung beauftragt) of the SS-Sturm 2/II/I in Munich. As Jochen von Lang tells us, Wolff only became Führer of that SS-Sturm, because no leader of a higher rank was available. His promotion was delayed, however, because admission to the leader corps required certain proceedings. Heinrich Hoeflich wrote a recommendation on 20 January 1932 which was presented to the corps leadership on 22 March 1932. After endorsement the matter stuck on Hoeflich's desk until the end of June. For the personnel files the promotion was dated back to 18 February. (Top Nazi, 2013, pp. 7-9) So which one is the correct date? I would also have asked for an explanation of the different dates for certain promotions of Eicke given by Weise and Lilla on the one hand and English Misplaced Pages on the other, but as OberRanks has explained he will not have access to his files for some weeks. I think, however, that illustrates the problems of verifiability, and published vs available to the public quite nicely.--Assayer (talk) 23:28, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
- Things like backdating promotions, etc. should be covered in the records; and since the records like the SS files in NARA are publicly available, I don't them see them as unpublished. But obviously you're a strict constructionalist on this issue and I am not. You are quite right to ask for clarification about the differing dates in your examples above, but you cannot always expect an answer, nor should you delete that material if no answer is received. Any discrepancies should be covered in a note, pending further research, which may or may not ever be performed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:39, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
- We can use primary sources, we just have to be careful in doing so, so avoid biases in the material. But simple factual stuff like dates of awards, promotions or assignments from a soldier's service records would be fine, and certainly not OR. Claiming otherwise is simply ludicrous.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:23, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
- About the SS records on the SSO files of RG 242, we are talking about the SS service records themselves which have a cover page listing the dates of ranks and the awards the person earned. (See Service record of Reinhard Heydrich as an example). That isn't Original Research, it is recording information from a service record as maintained in the personnel department of the organization. Also, the National Archives has a series of "Finding Aides" which actually have the biographical data already listed from the microfilm itself (they are typically not cited separately since the finding aid of a record group is considered part of the record group itself). In any event, to suggest that listing dates of rank taken off the front of a service record, maintained by the agency itself, requires any kind of interpretation doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Also, if you look back in the archives of this military history page, as well as few others, you will find broad consensus that information taken from military personnel records, especially documents like a DD Form 214, is considered extremely reliable. National Archives Record Group 242 (Foreign records seized) has also been cited in numerous books, journal articles, research papers, and was a key source of material for evidence in war crimes trials. One can't get much more reliable than that. -O.R. 18:33, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
- I have to agree with Peacemaker67, to say the Waffen-SS was only a Nazi Party organization is just not correct. True, they were not legally part of the Wehrmacht, but it was a "de facto" branch in a practical sense. However, even if it was just a Nazi Party organization, akin to the Allgemeine SS or NSKK, the ranks and promotions obtained by the person should be listed. Especially for high ranking members. The major awards should be listed, as well. Again, as I have said before, in the end, it is reasonable for the info to be RS sourced somewhere in the article. It is too bad that for some of these articles, when editors were adding such information originally, the sources they were using for said information was not added then. It seems that some of the information was written at a time when RS citing was not such a requirement on Misplaced Pages. Kierzek (talk) 13:51, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
entirely agree with Sturm. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:56, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
Assessing consensus
The above comments and discussion have been really beneficial. However, as we have seen in a recurring pattern, discussions like this will happen, people will cool down a bit, and then a few weeks will go by (or perhaps months) and then the same issue will come up again with a renewed round of removing SS rank and award material. The two schools of thought are that 1) rank and awards are allowed on Misplaced Pages as pertinent biographical material and 2) the material is related to Nazism and added dates and ranks generates undue weight. Some kind of common ground needs to be found so that this cycle does not keep happening over and over again. Thank you to all. -O.R. 15:34, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
- @OberRanks: - I think, if it really comes to it, we could apply extended confirmed protection to all related articles so inexperienced editors don't remove information on a whim. It could work. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 19:50, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
- I would actually recommend an administrator keep an eye on this situation. If the same users reappear in six to eight months, categorically blanking cited SS ranks and Nazi awards from articles, then stronger action may be needed. There has also been a lot of noise from one or two editors that "no consensus has been reached". I would disagree and state that the vast majority of editors, in over four separate discussions about this topic, have all agreed that rank and award information is perfectly acceptable in these types of articles. -O.R. 20:52, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
The result at the Karl Wolff discussion was:
- "Closed as Moot. There is no clear consensus below about appropriateness of including SS awards in military/paramilitary bios, and it is not likely to be found here." (link) K.e.coffman
I noted above that O.R. did not notify other contributors who took part in the Karl Wolff discussion; I don't believe this has occurred yet. Many of the awards in question are party or SS awards; they are non-combat decorations and thus do not fall under "Military history". In any case, consensus achieved in prior discussion @ MilHist is WP:LOCALCONSENSUS and does not represent the community consensus. I believe this indicates "no consensus", as presently stands. Perhaps these threads come up periodically because various editors find these listings problematic? Please see an earlier comment by another contributor: "why do we love, in en:WP, to entertain the reader by listing awards after awards?. Given that the Wolff discussion brought up issues of NPOV, I believe that the more appropriate venue for a "central" discussion would have been the Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:54, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
- I believe this board is an appropriate venue for discussion of this issue, even if many are "party or SS awards". The articles are still part of the military history section and are assessed by this section of Misplaced Pages (among others). Kierzek (talk) 22:09, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
- Please stop misrepresenting the Karl Wolff discussion. The discussion was "closed as moot" because all of the awards and rank information was moved to a new article at "Service record of Karl Wolff". There have also been no less than four other discussions cited in this debate, all of them overwhelming favoring including this material. Honestly (at present), it appears to be simply you and one other editor who have persistently called for the removal of this material. I like the citation idea, mainly that this material can stay in if cited, but beyond that if its removed repeatedly as cited sourced information, that is bordering on disruptive editing.
- There have been far too many people involved in this issue over the past ten to twelve years to notify them all. As for Karl Wolff, most of those who spoke there have spoken here. Notification is a courtesy; an editor is not required to do extensive research on who has commented on a past post and notify them. if you have observed a significant editor has been left out of this discussion, you have every right to notify them as well. -O.R. 22:36, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
- I note that editor Peacemaker has been notified by the OP, but not other contributors to the most recent discussion on the Wolff awards. I believe this is "selective notification", no?
- And, how else can one interpret: "There is no clear consensus below about appropriateness of including SS awards in military/paramilitary bios, and it is not likely to be found here."? K.e.coffman (talk) 22:55, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
- I hope I don't offend anyone here, but the idea that listing ranks and awards of a military figure violates NPOV is pretty ridiculous. Now, if we were saying what a great guy the person was for earning such awards, that would be a POV issue. But simply stating a rank and award history out of a personnel file is about as neutral as one can get. -O.R. 22:36, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
- From the Wolff article: "In 1942 Wolff oversaw the deportation transports during 'Grossaktion Warschau'..." This sounds like a police function to me, not performed by a
military figure
. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:35, 1 March 2017 (UTC)- Militarized police, sure. Almost all of the various German police units/types were incorporated into the SS, although not the Waffen-SS. Those policemen who did become part of the 4th SS-Polizei Division were not transferred to the Waffen-SS until 1942.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:18, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
- At the end of the war, Wolff was a Waffen-SS general and the de facto commander of German forces in the Italian Social Republic. Even if he wasn't a "military figure" per se, he is cited in enough sources as an extremely important figure in the Nazi era to warrant an article with broad covering information. -O.R. 15:05, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
- Militarized police, sure. Almost all of the various German police units/types were incorporated into the SS, although not the Waffen-SS. Those policemen who did become part of the 4th SS-Polizei Division were not transferred to the Waffen-SS until 1942.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:18, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
- From the Wolff article: "In 1942 Wolff oversaw the deportation transports during 'Grossaktion Warschau'..." This sounds like a police function to me, not performed by a
- I hope I don't offend anyone here, but the idea that listing ranks and awards of a military figure violates NPOV is pretty ridiculous. Now, if we were saying what a great guy the person was for earning such awards, that would be a POV issue. But simply stating a rank and award history out of a personnel file is about as neutral as one can get. -O.R. 22:36, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
There doesn't appear to be any active disruption now, the award-rank section blanking has seemingly stopped, and at the very least there is agreement that rank and award material should be cited. As far as this other endless cycle of protestations - i.e. the merits of Nazi awards on Misplaced Pages, certain awards being "insignificant", and now stating that notable World War Ii figures are actually minor and to cover them extensively is POV editing - I think a lot of people have simply lost patience with that endless debate since it appears to be coming from literally only one or two editors. If this kicks up again in 6 months to a year I imagine we will all be back here again, or possible at ANI if such actions are determined to be tendentious editing. -O.R. 14:50, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
Western Front (World War I)
I have nominated Western Front (World War I) for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. DrKay (talk) 20:36, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
Name, split and mergers related to Szabla
It is time to tackle this mess, or at least discuss it. Please see Talk:Szabla#Name. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:10, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
Possible edit by now deceased BLP subject
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Susan Ahn Cuddy#BLP . RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 07:13, 1 March 2017 (UTC)Template:Z48
Opinions requested for rename of Diver (United States Navy)
at Talk:Diver (United States Navy) Cheers, • • • Peter (Southwood) : 08:23, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
Category: