Welcome message
|
Invitation to join Milhist
Welcome to MILHIST
Unbiased Military History
Why edit WWII military history to reflect only one point of view? I have made a couple of small adjustments using multiple valid published sources showing another opinion on various topics related to WWII, but these were quickly reverted and censored without cause or explanation. My revisions adhere to Wikipedia's guidelines, and are completely neutral. I thought our objective was to present the reader with a neutral account of historical events? Or are the editors of Wikipedia only here to further a biased viewpoint based on the "official" version of the past? I donate to Wikipedia and presumed the truth was the main objective, or at least allowing the reader an unbiased account so they can decide for themselves. Historical revisionism is dangerous and doesn't benefit the average reader. Please explain, thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kerouac86 (talk • contribs) 17:43, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
- Hi, @Kerouac86:. I had provided the explanation for the revert on the article's talk page, which I pointed to in the comment section of the revert itself. It's not my policy to revert edits without an explanation. Please see: Recent changes to Malmedy massacre section. You will also find that an admin supported the revert. Please let me know if you have any further questions or concerns. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:21, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
- Hi, @K.e.coffman:. Thanks for the explanation, it makes sense that all information in an article be related to the general tone of the rest of the article for better flow and consistency, etc. Any suggestions on how to properly edit the sections I've contributed to? Perhaps I'm not doing it in an effective way. It would really be great to clean up some misconceptions about certain topics that have their root in unconfirmed sources and/or biased reports immediately following the war. Researchers since then have done a good job accessing new source material that should cast doubt on some of these "tried-and-true" conclusions, and give the reader a better understanding of the actual event, regardless of the sensitive nature of the topic. I.e., Malmedy, Nuremberg Trials, Soviet atrocities, mass expulsions of Germans from eastern territories, effects of the carpet bombing campaign on cities, etc. Thanks.
Kerouac86 (talk) 18:40, 19 November 2015 (UTC)Kerouac86
- Hi, @Kerouac86:, I'm a new editor myself, but I found that discussing major changes first on the Talk page is the best approach if you have ideas on a contribution, new sources or change of direction for an article. (I.e. this may have already been discussed; there's a misunderstanding on what a change is trying to achieve, etc).
- I suggest you open a new topic on the Malmedy massacre Talk page and lay out your arguments and sources there. I'm sure that article monitored and you'll get a response.
- For example, here's what I did after my change had been reverted: Arthur Nebe - Use of source. I engaged with the editor on this page and we arrived at the changes that both of us were comfortable with. If the consensus on the Malmedy massacre page is reached, then any changes can be reflected on the division's page. That way Wikipedia info stays consistent and people do not get two different versions of a particular event. Hope this helps! K.e.coffman (talk) 19:01, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
Holodomor article response
I do understand what your concern is regarding the statement in the lead not being expanded on in the body of the article. That's why the dubious tag still stands. The fact of the matter is that it needs to be developed extremely discretely. I'm not going to write a WP:TLDR blurb on that article's talk page, but the subject is so politically sensitive that it must be done both succinctly without attracting accusations of anti-Semitism: and the concern is, indeed, justifiable. There is, for example, compelling evidence that the representation of Jews in the Communist party was around 40% at that time, but very soon after only 10% after purges had taken place: in other words, the use of ethnic Jews was thought out as a scapegoat strategy in putting them in high profile positions for the sake of misdirection of blame. The proposed 2009 court case was fraught with hazards antithetical to a balanced inquiry. There are articles in languages other than English I could draw on, but it's still a brutal game of contemporary political interests in globally influential economies.
- Subsidiary to who has the biggest butcher's hook is how to incorporate relevant sources without going WP:OFFTOPIC: a problem unto itself. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:01, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
- @Iryna Harpy: thank you for the clarification. I did not realize that such an interpretation (if I'm reading you correctly) even existed - the so-called "Judeo-Bolsheviks" orchestrated the famine, and then were purged themselves?? From the use of word Holocaust in the lead, I was getting more of an impression of an attempt at comparative Nazism-Stalinism studies as WP:OR, which I have seen a few instances of on Wikipedia. Here are a few examples that I was involved in editing:
- Soviet POWs | Problems with "Contemporary mistreatment of German POWs"
- German POWs | Ann Applebaum quote
- minor example in SS div. Adolf Hitler | Malmedy massacre, which the source referenced (Glantz | When Titans Clashed) did not even support
- Yes, both regimes were murderous but let's leave the debate to the scholars and keep the articles themselves factual.
- Further, it now appears that a user (My Best Wishes) is subtly accusing me of being a 'Holodomor denier' on the Holodomor talk page - which is not cool! This user appears to have been sunctioned around that very topic (see this diff), which makes it even less kosher for them imply any such thing about me. How do you think I should handle this? Or am I being to sensitive? (That will teach me to stay away from the controversial topics :-) ) K.e.coffman (talk) 18:21, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
- A general comment; reply factually on the talk page, listen to others point-of-view, and discuss to try and reach a consensus; do not get involved in personal attacks or edit wars. If things get out-of-hand, ask an admin to look at it or to advise you accordingly. Kierzek (talk) 18:31, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
- I now see that the user self-corrected themselves after seeing my outdent. So that's cool. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:11, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
- Just to clarify, suggestions that Judeo-Bolsheviks's orchestrated Holodomor/the Great Famine is absolutely WP:FRINGE and doesn't bear being dignified. In the context of the famine, Jews were close on being the majority holding top positions and Stalin (and his henchmen) would have known that Jewish names would be prominent in organising and following through on the orders issued from the Kremlin (although, given that the NKVD had 60 years to clean house, no traces of any 'smoking gun' as to what any direct orders were are ever going to be found). The fact that ordinary Ukrainians knew each by name as being in charge throughout the regions was hardly going to be overlooked and bound to foment a rumour factory (yes, to old 'divide and conquer' is still a stock-standard favourite). The proposed trial of 2009 may as well have been a Soviet show trial and accomplished nothing other than further muddying the waters and setting back any serious investigation or open discussions between ethnic groups involved.
- I now see that the user self-corrected themselves after seeing my outdent. So that's cool. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:11, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
- A general comment; reply factually on the talk page, listen to others point-of-view, and discuss to try and reach a consensus; do not get involved in personal attacks or edit wars. If things get out-of-hand, ask an admin to look at it or to advise you accordingly. Kierzek (talk) 18:31, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
- Further, it now appears that a user (My Best Wishes) is subtly accusing me of being a 'Holodomor denier' on the Holodomor talk page - which is not cool! This user appears to have been sunctioned around that very topic (see this diff), which makes it even less kosher for them imply any such thing about me. How do you think I should handle this? Or am I being to sensitive? (That will teach me to stay away from the controversial topics :-) ) K.e.coffman (talk) 18:21, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
- Enough of the OR on my behalf. Ultimately, putting together bits and pieces from scholars predominantly from Ukraine, Poland and Russia, would be blatant WP:SYNTH. The fact remains that, given Josef Zisels' (AKA Josef Zissels) standing, the reference is strong enough to merit standing on its own. The only reason the 'dubious' tag is there is that an even more dubious/problematic editor tossed in a 'POV' tag here in May, which I exchanged for the dubious tag. I should have just removed his/her tag on the spot. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:29, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
Russian Poster
Hi K.e.coffman, since you said on your talk page that you like to engage with other editors, I propose we continue this unrelated conversation about the poster here. The poster with the Red Devil keeps popping up in different places as "proof" for all kinds of things that Wikipedia editors think it represents. Do you know anything about how it was actually used? Just by looking at it, it's not clear to me that the people are Chinese. I would think if the intended audience is peasants somewhere in the region, they wouldn't necessarily know about the "Chinese." Would they see it as another Mongolian invasion? To me that would be a much bigger threat, which is still very fresh on people's minds, even today. If we solve this question of what the poster actually means, that would be very helpful the next time it pops up in a discussion. USchick (talk) 21:34, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
- @USchick: prior to getting your message, I responded on the Talk page. I do now believe that the poster is unrelated to the topic of the article and would support your move to remove it. I had found the poster here: Chinese in the Russian Revolution, and there's some discussion on it on that article's talk page, although I've not read through it. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:44, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
- Great discovery about the "foreign mercenaries" I can't tell from the sources what word is being used, if they were Chinese or Asian. USchick (talk) 21:48, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
- There was a lot of bickering on that other talk page, but not much discussion about the poster. A few years ago, I challenged the use of another poster that was "for sure Trotsky" and it turned out that the sources weren't all that sure after all, haha. You seem friendly, and maybe we can actually collaborate on this. USchick (talk) 21:55, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
- @USchick:Here's more info on the poster from Wikimedia - this indeed appears to be Trotsky (as suggested by his name at the bottom of the order (ПРИКАЗ) pictured right above the prisoner). But the main connection is to the foreign mercenaries, not 'Judeo-bolshevism.'
- Yes, I'm glad we were able to get to the bottom on this. You are quite correct in saying that people can interpret this poster in many different ways. Take me for example: in my mind, it tied into the Nazi Germany racial theories framework, and I interpreted it as "Judeo-Bolshevik devil leads asiatic hordes in murdering the Russian populace." I even confused the pentagram for the Star of David. Best never to assume. Thanks for your persistance! K.e.coffman (talk) 22:09, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
- If you follow the trail of the RU Wikipedia version of the file, plus this article, it'll provide you with the background and intent of the poster. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:34, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
- Thank you Iryna! They won the war through PR? Not much has changed, huh? USchick (talk) 16:16, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
- If a formula works, keep using it! While I'd like to think that we - the general public - have become more sophisticated and wary, I know that's WP:BOLLOCKS. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:16, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
- Thank you Iryna! They won the war through PR? Not much has changed, huh? USchick (talk) 16:16, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
- If you follow the trail of the RU Wikipedia version of the file, plus this article, it'll provide you with the background and intent of the poster. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:34, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
- There was a lot of bickering on that other talk page, but not much discussion about the poster. A few years ago, I challenged the use of another poster that was "for sure Trotsky" and it turned out that the sources weren't all that sure after all, haha. You seem friendly, and maybe we can actually collaborate on this. USchick (talk) 21:55, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
- Great discovery about the "foreign mercenaries" I can't tell from the sources what word is being used, if they were Chinese or Asian. USchick (talk) 21:48, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
