User talk:K.e.coffman/Archive/2015/December

My response

I was a bit slow in my response yesterday, I have family pressure to spend time dealing with real world problems. Wikipedia must be put on the back burner. Unfortunately most Wikipedians must depend on Google books which limits the quality of the content. To compound matters Wikipedia can become a battleground for ethnic warriors. --Woogie10w (talk) 10:51, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

I took a peek at your edit history and noticed that you have done a lot of work on German units in WW2. In the past I did a lot of work on German and Soviet OBs, I own Samuel W. Mitcham's Hitlers Legions and the series of books by Victor Madej. If I can be of help let me know. --Woogie10w (talk) 02:58, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Woogie, I can tell that the Waffen-SS unit articles and bio articles could use more ce and inline & book RS citing. Kierzek (talk) 03:35, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Axis History

Hi! You mentioned that axishistory.org is not a reliable source. I was just wondering what page I made that edit to so I can revert it for you. Thanks:) Thomasnetrpm (talk) 19:14, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

@Thomasnetrpm: Thank you for your response. It was 17th SS Panzergrenadier Division Götz von Berlichingen -- K.e.coffman (talk) 19:24, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

@Thomasnetrpm: Sorry, it was II SS Panzer Corps -- K.e.coffman (talk) 19:26, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure exactly how to revert an edit. Would you be able to revert it? I apologize for the inconvenience and thanks ! Thomasnetrpm (talk) 19:32, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

@Thomasnetrpm: No problem -- I will do it. Just wanted to be polite :-) -- K.e.coffman (talk) 19:34, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Tagging

G'day K.e.coffman, I have seen that you have placed a number of {{cn}} tags on 11th SS Volunteer Panzergrenadier Division Nordland and others. I see you also put a {{refimprove}} on the former article as well. In case you didn't know, it is completely unnecessary to tag every uncited paragraph with a {{cn}} when the whole article has been tagged for reference improvement. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 01:45, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Removal of "redundant" links?

Hi, I'm unclear why you removed all 3 links to relevant websites in Panzer Division Jüterbog, as I used them to validate the order of battle. Maybe I forgot to add relevant citations... would adding these address any concerns you may have? Regards,DPdH (talk) 02:49, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi @DPdH: are you referring to axishistory.com and feldgrau.com from external links? These cannot be considered accurate, as they are community projects and where they are sourcing their information is unknown. I would call them "dubious." Here's what Wikipedia says on external links -- Wikipedia:External links:

Some acceptable links include those that contain further research that is accurate and on-topic, information that could not be added to the article for reasons such as copyright or amount of detail, or other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article for reasons unrelated to its accuracy. Some external links are welcome (see § What can normally be linked), but it is not Wikipedia's purpose to include a lengthy or comprehensive list of external links related to each topic. No page should be linked from a Wikipedia article unless its inclusion is justifiable according to this guideline and common sense. The burden of providing this justification is on the person who wants to include an external link.

Did this answer your question? Please let me know if we need to discuss further. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:23, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

@DPdH: PS -- If you are looking for just the order of battle info, I've been told that this site is okay to use: http://www.niehorster.org/index.htm. Place it into the References, rather than external links. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:43, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Very clear, thanks a lot. DPdH (talk) 04:12, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Removal of sources

Hello, you appear to be removing fprado, armorsite and axis history as references from multiple articles. I don't think this is helpful. These sites provide their own sources at the bottom of their pages. If you think they are unreliable, I think it would be better to mark this with tags (like {{unreliable source?}}, and/or check the sources they use as references and use those instead, if appropriate. You are also sometimes removing the text they support - you should only do this if you think the text is actually wrong, rather than badly supported. (Hohum ^@) 16:41, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

@Hohum: Thank you for your note; I responded on the article's talk page -- Talk:103rd_SS_Heavy_Panzer_Battalion. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:51, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Lulu

Thank you for your comment on my talk page about Lulu's unreliability. I actually agree with you. The reason why I had added reference to this source to List of members of the British Free Corps was in order to point out the errors therein. I feel that, where there is incorrect information on a topic circulating around the web, Wikipedia can perform a valuable function in correcting it (with reliable sources, of course!).Alekksandr (talk) 20:17, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

@Alekksandr: Got it, thanks for letting me know. BTW, there's been recent activity on the article Waffen-SS foreign volunteers and conscripts. You appear to be knowledgeable on the subject, so I thought you might want to know and to possibly provide feedback. Just an FYI. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:21, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Mass removal of uncited or poorly cited material at 5th SS Panzer Division Wiking

G'day, sorry but there appears to be some sort of misunderstanding about what should be deleted on WP, and I just want to clarify it before this gets too far down the track. If someone has added material to an article (and WP:BLP]] doesn't apply) and it hasn't been cited, then you have a few options. If that is the case with quite a bit of the article, you can place a {{refimprove}} tag at the top, but don't use a {{cn}} tag on every uncited paragraph. If you reasonably suspect a particular bit of information is dubious, you might use the {{dubious}} tag, or in the same situation, you might use the {{cn}} tag. But some material being in an article for years without a citation is not justification for its wholesale deletion. It may in fact be entirely correct, and you are not helping to build the encyclopedia (however flawed it may be) by just deleting such material. On a positive note, IMHO it is good that you are deleting citations from unreliable bloggy sources like axishistory and feldgrau. But just because material is sourced to them doesn't mean it is wrong. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 02:33, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

@Peacemaker67: Thank you for your note. Yes, I was surprised about how little I was able to salvage as I was editing the article. I wonder if the material has been there for years because nobody has been paying attention. I see refimprove tags from 2009 etc. The article in question has a lot of non-NPOV language, glorification and dubious claims, such as:

• During 1941, the Heer officers in charge of the deployment of the SS Division "Wiking" were sceptical of its fighting abilities and so were hesitant to commit it to any major actions. As the division proved itself again and again in combat, it began to earn the grudging respect of the Heer commanders.
• During its first action, near Tarnopol in Galicia, Ukraine, the division acquitted itself well.
• "Nordland"'s assault soon bogged down, as the soldiers realised that not only were they outnumbered by the Red Army, but the latter were also well entrenched in prepared positions. Within thirty minutes, almost half of the men of the regiment had fallen. Despite this, they still captured the hill.
• Several combat units were reduced to only dozens of men, and as a veteran later wrote, "Casualties weren't counted any more, just men left alive."
• By now the division had gained a reputation as an elite formation.
• Erich von Manstein threw 5 SS "Wiking" and the 11th Panzer-Division into action against the Soviet Mobile Group Popov, which was threatening to break through to the vital rail line. 5 SS "Wiking" had great difficulty dealing with the armour-heavy Soviet formation. The Panzergrenadier regiments of 5 SS "Wiking" were exhausted and understrength from the fighting in the Caucasus. Despite this, the division held off the Soviet assault, protecting the vital rail line and helping bring about the destruction of Mobile Group "Popov".
• His replacement was Herbert Otto Gille, who was to prove himself Steiner's equal.
• The 5 SS "Wiking" was engaged against the forces near Kharkov, with the Estonians acquitting themselves well, destroying around 100 Red Army tanks over several days.
• In subsequent fighting, the SS divisions defeated two Soviet tank armies (totaling over 1,000 tanks), destroying over 800 of them. At no time did the SS divisions have any more than 50 panzers in working order.
• It was the subject of ridicule by many "Wiking" veterans until they proved their worth in the fighting for a forest near Teklino, at the head of a salient into the Soviet lines.
• After repulsing all Soviet attempts to break through near the town of Novaya-Buda, the 5 SS "Wiking" rearguard split up and began withdrawing under cover of darkness. Advancing through "Hell's Gate", the "Wiking" came under heavy fire. The division suffered heavy losses in men and materials during the carnage of the Korsun Pocket. Gille, the Divisional commander, had proven his loyalty to his men, fighting alongside them and remaining in action until all survivors had escaped. He was one of the last to cross the Gniloy Tikich River to safety.
• Nicolussi Leck immediately launched an attack with five tanks. Soon after beginning the assault, he received a radio message from the besieged commander to halt his attack and withdraw. Leck ordered his radio operator to ignore the call, and continue with the attack.
• A heavy battle ensued, with the "Wiking" and the "Totenkopf" seeing many of the Red Army tanks destroyed. In three days, the two formations had driven 45 kilometres over rugged terrain, over half the distance from their start point to Budapest. The Soviets manoeuvred forces to block the advance, and they barely managed to halt the Germans at Bicske, only 28 kilometres from Budapest.
• In atrocious conditions, the "Wiking" advanced south towards Budapest.
• Despite the operation's success, it had been overextended and were vulnerable to attack, unable to exploit its breakthrough and eventually ordered to pull back and regroup. Hitler was furious at the lack of progress, and called the operation 'utterly pointless'.
• Acting quickly, Balck recommended moving the I SS Panzer Corps north to plug the gap and prevent the encirclement of the IV SS Panzer Corps. Despite this quick thinking, a Führer Order authorising this move was slow in coming.
• Desperate, Balck threw the veteran 9th SS Panzer Division "Hohenstaufen" into the area to hold open the small exit.

I am concerned that some of these articles read like fan pages copy pasted from dubious sites (and/or Der Freiwillige) - would Wikipedia not be better without such content? How would you suggest to handle these statements, which are both non-NPOV and unsourced? K.e.coffman (talk) 03:11, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

I recommend you just restrict yourself to making the language more neutral where necessary. My question is, puffery aside, do you have reason to believe any of this material is factually incorrect? For example, the distance Wiking and Totenkopf drove in three days, or than Army officers were initially dubious about Wiking's fighting value? That conditions weren't atrocious? Much of this is easy to check, there are plenty of sources accessible through Google Books, without needing access to Questia etc. Try Googling the sentences and see where they have been drawn from. I suggest a start point of trying to verify material rather than deleting it. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 03:44, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

@Peacemaker67: Yes, I can't tell you how many times I've read about the "annihilation of Mobile Group Popov" (link in the original) - here's one example. Compare to the wording from Third Battle of Kharkov: First Panzer Army was able to surround and pocket Popov's Mobile Group by 24 February, although a sizable contingent of Soviet troops managed to escape north. (Sourced to Margry) I also question the enemy losses mentioned - 100 tanks, etc; these definitely need to be cited.

As an aside, what does it mean then that "unsourced material may be challenged or removed?" Would it not be easier to remove the unsourced/dubious material, and then let interested editors build up the article using reliable sources? I've seen that some of these articles are extremely well researched -- why not do it for the others? K.e.coffman (talk) 04:19, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Well, people are on WP for different reasons. I write articles, on subjects that I want to right articles about. And it takes a lot of time to source and write quality articles. If I want to write an article that has stuff like this already there, I seek to find out if it can be reliably sourced and retain it. If I can't, I will replace it with reliably sourced material. I don't go around deleting stuff because I think it might be dodgy. Articles have long histories, and there is no WP:DEADLINE. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 05:03, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

@Peacemaker67: Well, I know it to be dodgy, as I believe I have demonstrated. I'm of the view that there's indeed a deadline: Wikipedia:The deadline is now - why perpetuate misinformation when it can be removed, or give legitimacy to glorification while there are already plenty of sites that do that? I believe Wikipedia's standards to be higher. Since we don't seem to agree, would you mind if I ask for a third opinion? K.e.coffman (talk) 05:22, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Go ahead. However, if you take this sort of action on articles on my watchlist, expect to be reverted and asked to provide reliable sources that contradict what is in the article. Ooroo. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 05:31, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

I was asked to comment on this discussion on my talk page by K.e.coffman. Given the amount of fanboy nonsense in articles on the Waffen-SS, I think that there's a solid case for removing dubious-looking and unreferenced material, and then rebuilding the article. Regarding the material in question it looks like a mix of stuff which I think should be removed (eg, "During 1941, the Heer officers in charge of the deployment of the SS Division "Wiking" were sceptical of its fighting abilities and so were hesitant to commit it to any major actions. As the division proved itself again and again in combat, it began to earn the grudging respect of the Heer commanders.") and material which could be left for now (eg, most of the para starting with "In the first week of November 1942, the division was transferred from the Terek bend"). Nick-D (talk) 05:58, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, Nick-D. I've continued the discussion on the article's talk page -- Dubious unsourced claims. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:38, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Ronald Smelser (December 6)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by SwisterTwister was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Ronald Smelser and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also get Wikipedia's Live Help real-time chat help from experienced editors.

SwisterTwister talk 06:14, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

German words used in articles

K.e.: A few things to remember - grammar footnote: German language nouns, even common nouns, are always capitalized; further one is to use italics for phrases in other languages and for isolated foreign words that are not currently used in English, per WP:MOS. So, please do not revert when properly used in an article. And if you have reverted isolated foreign words (German) in certain articles I have not seen, then please revert back, accordingly. Here is one of the recent times this was discussed, [1], even though it was not the main issue. BTW-some books shown on Google Books preview shows ranks not in italics for certain books, but in the print edition in Stein's book "The Waffen-SS: Hitler's Elite Guard at War 1939–1945", for example, which I have, German SS ranks are in italics. Thanks, Kierzek (talk) 22:51, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your note. I've continued the discussion on the article's talk page -- SS Ranks. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:35, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Okay. 01:44, 8 December 2015 (UTC)Kierzek (talk)

Waffen SS and Individual articles

I am going through units and individuals to cut any grotesque puffery. Some of the stuff reads like the worst of The Forgotten Soldier. 12th SS looks fairly sane, but will work through it and others. Knights cross holders bios are fairly bad at the moment. I will not be directly removing sources, merely cutting the more self-pitying rubbish that appears to be the Neo-Nazi idea of literary style. I think we should co-ordinate. Regards Irondome (talk) 03:30, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

@Irondome:Yes, thank you. I'm glad I'm not the only one concerned about this. Please also see my user page for more examples: Military History (WWII and Waffen-SS) content issues. This problem is systemic and widespread. Is there a way to figure out what the most trafficked articles are and perhaps start there? --K.e.coffman (talk) 03:45, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Not as far as I can work out. I think the best approach is to systematically deal with all Waffen SS formations which are featured on WP. That may be the best initial approach. Then deal with other topic areas which need attention. I would suggest individual SS and party bios to be next priority. We can divvy up the formations, a start would be identifying all Waffen SS articles and splitting them up between us. I am aware of @Peacemaker67:s caveats re sources and suggest we stick to them. MOS issues should be our first priority, then we can deal with source issues. This may be a big job. Regards Irondome (talk) 03:57, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

@Irondome: When you say "featured" do you mean they are highlighted in a particular area, or does this just mean they appear on Wikipedia? Could you clarify? K.e.coffman (talk) 04:08, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Appear. We should revisit all relevant articles. As I say, a big job, but will improve the project. There are some little visited corners here, and I have encountered many MOS and POV atrocities in this field. Irondome (talk) 04:12, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

@Nick-D:, another excellent MILHIST member, may also wish to comment on these further thoughts. Irondome (talk) 04:14, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

This would probably be a good place to start for the units: List of Waffen-SS divisions. And here for Waffen-SS generals: Obergruppenführer They are probably the most prominent ones, as commanders or large units, book authors, etc. What do you think? K.e.coffman (talk) 04:19, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Concur with that. Irondome (talk) 04:22, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Just for reference, tread lightly around the ones that are already Featured Articles/Lists, like MisterBee 1966's series of lists of RK recipients, and mine on the 13th, 21st, 23rd and 24th SS divisions. K.e. is already familiar with Artur Phleps. They have already been reviewed closely at a couple of levels, and you will find the most egregious stuff is in the lower-classed articles anyway. Have fun. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 05:23, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the "map" there Pm67. It's the less attended to stuff that needs the most attention. Will concentrate on the less well maintained stuff. Cheers Irondome (talk) 05:35, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Peacemaker. If the article or list is one that is FA rated then it should generally be okay. I have also lately been looking over the Waffen-SS articles and will be glad to help out when I have time.

For Waffen-SS divisions, I would start with 1 through 5 (although K.e. I know you have already been working on them) as they should get the most traffic. And Irondome, I agree there are a lot of "less attended" articles which don't get much attention; I am surprised at times when I run across articles I never knew existed. I for one, would appreciate help on the: Waffen-SS foreign volunteers and conscripts article. @Poeticbent: has also been working on improving that one and others, so he should be in the loop. Kierzek (talk) 14:28, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

@Irondome: Some further thoughts following the inputs by others. Coincidentally, I posted a similar message on Nick-D's page, and his suggestion was perhaps posting to the MilHist discussion board -- WT:MILHIST -- asking for help. What do you think? It may help to define the parameters of the clean-up.

I think that at the very least both non-NPOV language and dubious unsourced claims (destroyed 100 tanks; annihilated an enemy division; led from the front; etc) should be removed. Where we may need to get consensus from other members is what to do with "dubious claims sourced to dubious tertiary sources" i.e. Axishistory, feldgrau, etc. as well as various articles, which in turn cite from divisional histories/memoirs written by former Waffen-SS members. (That's a major issue on Div Hitlerjugend's page, where Latimer quotes from Meyer, and Latimer's article has over 20 refs in the page.) Separately, we need to discuss what to do with dubious claims sourced to works by various SS admirers, such as Yerger, Williamson, Agte, (others?), etc. BTW, I did get feedback from the RSN on Atge; but need to decide what to do with the claims the Agte source supports. IMO, they should go; while another view may be to not remove statements, but look for better sources. (However, with the scope of this project, I don't see how the latter is feasible).

BTW, while copy-editing Williamson's article, I came across a review of his The SS: Hitler's Instrument of Terror from AxisHistory.com. The review has eerie similarities to the language and tone I've been encountering on the Waffen-SS unit and commander pages: "Holding the Line", desperate defensive battles, "The Birth of the SS", "Forged in Combat", infamous (this word appears 4 times in the review), military exploits; also notice "even" in "even the Waffen-SS committed crimes". So even via a 3-rd party review, it looks (?) like all of these articles have been sourced from somewhere very close to Williamson's rendering of the Waffen-SS.

Separately, while the divisional list is good, I now think that Obergruppenführer is too high of a level to start with for personnel, and it also catches SD, Gestapo, etc. An option, instead, could be to look at "Commanders" in the infoblock (example) or "Commanders" sections in the divisional article, such as here. (I believe that's how I came across Witt/Meyer/Wunsche.) As the higher ranking officers, they may be good for the first pass at the personnel articles. What do you think? And please let me know about posting to MilHist. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:08, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi @K.e.coffman:. A superficially similar issue cropped up earlier in the year, which was dealt with on the MILHIST T/P as a group task. It concerned Italian divisional formations which had been extensively peacocked, wording sometimes diametrically in variance with given sources, and the like. The issue was easier to resolve as it was a single editor (since banned, I believe) who had done the damage. They had intimate links with the rather dubious Commando Supremo website, and much info had been directly copied from there. This problem is more ingrained, as there have been multiple editors on the WSS articles, and the problems go deeper. I am unsure if a MILHIST task group is appropriate yet. I may be wrong.

I would say that we continue the path which has been broadly hammered out above, and start with the stylistic issues. The sourcing problems are more subtle, and I think should be addressed in "phase II" as it were. You have already done great work calling out and identifying crap source wells, with excellent material collected on your user page. I am thinking we stick to the less visited formations first, do stylistic cleanups, and refer to MILHIST on sources as part of "phase II". You may wish to present a case to the guys and girls there on the sources issues, as you have already done such good research there. Hope this helps. Cheers! Simon Irondome (talk) 21:36, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Proposed course of action

How about this for the proposed course of action:

• Non-NPOV language — Remove
• Unsourced dubious claims — Remove
• Dubious claims sourced to non WP:RS tertiary sources (feldgrau, axishistory, ritterkreuz, lexicon-der-wehrmacht, etc) — Remove claim and source
• Dubious claims sourced to non WP:RS secondary sources (memoirs and unit histories written by former Waffen-SS members; works by known Waffen-SS admirers and romancers (Agte, Williamson, Yerger) — Remove claim and source
• Non-controversial statements supported by non WP:RS tertiary sources — Remove source, but keep statement
• Non-controversial statements supported by non WP:RS secondary sources — Keep source and statement
• Bibliography — Remove WP:RS sources (defined above) not used in cites (including both secondary and tertiary)
• External links — Remove links to websites that are deemed non WP:RS tertiary sources (listed above); re-enactor groups; fan pages; personal pages

Dubious claims defined as those that are potentially unverifiable or that make a strong statement that needs to be cited to meet WP's requirement for verifiability/reliability: Lead from the front; annihilated an enemy division; destroyed 100 tanks; was instrumental in the victory; repulsed all attacks; etc.

Non-controversial statements defined as those that are potentially verifiable: unit movements; unit order of battle; fact of a decoration; participation in an operation; date of birth/death; date of promotion; date of surrender; etc.

@Irondome: What do you think? Is this something we can agree on here, or should seek wider consensus? K.e.coffman (talk) 22:14, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Remember to use discernment in this operation. Yes, blogs, fan pages, websites without editorial oversight or form discussion sites, "authors" like Agte, and by books HIAG (for example), all should go. But with that said, unit histories and primary source books can be used with CAUTION and cross-checking with WP:RS secondary sources for NPOV and presentation of facts. Kierzek (talk) 22:33, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

@Kierzek: I agree that unit histories can be used with caution for non-controversial statements, such as: unit captured the city; unit advanced north; so-and-so was promoted; etc. In this case, my proposal is to keep both the statement and the source. But when Kurt Meyer, say, writes in his memoirs or a unit history says that a person X showed extreme bravery and single-handedly destroyed 100 enemy tanks, that makes it a dubious claim, no? K.e.coffman (talk) 22:44, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Points 5 and 6, examples may need consensus. I would not recommend we do all these points at once. point 1 to 4 as immediate action. I recommend a gradualist approach here, and we take some material that is covered in your latter points on a case by case basis for consensus. I see this as a work in progress, prioritising the most glaring issues first on some of the less visited articles. Irondome (talk) 22:47, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes K.e., I agree your example by Meyer is a "dubious" claim in presentation. And yes, Irondome, I agree we should proceed with discernment; and hit the POV, fanboy and dubious claims and cites first. Kierzek (talk) 22:51, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Okay, I will take 1 through 4; that will be a big improvement. Can we throw in the External links too? :-) I'm reading in WP:EXT:

Some acceptable links include those that contain further research that is accurate and on-topic, information that could not be added to the article for reasons such as copyright or amount of detail, or other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article for reasons unrelated to its accuracy.

The examples given (axishistory; panzerace; etc) are not known for their accuracy, IMO.

I also agree on discernment. For high-profile or well-tended articles, we could take any content/source removal to the Talk page first, rather than editing outright. One of my outstanding items of this nature it to close out on Peiper/Agte. In any case, for virtue of being high-profile articles, the major issues we are discussing here should be pretty infrequent. Does this sound good? K.e.coffman (talk) 23:11, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. Kierzek (talk) 23:22, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Sounds good. Irondome (talk) 23:29, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Waffen-SS article cleanup

Here's the outcome from the Waffen-SS and Individual Articles discussion above:

Project scope: Initial scope will be Waffen-SS divisions and Waffen-SS divisional commanders, as listed in the divisional articles.

Mode of operation: Exercise discernment, especially around well-tended articles or those that are GA or FA. In these instances, discuss any proposed content/source removal on the Talk page first.

Definitions:

• Dubious claims are defined as those that are potentially unverifiable or that make a strong statement that needs to be cited to meet WP's requirement for verifiability/reliability: Lead from the front; annihilated an enemy division; destroyed 100 tanks; was instrumental in the victory; repulsed all attacks; etc.
• Non-controversial statements are defined as those that are potentially verifiable: Unit order of battle; unit movements (unit was ordered to take up defensive positions; unit advanced north); participation in an operation or its outcome (unit participated in the battle; unit captured the city; the operation was called off); fact of a decoration with a reason attached; date of birth/death; date of promotion; date of surrender; etc. In these instances, use of unit histories, memoirs or other non-scholarly sources is acceptable.

Specific ations:

• Non-NPOV language — Remove
• Unsourced dubious claims — Remove
• Dubious claims sourced to non WP:RS tertiary sources (feldgrau, axishistory, ritterkreuztraeger, panzerace, lexicon-der-wehrmacht, etc) — Remove claim and source
• Dubious claims sourced to non WP:RS secondary or primary sources (memoirs and unit histories written by former Waffen-SS members; works by known Waffen-SS admirers and romancers, such as Agte, Williamson, Yerger) — Remove claim and source
• External links — Remove links to websites that are deemed non WP:RS tertiary sources (listed above), as they are not known for their accuracy (per WP:EXT); Remove re-enactor groups, fan pages, personal pages

Should I ping the others – MisterBee, PeaceMaker, Hohum – to make sure we are all on the same page? K.e.coffman (talk) 23:38, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Good move. Please check out my edits so far on subject mentioned in thread below b.t.w. I am finding the same old story. Irondome (talk) 23:55, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Will do -- pinging them now: @Peacemaker67: @MisterBee1966: @Hohum: Please let us know if there are any concerns with this proposal, which is based on the inputs of some of you and the outcome of the discussion with Irondome and Kirzek, in the thread above this one. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:00, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

IMO, where you are going to get sideswiped is where you think something meets the "dubious claims sourced to non WP:RS secondary or primary sources" and you go for the remove claim and citation. An attempt was made to remove a citation to Williamson in 23rd Waffen Mountain Division of the SS Kama (2nd Croatian). Now that is an FA, and any such removal should have been raised on talk first. Your characterisation of Williamson as a fanboi is a bit extreme, IMO. I will start to get irritated if this type of action continues. But that is the area you are going to come unstuck on. Really, a. it was basic information about the ORBAT of the division, and b. it was clear from the cite bombing that it is partially cited by a number of sources. In general, I'm pleased you guys are doing this work, but don't start pissing other editors (like me) off by taking BOLD action where the matter isn't clear-cut. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 01:13, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

@K.e.coffman: K.e, lets stick to our own rules here. "Mode of operation: Exercise discernment, especially around well-tended articles or those that are GA or FA. In these instances, discuss any proposed content/source removal on the Talk page first." I would not like this well-intentioned little exercise to create issues with well-respected colleagues who can smell fanboi stuff out at 5 klicks. I would strongly advise we do not touch any FA or GA articles, without a hell of a good reason, and then on talk. Simon. Irondome (talk) 02:35, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. I got a bit over-enthusiastic on the 2nd Croatian (and that was before we finalized this discussion). Will be more cautious in the future. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:38, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

What is the explicit question I am being asked to answer? I believe that I had already expressed my view earlier, but for the record I gladly repeat how I view Wikipedia and how I think it works, or at least should work. The content of an article needs to be neutrally worded, I fully support this criteria. The content of an article needs to be fully sourced, I also fully support this criteria. For an editor to pass judgment on the quality of a source is a sensitive topic and should be handled with care. Subsequently deleting information derived from such a source, deleting reference to such a source, in my opinion is not (always) the best solution for the article nor in benefit of our readers. Deletion of information/sources creates a vacuum, empty space, which over time will be filled and serviced by other means and media. I strongly believe that Wikipedia provides a unique opportunity to counterbalance these so called dubious claims and sources by proving them wrong with other, potentially better sources. We should not deprive Wikipedia of this strength. From my personal point of view, a good article incorporates these elements. Passing judgment on a source, gives our readers the impression that we editors elevate ourselves above our audience. It portrays an attitude of we know better, we know what is good for you. I think our readers are intelligent and should have the right to make up their own opinions. From an evolutionary perspective, I think this is the better path to rid the world from those dubious claims brought forward by some sources. Cheers MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:53, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

I think we are on the same page, MisterBee. At this point, we are only talking about dubious claims. It's a bit of a judgement call, but I think that most editors would agree what they are in the context of military history. Not intending to pass judgement on sources – just following the WP:RS criteria for reliable, secondary sources as the eventual goal for these articles. But as Ironedome said, it needs to be a gradual approach, and I think we are getting there with the steps outlined above, as it would be a tremendous improvement to the current situation in some of these lower profile areas. Appreciate your patience! K.e.coffman (talk) 08:09, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

I believe we are thinking along the same lines; I do agree with Peacemaker67 that the characterisation of Williamson (and in my opinion, Yerger) in the same vein as Agte is a bit extreme. They have written books for Osprey Publishing and Schiffer Publishing. As to the work on the articles we are discussing, it would be helpful for the articles and readers on Wikipedia if we can, as Misterbee1866 states, add in RS citing and content when we can, besides just doing copy edit work on them. It all takes time to do it right. Kierzek (talk) 12:36, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Douglas Berneville-Claye

Thanks for your message about 11th SS Volunteer Panzergrenadier Division Nordland. The man to whom you refer has an article at Douglas Berneville-Claye.

"early March 1945 when he was appointed to the staff of the III (Germanic) SS Panzer Corps at Templin, dressed as a SS Hauptsturmführer. He was invited to dine with the III Corps commander, Obergruppenführer Felix Steiner, where he explained that although he was a captain in the Coldstream Guards and a member of the British peerage, "Lord Charlesworth", he was a firm anti-communist and had volunteered to fight to preserve Europe from the Communist threat. Apparently, he was so convincing that Steiner took him at face value. At that time, the remains of the British Free Corps were in the same area, and Steiner decided to appoint Claye to take charge of them. On 19 April 1945 he arrived at the Corps' base in Templin 'dressed in a black SS tank uniform bearing the insignia of Hauptsturmführer in the British Free Corps.' Claye told the Corps members 'that he was the son of an earl, a captain in the Coldstream Guards and was going to collect two armoured cars and lead them against the Russians. He also guaranteed that the BFC men would be in no trouble with the British authorities, telling them that Britain would be at war with the Russians within a few days.'. When the Corps members refused to follow him, Claye took Alexander MacKinnon, one of the Free Corps soldiers, as a driver, and headed west in a stolen vehicle. He discarded his German uniform and surrendered to a British airborne unit somewhere west of Schwerin."

Am I (GT) right in thinking that the 11th SS Volunteer Panzergrenadier Division Nordland was a subdivision of the III (Germanic) SS Panzer Corps?

Adrian Weale's book 'Renegades' says that the BFC were in Dresden when the British bombing raid started on the evening of 12th February 1945, were soon afterwards arrested en masse because one of their members claimed to have prior knowledge of the raid, and then traveled from Dresden to Berlin on 24th February. Which certainly does not tie in with them fighting in present-day Poland on 16th and 17th February. I suggest deleting the statement that the BFC were involved in Operation Sonnenwende. Alekksandr (talk) 20:31, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

References

@Alekksandr: Thank you for your response. Would you mind if I copy it to the 11th SS Volunteer Panzergrenadier Division Nordland Talk page, so that I can reference it when removing the claim and the source? K.e.coffman (talk) 21:04, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Go ahead!

Engaging first target :)

Here's a beauty. 33rd Waffen Grenadier Division of the SS Charlemagne (1st French) I see K and Mr B have worked on it, but wording needs some improvement. Taking on that, trimming any peacocky stuff that may have escaped attention. It is also poorly, sparsely sourced, which is actually better than wading through a mass of crap. Irondome (talk) 23:24, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

I have worked on it, but it still needs more; plus RS cites. Now it time to go home for the night. Kierzek (talk) 23:28, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

catch you tmrw, if you are on Kierzek. Irondome (talk) 23:30, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

The cup runneth over! But I will have to add a few of the best ones from Charlemagne to my collection. Meanwhile, I will work on 12th SS Panzer Division Hitlerjugend to remove the atrocious sourcing to Meyer, both directly and via Latimer ("throwing fish into the sea," etc.) K.e.coffman (talk) 00:38, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Its a classic ;) Irondome (talk) 00:44, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Ok. I've moderated the language, now it reads more like a sober unit history. Now we need to put it on to be well cited list. Moving on to find another article that needs cleaning up. "Candlelit medal ceremony". You may wish to add that to Nazi kliche korner. Irondome (talk) 03:50, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Arthur Nebe

K.e.: this article was in pretty poor shape and your recent edits brought it back to my attention. It is getting in better shape but still needs work. It could use more details as to his time in the SS and his life. The quotes give some powerful information but there are too many of them. If you have the time maybe you can work on conveying the important points and pull out some of the long quotes. Wikipedia does not like articles to have too much copyright work in them. See WP:QUOTEFARM, for example. Anyway, I will not be able to edit too much this weekend as real life calls. Cheers, Kierzek (talk) 16:16, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

K.e.: You made a recent addition to Nebe's article as to his activities as to Einsatzgruppe B. Do you have a page number to go with the cite? Cheers, Kierzek (talk) 18:48, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Here they are: Demidov hangings - pp 57-58; killing statistics and return to Berlin - p. 94

I'm still figuring out how to do the references, especially when a source is used multiple times. I figured out how to do the little 'a b c', but am still confused about how to integrate page numbers into that.

In general, the Nebe article uses different styles of references: some are listed under References|Notes and some are under Sources. I'd like to integrated them into a single referencing 'scheme.' Is this something you can help with? K.e.coffman (talk) 19:45, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

I just changed one cite (mentioned twice) and several others to sfn and also fixed the books to harv-style so they link properly. See examples therein. Also, you can read this [2] for information, as to the sfn template. Kierzek (talk) 23:26, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

@Kierzek: Thank you; this is very helpful. I think I'm getting the hang of it. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:09, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

You're welcome. Kierzek (talk) 01:31, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Besides WP:RS and WP:Verify, this one should be helpful for information in your ce of articles:WP:WPNOTRS. Kierzek (talk) 22:43, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

BTW - one other thing; sometimes in an article you will find where someone has used Wikipedia as a cite; that is not proper as Wikipedia cannot cite to itself. Kierzek (talk) 18:31, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

BTW - another note, you are not using "self-published" in a correct sense as to Bender on your user-page. Self-publishing is the publication of any book or other media by its author without the involvement of an established publisher. Kierzek (talk) 16:24, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the correction - it's good to know. How do you then define Bender Publishing and other similar imprints that bear the author's name? I was curious about them. Do they fall under the category of 'small presses', similar to Schiffer Publishing? K.e.coffman (talk) 18:38, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Well, in Bender's case I would characterize them as a "small press" akin to Schiffer in size but Bender's specialty is militaria (German, U.S. and Soviet). I cannot speak to other unknown example's at this time. Like many things, one has to go on a case-by-case basis and not just lump ones in together without discernment of each. Kierzek (talk) 21:38, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Also I see you mention Paul Carell on your user page. See his article herein which I just discovered; besides his "past", one main criticism of his works is his writing from the German pov in a bias way. That is why books by others such as Glantz were important as to the East Front war. Kierzek (talk) 21:49, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Military History Newcomer of the Year 2015

		The WikiProject Barnstar
		For "diligence and work on checking into unsourced claims and non-NPOV language of World War II and Waffen-SS related articles," I have the honor of awarding you this WikiProject Barnstar as an honorable mention in the Military History Newcomer of the Year 2015 vote. For the Military history WikiProject, TomStar81 (Talk) 02:33, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Congrats. Kierzek (talk) 02:34, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Woo-hoo! Thanks, guys! K.e.coffman (talk) 19:04, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Your most recent edits

It would be more beneficial, helpful, friendly, courteous and kind if you would start citing the information instead of deleting everything you come across. Thanks MisterBee1966 (talk) 12:51, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

@MisterBee1966: Thank you for your note – I appreciate your concern. Also thank you for providing sources for List of German World War II ground attack aces, which were missing from 2011/2012. I don't see however how my actions qualified as 'vandalism' as neither the linked article nor the individual articles provided sources at the time. If my action provided the incentive to improve the article(s), then the Wikipedia is better for it. I'm glad to see the improvements.

In general, I'm motivated by a sense of urgency (WP:DEADLINENOW) and scepticism of sources. To give you some background, one of my first editing experience was with Arthur Nebe; as I was reading it, I thought: "What's with 'reducing the atrocities committed' and 'foreseeing the crimes in which he would be involved in'? Is this the same Authur Nebe of the gas vans?!?"

I just recently found out that the exculpatory language most likely originated with his acquaintance Hans Gisevius who penned an account in 1947 where he referred to Nebe's Einsatzgruppe command as serving 'at the front'. Gisevius changed his story in early 1960s when Einsatzgruppe crimes came out. Here's the relevant page from Lewy's The Nazi Persecution of the Gypsies that details how this 'energetic mass murderer' was turned into a dedicated anti-Nazi. Compare the latest version of the Arthur Nebe article to the version from Jewish Virtual Library: "He manages to save thousands of Russian civilians from execution by falsifying figures and claiming credit for slaughters that have never been carried out. Mass executions undertaken by SS Sonderkommandos in his absence." These types of claims had found its way into Wikipedia and still persist on various websites.

Even though the Arthur Nebe subject is not a particular passion of mine, I did end up providing quite a bit of content for the article, if only because it was in such a sorry state, with reliable sources misquoted or misrepresented to prop up the exculpatory narrative.

The body of such claims is so vast on Wikipedia, that the best way I've found to deal with them is to remove the dubious claims and then rebuild (or let others rebuild) the articles with reliable sources. I'm sorry that this approach comes across as unfriendly or discourteous – that is not my intention. I do enjoy contributing quality content, and I hope to do so more in the future. Just to give another example, here's the Sepp Dietrich assessment section that I removed; it was not sourced and contained both wp:weasel and wp:peacock language. Once I came across information that could be used in the section, I reinstated it – now with reliably sourced material.

In general, these claims range from mildly irritating (as was the case with circular referencing to an unsourced article on the aces above) to downright hilarious (Helmut Dörner) to simply disturbing (Aurthur Nebe example, or Kurt Meyer 'refuting' the testimony against him).

The more Wikipedia can be improved by removing or replacing these claims with reliably sourced materials, the better. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:21, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

K.e. be careful with the "sense of urgency" and wiping out article text. Some of what you have found is of a nature where it is easy to make a determination of the course of action to take. But, other text is not clear-cut. Especially if someone like MisterBee1966 has been working on an article you are reviewing for ce. See if re-wording can be done and use discernment. Adding new RS citations is also something many articles need. BTW - you added a page cite to Gustav Lombard, which is good, but please add the cited book, as well. Kierzek (talk) 19:55, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your note, Kierzek. In this particular case, we are talking about the removal of content which had not been cited, and instead was referring to another Wikipedia article as a 'source', which was not referenced either since 2011/2012. This is now being remedied by MisterB. So I think that's a good way of 'conflict resolution' as the encyclopedia gets improved in the process.

Thanks about reminding me of Lombard. I was going to add more content, which I will do now. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:16, 28 December 2015 (UTC)