Jump to content

User talk:K.e.coffman/Archive/2021/November

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A kitten for you

[edit]

Sometimes this work is hard! Thanks for all you do.

Dominick (TALK) 19:50, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Dominick: thank you -- furry friends are always appreciated! --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:07, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

[edit]

If you haven't noticed, it looks like an ip is reverting a lot of your edits. Whether it is coincidental or not I wouldn't like to judge.Nigel Ish (talk) 22:35, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've raised it on the MilHistory talk page here.Nigel Ish (talk) 23:01, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Nigel Ish: Thank you. Since the problematic edits are continuing, I've reached out to an admin. --K.e.coffman (talk) 20:19, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statute of Kalisz

[edit]

Hi, K.e.coffman, in looking at issues concerning the Emancipation of the Jews, I assumed the first overtures were during the French Revolution (see e.g., Napoleon and the Jews) but was surprised to find content naming the Statute of Kalisz as having done this in Poland five centuries earlier. Yet in looking at that article, I can't find anything solid, and am wondering if it could be a fringe theory, or even a hoax. Either way, we shouldn't be naming the emancipation of the Jews as having occurred in Poland in the 13th century in Wikipedia's voice, without a whole lot stronger sourcing than I have seen. I'm tempted to strip out everything about Kalisz from everywhere it appears, in particular from Emancipation of the Jews, unless this can be determined to be well-sourced and definitive.

That said, I have to admit that I have really only glanced at this, and have not attempted to verify it on my own, as I am snowed under with various other projects. So it's possible that I've either misread the situation, or that it will yield easily to sourcing once investigated. I hope you don't mind my bringing this to your attention, in the hope that you'll be able to come up with a more definitive answer about this. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 02:38, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Mathglot: The document, the Statute of Kalisz, is not a hoax: "The Statute of Kalisz – the 750th anniversary of the first privilege granted to Polish Jews". However, the connection to the Jewish emancipation that started in France appears to be inappropriate synthesis as nothing comes up in Google books to connect the two concepts: "Statute of Kalisz" emancipation. --K.e.coffman (talk) 20:18, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. As to the question of primacy (who first emancipated Jews or had a document like this?) Jewish emancipation mentions the Kalisz document as "unprecedented" but the document you linked includes this:
The original document, modelled after similar acts adopted by rulers of Bohemia and Hungary, has not survived.
which would imply that it wasn't unprecedented. The Statute of Kalisz article itself doesn't claim primacy. So I'm thinking that based on your source, Jewish emancipation needs to be modified to avoid use of the word unprecedented, or else to clarify which aspects were unprecedented, and that Statute of Kalisz could probably benefit by mention of Bohemia and Hungary, sourced to your document.
Further afield, articles like History of the Jews in Hungary say nothing about this: emancipation is first mentioned in the section about #Revolution and emancipation (1848–1849). Likewise History of the Jews in the Czech lands has no mention of it; neither does History of the Jews in Europe, or Timeline of Jewish history (although Timeline of Jewish-Polish history does). Kalisz, and the preceding Hungarian and Bohemian acts would seem to be banner events in the Jewish history of Europe, and they don't seem to be getting their due in these articles. Wondering about your reaction to any of this? Mathglot (talk) 20:52, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Jews in Bohemia and Moravia certainly weren't emancipated before the nineteenth century. If there isn't anything connecting this statute to Jewish emancipation I don't see how we can mention it in the article, it would be original research. (t · c) buidhe 21:18, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Buidhe:, thanks for your comment. How do you account for the quoted text in the document KeC linked to? Was there an emancipatory document that was ignored or simply never took effect? Mathglot (talk) 21:58, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Err, I'm not sure. But in Bohemia and Moravia emancipation took place in the nineteenth century just as with other parts of Austria-Hungary. Before that there were various laws discriminating against Jews, residency restrictions etc.
I think you also may be misunderstanding "emancipation". What this means is the modern concept of equality before the law: special rules for the Jewish community ceased to apply and they were subject to the same laws as other citizens. Assuming the information in the Wikipedia article is more or less correct, the Statue of Kalicz wasn't emancipation because it maintained the medieval distinction between Jewish and Christian communities and had separate laws and court systems for each. (t · c) buidhe 22:10, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Mathglot: It looks like Buidhe took care of the unsuitable content at the Jewish emancipation article: diff. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:52, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, just noticed (and thanked). Thanks, all. Mathglot (talk) 02:01, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

[edit]
The Original Barnstar
I just listened to the article about you on Apple+News and I'm thankful for people like you that help make Wikipedia what it should be. Thank you!! BubbaPatrick (talk) 16:02, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The Epic Barnstar History Barnstar
Thank you both for putting in such work to present history more objectively (i.e., with reliable sources and without glorifying Nazis) and for drawing attention to this need. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 18:29, 8 November 2021 (UTC) (UTC)[reply]
@BubbaPatrick and Doczilla: thank you both -- it's great to know that my contributions are appreciated. --K.e.coffman (talk) 04:42, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

[edit]

Hi. Could you check on Kurowski? My watchlist tells me it's received some edits recently from a new user but I'm not sure they are valid. A lede generally summarises what follows in the body and therefore doesn't need sources as long as the claims are sourced somewhere in the rest of the article. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:53, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Kudpung: Thank you for your note; I added citations to the lead. The WIRED article seems to be making new rounds somehow, so it has again brought out IP trolls and new editors who are upset over the Kurowski and Kurt Knispel articles, cf Talk:Kurt Knispel#Sourced Material no longer in article.. --K.e.coffman (talk) 14:43, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Noted. The world is unfortunately still full of extreme right wing sympathiserers and revisionists, even if most people who were already adults 1939-45 have since passed away. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:40, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

November thanks

[edit]
November songs

Thank you for improving articles in November! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:08, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

[edit]
Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:40, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Difficulty of editing in a subject area with many many pages

[edit]

I started editing in Wikipedia very early on. Starting with the realization that there was almost no information on almost anything related to dogs, and a good portion of it was, perhaps, myth or opinion. Over a period of a couple of years, I ended up among the top editors. But I also learned a lot along the way:

  • The topics of dog breeds, dog training, dog care, and anything else related to dogs are extremely controversial in some quarters for some reasons (Who knew?!)
  • Trying to suss out what was “real” from what was “one person’s idea or opinion” was sometimes extremely difficult. Not saying that I always started up on the right side when all was done.
  • It was extremely frustrating to deal with some editor who would rip out entire parts of articles because they disapproved of the source or sources. I found it difficult, even with a bookcase full of books about dogs, dog breeds, dog training, etc. to figure out what was a reliable source. For example, using Cesar Milan’s writings as valid sources of dog behavior or dog training was almost a religious war; and though there were plenty of sources that would say in general that his understanding and approach were a bunch of hooey, but a little harder to find explicit mentions of the specific topic under discussion. But, you know, National Geographic featured him in an ongoing series about dog training and behavior! How could he be wrong?
  • It was exhausting keeping up with the people that would just dip in to add a couple of sentences that were clearly their opinion (“Shetland Sheepdogs have no interest in playing with toys”, OMG, what?!?!) Or to edit with pure vandalism. let alone trying to mediate, or to figure out whether I was on the wrong track or someone else was on the wrong track…

It became too much. I mean, there are still ongoing discussions about what a “breed” should mean in Wikipedia, When that definition varies depending on your sources anyway. Nowadays I bip in occasionally to link a bunch of unlinked articles or fix some grammar or taichung. After reading the wired article, I just had to say thank you for your time and diligence and expertise, and good luck in with coming up with sources that disprove some thing that is false to begin with So there are no counterexamples. Such fun. I mean, it was fun for quite a while! Elf | Talk 16:54, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Elf: I feel your pain! --K.e.coffman (talk) 20:44, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

THANK YOU!

[edit]

I read about you in Wired. Thank you for all you do! Incredible work. I'm a 55 year old Jewish American. I'd be happy to help. 108.31.152.207 (talk) 03:26, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi IP editor: There are useful links posted here: User_talk:108.31.152.207#Welcome!. You can start by creating an account, and reading up on the rest of the links. If you create an account, don't tie it to your IP or this post; this is for reason of privacy. --K.e.coffman (talk) 20:49, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

[edit]
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
Thank you for deflating the various dishonest 𝑙𝑜𝑠𝑡 𝑐𝑎𝑢𝑠𝑒𝑠! Tiptopper (talk) 16:41, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Tiptopper: Thank you -- I appreciate it! There are indeed parallels between the Lost Cause of the Confederacy and the myth of the clean Wehrmacht. One of my favourite books on the latter, The Myth of the Eastern Front discusses the mythologies of the Wehrmacht and the Waffen-SS, including the clean Wehrmacht. --K.e.coffman (talk) 20:54, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

German historian articles

[edit]

Hello, congratulations (as others have said) on the Wired profile and thank you for all your hard work improving WP over the years!

I have stubbed out English articles on the historians listed in the section of your user page for those who previously didn’t have one by translating a few bits from the corresponding German Wikipedia. Obviously these stubs aren’t exactly satisfying (Bald has no citations, sad!) but I’d like to improve them. If you could give an idea of priority — which ones I should work on translating more of sooner — that’d be handy. Thank you again! Daphne Preston-Kendal (talk) 19:32, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Daphne Preston-Kendal: thank you -- I appreciate it. In re: German historians, they are indeed under-represented on en.wiki. The template below could be a good resource to identify (likely) notable German historians. They are all contributors to Germany and the Second World War, from the Center for Military History and Social Sciences of the Bundeswehr. The authors are listed in:
I've been creating these in fits and starts. I usually look for reviews, which are generally available in English for Germany and the Second World War. These help support WP:AUTHOR.
If you'd like to help out with onr particular article, then Jürgen Förster could use thirt-party sources, so that the tag could be removed. --K.e.coffman (talk) 21:08, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Security units of Nazi Germany established in 1944

[edit]

A tag has been placed on Category:Security units of Nazi Germany established in 1944 indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz Read! Talk! 19:58, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 29 November 2021

[edit]
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:46, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:K.e.coffman/Archive/2021/November&oldid=1061356810"