User talk:Kierzek/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Nazi Germany

Thanks for adding to the List of books about Nazi Germany page. I really appreciate that. As you probably already noticed, I have turned this into a fairly comprehensive list from its original starting place of around 50 books. My hope is that this page will benefit scholars and novice students of Nazi Germany in the future. There are so many more works in German to add but since this is not Wikipedia.de I have refrained for the most part from adding them. There are however some important German works that have yet to be translated that I have added for scholars or those competent in German.

Please pardon my latest tirade on the Wikipage about Nazi Germany. I clearly showed how Nordicism was important and how classifying Germans really did occur. Anyone who thinks that appearance did not matter in the Third Reich is hard to take serious. There were propaganda posters all over Germany showing what Nordisch people looked like and what "Jews" were supposed to look like. Nonetheless, in my original post I never even mentioned appearance but my sentence got construed as such by Windows66. This is really irking me. I am a professional historian and my expertise over Nazi Germany is fairly formidable in comparison to most. In fact, I just got back from a month of research in Germany. In my personal library alone, I have several hundred works and 30 years of research - which is why I do not take kindly to somebody exclaiming that my contribution was wrong. For the sake of curiosity and between us, I am related to Franz Halder which may be one of the reasons my life has been plagued with research about those 12 awful years. Additionally, my best friend's grandfather was one of the propulsion engineers on the ME-262; my cousin's grandfather worked on the Bismarck and my own Kraut grandfather committed suicide shortly after the war. So let's just say that I have a vested interest in this period. Anyway, whatever changes the group collectively feel which need to be made, I am OK with them and your point about avoiding summations is not wrong. There are so many things missing in the Seizure of Power section, like the German predilection for authoritarian government in the wake of industrialization - which as you know was accompanied by the push for parliamentary governance in most other European state, Weimar legitimacy in the face of the Depression, the Nazi manipulation of the system, etc. that I felt a brief add on was appropriate. Obenritter (my profile pic is 20+ years old) —Preceding undated comment added 02:31, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Obenritter, I did notice the large amount of time you have put into List of books about Nazi Germany page. That's a lot of work. I thought of adding more than I did but decided some discretion as to book choices was needed. One reason to keep down the byte-size of the article and also because many areas were already well represented. Do use discretion as to additions given this is English Wikipedia; and also I would respectfully suggest leaving off some of the very outdated English works on the subjects.

Certainly none of us can claim to know it all there was as to Nazi Germany; it was an "overblown bureaucracy", full of complexity and contradictions. Hitler was the spoke of the wheel. I would encourage you to not take comments of editors too personally, if their comments are abiding by the guidelines of the Wikipedia.

I would encourage you to seek WP:consensus when necessary on article talk pages as to edits or additions which are not readily accepted or have been challenged. Do present any changes or text you feel should be considered therein.

As to the matter at hand, I hope I've been clear that appearance was an element of both Nazi policy and propaganda. I agree that "There were propaganda posters all over Germany showing what Nordisch people looked like and what 'Jews' were supposed to look like." And as I stated, there are some historians who speak of Aryan and Nordic as ideology in the same vain. In the end, I must state that while appearance did matter, it was race and bloodline which was the predominant factor. Kierzek (talk) 18:10, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi Kierzek. The funny thing about the discussion on appearance is that the sentence never even stated that. You are correct about not taking things personal as it tends to clutter the discussion. At this point I have cited upwards of a dozen sources or more in making my case about the sentence and even have proposed amending the sentence for clarity but Windows66 insists on trying to dictate what should and should not remain and is trying to pass him/her self off as an authority. All of the academic substantiation is being brushed off. Take a look at it if you have the time. Like I stated, I am leaving that page alone at this point. I was merely attempting to clarify to the group that what was inferred versus what the sentence stated are two very different things. Jews and Germans were categorized by the Nazis as the sources I have provided in the debate show.

In terms of omitting books from the English page - I am OK if you want to remove some of the German works, but keep in mind, there may not be anything else from the authors (some of whom would be considered primary sources) in English. That is why I think some of them need to stay. If you remove any please use discretion. While you suggest that older works be removed, that detracts from the study of the topic. Just how the study of history develops over time and as more sources appear makes the older books very valuable. The historiography of Nazi Germany is a fascinating study in and of itself. Think of Fritz Fischer's insistence on German aggression and militarism dating back to Bismarck and before, the whole Sonderweg discourse, the Historikerstreit of the 1980s about functionalism and intentionalism, or the more recent debate stirred up by Daniel Goldhagen's work with his putative eliminationist anti-Semitism rhetoric. When I first read that book, I threw it across the room more than once. It was an insult to Germans in general, although Goldhagen enjoyed fame for exonerating the current generation of Germans. Anyway - what I am saying is that many of those old works are both pertinent for their academic depth and still accurate for the most part, and they are important in terms of Third Reich historiography. How would we decide what should stay and what should remain? Many of the newer works on Nazi Germany are strictly attempts at making money and are not high-quality scholarship. Please advise as to how you think we should approach omitting works. Of note: I am trying to use the Chicago-Turabian format for the books as this is the one used by historians, not that this is all that important. --Obenritter (talk) 22:46, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

I would let that dog sleep at this point, as to the Nazi Germany page. As for the List page, I meant that it should focus mainly on English works or English translated works. And as far as "omitting works"; what brought that to mind was seeing, Alan Clark's (1965) ,Barbarossa: The Russian-German Conflict, 1941-45 therein; certainly not needed when there are newer, much more objective/balanced/accurate works on the subject; especially, since the fall of the Soviet Union. But, I wont lose any sleep if the book remains. BTW-for uniformity, you can change the ones to all match the Chicago-Turabian format, if you wish. Anyway, I must go for now. Kierzek (talk) 02:33, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Roger that on the Nazi Germany page. I am done with it. As I am not nearly the military historian you are (based on what I see in terms of your contributions) if you feel that Clark's book in particular should go - I will defer to you. Honestly, I have only read 40-50 books or so of an exclusively military nature about the Third Reich over the years. I am betting that pales next to yours. Citino, Glantz, Bessel, Overy, and some of the other big name popular military history works would be among those I've digested. Sadly, I have yet to tackle Kershaw's relatively recent work, The End: The Defiance and Destruction of Hitler's Germany, 1944-1945 but I have it on the to-do list. The Stackpole Military History Series is not really my genre, although I have to confess, I have read some of them. Tigers in the Mud is the one that comes to mind - at least the one that sticks out. Anyway - feel free to remove the German language works in that section and those which you feel aren't worth keeping. You've likely read more of them than I. --Obenritter (talk) 02:05, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

I was merely giving some food for thought. It is not a matter of who has read what, but a matter of using discernment and making an effort to work with other editors herein for the greater good, so to speak. Kierzek (talk) 02:37, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Understood and Agreed - it is for the greater good which is why I worked exhaustively for a short period of time to that end. Let us then be sure to provide a fairly substantive reason for removing a book from here forward. --Obenritter (talk) 06:01, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

The Original Barnstar

Hi I noticed you awarded the user Hohum @ with The Original Barnstar. since you are an expert for nazi germany you might be interested in the article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Wielun hohum violated wiki rules from WP:RELIABLE, WP:THIRDPARTY, WP:NPOV to WP:WEIGHT in his introduction and refuses to change his text. because of his personal opinion he doesn't even abide by WP:EDITCONSENSUS. he uses unreliable sources (2) which clearly are not independent or known for fact checking and ignores 3 historians (one from poland, one from the UK and one from germany) who all argue that calling the bombing of wielun a terror bombing is not just. yet he's gone even further and wrote this into the introduction "It is considered to be one of the first terror bombings in history" and reverted my changes to "It is considered to be one of the first bombings in Europe in this war." in the talk page he purposely plays a fool by ignoring and not reading all argument and hides behind WP:CIVIL. (nice trick to avoid an argument) maybe you can provide a third party opinion. Swunt10 (talk) 21:18, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

I looked at the talk page for the article you link. I am sorry but I don't know the nuances of the matter. Unfortunately, I also don't have the time to look into it. Posting on the article talk page for the subject in question is the right thing to do. I would encourage you to try to relax in the discussion and not get personal. The talk page is the place to discuss any changes and to seek WP:CONSENSUS as to any changes. Also please read, Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. You could ask an administrator to look into the matter as a third party with authority or go to the Wikipedia:Reference desk for help, as well. Kierzek (talk) 23:14, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Rise in the SS

Is it not worth noting of the induction of the marriage order that required not only the SS member but also his fiancee's ancestry to be investigated? I can't see this covered anywhere on the Himmler article.--Windows66 (talk) 15:13, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Your prior full addition, including the above, is covered by:...The department implemented racial policies and monitored the "racial integrity" of the SS membership. (McNab, 2009, pp. 23, 36). SS men were carefully vetted for their racial background and were required to get racial certificates of any prospective spouses. Each man was issued a Sippenbuch, a genealogical record detailing his genetic history. (Manvell-Fraenkel, 2007, pp. 22–23).

With that said, if you wish to insert the one requirement point of the marriage order you mention right before the sentence part about, "...were required to get racial certificates of any prospective spouses", that would be okay with me. Okay? If you agree and do the addition, please add the book cite in sfn form. Cheers, Kierzek (talk) 16:52, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

How about instead of "SS men were carefully vetted for their racial background and were required to get racial certificates of any prospective spouses." to "Himmler introduced on December 31, 1931 the "marriage order" which made SS men wishing to get married to their fiancee to produce family trees proving that themselves and their fiancee's family were of Aryan descent to 1800." Also, in the book Heinrich Himmler: A Life it states "If a non-Aryan forebear was found in anyone's family tree the person concerned was excluded from the SS on principle." this might be worth adding such as "if any non-Aryan was found in an SS member's family tree he was excluded" or something along those lines. What do you think?--Windows66 (talk) 17:15, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

I would write it: The department implemented racial policies and monitored the "racial integrity" of the SS membership. (McNab, 2009, pp. 23, 36). SS men were carefully vetted for their racial background. If a non-Aryan forebear was found in anyone's family tree the person concerned was excluded from the SS on principle. Each man would be issued a Sippenbuch, a genealogical record detailing his genetic history. (Manvell-Fraenkel, 2007, pp. 22–23). On 31 December 1931, Himmler also introduced the "marriage order" which required SS men to produce family trees proving that themselves and their fiancee's family were of Aryan descent to 1800. What do you think? Kierzek (talk) 18:11, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes I think that is fine and much more constructive than mine and good info to add to the article. Nice job Kierzek. I will thank your edit. (y)--Windows66 (talk) 18:55, 16 January 2014 (UTC) All of what you are going to edit is mentioned in Heinrich Himmler: A Life by Peter Longerich which is already in the bibliography section already if you want to use this as citing for this info too.--Windows66 (talk) 18:58, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

I put it in. I would ask that you add the page cite for the sentence, "If a non-Aryan forebear was found in anyone's family tree the person concerned was excluded from the SS on principle." - Thanks, Kierzek (talk) 20:30, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Done. I also also did a minor edit of words to avoid copyright of the Heinrich Himmler: A Life book and just the marriage order sentence before the investigation of a non-Aryan being found, it makes more sense since the investigation was not done until that order came in if you are with me.--Windows66 (talk) 21:36, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

That looks good. I did not know you were quoting the work directly for that part and am glad you tweaked it. I used to have the book, Heinrich Himmler: A Life but after reading it and using it for the article for citing, I sold it. I can't keep everything (space reasons for the most part) and there are always new books to obtain. Cheers, Kierzek (talk) 22:08, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Nazi Germany

why did you revert my edits, i was not inserting a single motto, but refer to a section about all the mottos which was acutally proposed in the talkpage Kalix94 (talk) 19:58, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

First, as you know there was no official motto; therefore, there is no objective way to decide which ones to include and which ones to exclude; it is all subjective and not WP:NPOV. Your addition also has some WP:RS problems. All this has been discussed before on the talk page. Further, just because, Wikipedia:Other stuff exists, is not a reason to put all that "stuff" in. None were the official one. Remember it is good to keep article byte size down per WP:LIMIT. Kierzek (talk) 02:47, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "HITLER's ROLE IN THE "FINAL SOLUTION"". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 1 February 2014.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 08:06, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

1940 Field Marshal Ceremony

The reason I deleted the CN's from the page is because they are from Walther von Brauchitschs Wikipedia page. But thank you very much, for your contributions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonas Vinther (talk • contribs) 20:56, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. However, it does not matter if they are on another page. If you add a quote and someone adds a cite tag, it needs to be cited properly. In fact, all main facts in the article should be cited as much as possible. See, WP:RS and WP:Citations. So please revert your edit. Cheers, Kierzek (talk) 21:09, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Alright, I will, cheers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonas Vinther (talk • contribs) 21:17, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi mate, I added tons of references to the article, go check them out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonas Vinther (talk • contribs) 15:28, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

I am glad you did; it looks better. With that said, one good cite that covers the facts related is enough; there is no need to add more than one good cite unless the matter needs additional weight for support or more than one cite is needed to cover different parts of what is being stated. See the essay WP:OVERCITE. Further, please add the books which are used for the cites in the "References" section of the article. I added several.

Also, you don't need that many separate paragraphs in the first section. Only start a new paragraph when: you change a topic; it gets too long; when days and places change and when someone new is speaking. Lastly, do not put up the "good article" notation when it has not been reviewed independently and promoted to Good Article status. I know you are new, so I am trying to only be helpful; it does not take long to really get into the swing of things here. One can always ask questions or learn by watching how experienced editors compose, edit and cite an article. Kierzek (talk) 19:55, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Read and understood, thanks mate. --Jonas Vinther

Arthur Nebe

Hi again, since you are an expert on the topic I thought I would ask you; do you know if Nebe was in the military service at all during the time of the Weimar Republic?Hoops gza (talk) 15:40, 27 January 2014 (UTC) On second thought I think I will just translate the info from the German version and obtain it from there. I can see that he did indeed serve for the Weimar Republic.Hoops gza (talk) 15:44, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi - as you know he is a somewhat controversial figure; he did serve in the German Army in World War I and was twice wounded. He was a member of a Freikorps, after the war. He joined the criminal police in 1920 and was a police commissioner by 1924. Later, while a member the police he was part of a pro-Nazi group therein and, of course, his SS and KRIPO career is well documented from the 1930s to July 1944. As you know, he was executed in March 1945. He may have retained some type of reserve military rank during the time of the Weimar Republic; however, I don't recall ever reading that. I don't have an opportunity to check the books in my library as I'm not at home. However, I'm sure the German article can shed some light on your query. Good luck, Kierzek (talk) 16:30, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Second pair of eyes

I have a couple of new articles that I would appreciate you combing through when you have the chance:

• Friedrich Panzinger
• Erwin Schulz

Thanks as always.Hoops gza (talk) 01:35, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Hey, nice job on the Panzinger article. I only tweaked it a little. I will look over the other one soon. Cheers, Kierzek (talk) 03:14, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliments and thanks for going over these with a good comb. I can see that I was tired when making some of these articles. These shall be my last on this topic. Good luck with these into the future.Hoops gza (talk) 19:21, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

You're welcome. You had a very good idea in bringing these articles over to English Wikipedia. Good work. Kierzek (talk) 19:39, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Early Himmler photo

This 1929 photo of Himmler might be a nice addition to his article, completely up to you: File:Bundesarchiv Bild 146II-783, Heinrich Himmler.jpg.Hoops gza (talk) 05:47, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

A good early representative photo. I see it is a Bundesarchiv photo, so it should be a free use photo; I will ask Diannaa to look into it; she knows free use/fair use issues much better than myself. Kierzek (talk) 16:39, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

All the Bundesarchiv photos are okay for us to use. Thanks for the interesting find, Hoops gza. I have added the image to the Himmler article. -- Diannaa (talk) 16:57, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Diannaa. Kierzek (talk) 17:11, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks to the both of you. I shall now close this chapter of my research, best to keep my hands away from this subject in the future. Best of luck in the future.Hoops gza (talk) 21:04, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Von Kluge - 1940 Field Marshal Ceremony

I can assure you von Kluge was involved, heavily involved at that. He insurred the arrest of thousands of SS and Gestapo agents in Paris. - Jonas Vinther

Okay; well, have a look at his bio article herein on Wikipedia which states: "Although Kluge was not an active conspirator in the 20 July plot to assassinate Adolf Hitler, his nephew was, and Kluge himself was previously involved with the German military resistance. He committed suicide on 17 August 1944, after having been replaced by Walter Model and recalled to Berlin for a meeting with Hitler in the aftermath of the failed coup."; there appears to be some conflict of info. therein which needs to be reconciled between the two articles. Kierzek (talk) 01:08, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

No matter what role he played in the 20 July Plot, I think the fact he committed suicide rather than face Hitler or court, says something in itself. I don't know where you have the article from, but I have seen countless BBC documentaries regarding von Kluge and all stated that he committed suicide due to the failure of the 20 July Plot. Of course that doesn't mean he was actively involved and that he might just didn't wish to serve Hitler anymore, but felt bound to his oath - therefore committed suicide. BUT I can assure you he ensured the arrest of SS and Gestapo agents in Paris, which makes him involved, regardless of what role he played or how active he was. - Jonas Vinther

Objective historian

You might find the link "objective historian" interesting and use its analysis to see if you think Elena Sinyavskaya passes those tests, or if relying on one fact from one primary source, and not balancing that against other primary sources means that she fails the test and is not an objective historian. -- PBS (talk) 13:07, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

I will look at it when I have the time, thanks. BTW-you may want to look at the article: Rape during the occupation of Germany, since it covers much of what we have talked about on the "Battle of Berlin" article talk page and could use some ce work. Kierzek (talk) 14:06, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

I know, but so much to do and so little time! After years of delay and recognising that the 200 anniversary is only one year away, I am trying to knock the up a very large article on the Waterloo Campaign after the four famous battles, while still dealing with stuff like Berlin and here. The Waterloo Campaign is a copy of a PD source (the same one as I used for Minor campaigns of 1815 but it involves writing dozens of stubs for places and generals mentioned in the article, and whole new subsidiary articles both on Wikipedia (eg Malplaquet proclamation) and Wikisource: Waterloo Campaign ....

-- PBS (talk) 15:38, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Check This Article Out

Hi mate, check out this brand new article I made, it's pretty awesome - Hitler and Mannerheim recording.

Thanks, I will have a look, soon. Kierzek (talk) 20:29, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Please notice I wrote EVERYTHING myself. I personally wrote the entire monologue. It took me hours, but I did it for Wikipedia. - Jonas Vinther

Reverted my Hitler edit.

Why did you revert it? It being more chronologically correct is not as important in the beginning, if the short version is embedded somewhere else. This is how Google writes to the query "Hitler": My version (still in cache): "Adolf Hitler was an Austrian-born German politician and the leader of the Nazi Party. He was at the centre of Nazi Germany, World War II in Europe, and the Holocaust. This would be the reverted version: "Adolf Hitler was an Austrian-born German politician and the leader of the Nazi Party. He was chancellor of Germany from 1933 to 1945 and dictator of Nazi Germany from 1934 to 1945." Which is correct of course, but it is not the important part about Hitler. --RicardAnufriev (talk) 14:37, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

It reads better the original way; said lead section being vetted when the article was up for GA. Further, the sentence does not state Hitler was leader of the Nazi Party (that is in the first sentence) but was "at the centre of Nazi Germany". So your new revision above is a different statement; different context. With that said, you can always post to the talk page for other opinion. Kierzek (talk) 20:50, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Have you even read what I wrote?

It _does_ state what you are missing. How is anything a different context/statement?

It does not matter if "it reads better this way", if the algorithm (which is common) omits the most important facts about Hitler. Style < Substance.

--RicardAnufriev (talk) 14:07, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

What you originally wrote and what I reverted is not what you wrote above, nor what you recently tweaked. You asked why I reverted your original edit; I told you why; then you decide to change up the sentence structure again. But in the end, it is now moot as your most recent tweak on the article page (not shown herein above) is acceptable to me. Kierzek (talk) 19:29, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

"what I reverted is not what you wrote above, nor what you recently tweaked."

I am not sure, but I think you are mistaking somebody's edit for mine. The only edit I did on the article was changing the order of sentences ABC -> ACB (and swapping "Hitler" <-> "he" inside sentence B and C). I did not tweak anything else.

As you advised, I've started a discussion on the talk page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Adolf_Hitler#Order_of_first_three_sentences

If you find my proposal acceptable, please add your voice to the talk page, so I can edit it.

--RicardAnufriev (talk) 06:00, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Oh. Forgot the "as well as" experiment. But it failed (Embedded articles still cut off too early). I'll revert it myself. --RicardAnufriev (talk) 06:03, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

At this point, I don't want to recite the whole history, it's there if anyone wants to see it for the article. When I mentioned your "tweak", I meant what you're calling the "experiment" which you put forth and have now reverted yourself.

BTW-my understanding is that Google does not take the first two sentences as their "little blurb". Currently one sentence is showing which states: "Adolf Hitler was an Austrian-born German politician and the leader of the Nazi Party as well as chancellor of Germany from 1933 to 1945 and dictator of Nazi Germany from 1934 to 1945." Therefore, the text that Google displays is not based on sentence count but on word count, as well. Kierzek (talk) 16:30, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Request for mediation rejected

The request for formal mediation concerning HITLER's ROLE IN THE "FINAL SOLUTION", to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, User:Sunray (talk) 02:13, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

Edit warring at Battle of Berlin

It looks like you are there only to tag team revert with PBS.
You have barely participated in any discussion.
You even reverted a tag when it is not supposed to be removed until the issue is resolved on the talk page. I think you should add it back. -YMB29 (talk) 15:57, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

I have stated my points well; you are the one who insists on carrying on alone. I am not edit warring at all. Tags can be removed and if need be discussed; but in this case, you are tagging because you don't like something which is well cited and been in place and agreed to for a long time. Therefore, the tag should not have been there in the first place. The sentence is not part of the discussion of Russian historians and their viewpoint; THAT is what is being discussed. Per WP:BRD the burden is on you not me or PBS as to discussion and trying to obtain consensus. Kierzek (talk) 17:11, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

You have not made any points except "I don't like it", which indicates that you are just interested in pushing your POV.

If you paid attention to the discussion, you would know that the sentence is being discussed.

Something being there for a long time does not make it unchallengeable. -YMB29 (talk) 18:21, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Also, you can't keep on using WP:BRD as an excuse to edit war, especially when it comes to removing valid tags. -YMB29 (talk) 18:30, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

If anyone is POV pushing and edit warring, it is you. YOU have the burden not me. There is no reason for me to continue making my points when they have been set out, and you have not overcome them and continually similar points to mine are being made by other editors in which I agree. As for the well cited section which cites the highly regarded historian Beevor, consensus was reached long before you came around on the article; and frankly the detailed footnote (which is also cited) explains the situation well. And yes, you can challenge something which is well cited and where consensus has been in place for a long time; good luck with that. I'm not going to reply further as to this matter on my talk page; I suggest you prove your points on the talk page of the article or accept the fact of the matter and move on. Kierzek (talk) 18:44, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Günther von Reibnitz

A user has come over from the German language Wikipedia with new sources, some of them clear and some obscure, but there seems to me to be a lack of objectivity in the air and I would appreciate a little help with keeping the page to its sources. Please see Talk:Günther von Reibnitz. Regards, Moonraker (talk) 01:15, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

I will read it soon. Kierzek (talk) 17:59, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

I read through it and did some ce work on it; I also checked the most recent history and the article seems to have stabilized for now. Cheers, Kierzek (talk) 20:39, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

List of Books about Nazi Germany

Kierzek - I saw where you deleted Grey Wolf as a fringe work. Not sure that outright deleting the book was necessary. A footnote or caveat after the book may have sufficed. No? Given its sales, I thought it deserved mention. After all, the most recent forensic studies on this matter have conclusively proven that the skull the former Soviets had - when examined, was not that of der Führer. Likewise, there was an extensive file about this with the FBI. Both Stalin and Zhukov believed Hitler had escaped. Just sayin'. No dog in this fight however, as it is not important by any means. --Obenritter (talk) 22:15, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

No, that book should not be included; it is more fiction than anything else, unfounded speculation and conjecture. I know this subject very well, having brought the Death of Adolf Hitler article up to GA status, along with Diannaa.

You see, different versions of Hitler's fate in the late 1940s especially (through the 1960s) were presented by the Soviet Union according to its political desires. See: Eberle & Uhl (2005), The Hitler Book: The Secret Dossier Prepared for Stalin from the Interrogations of Hitler's Personal Aides, p. 288. At the time of the Potsdam conference in 1945, it was not conclusively known by the western Allies what was the fate of Hitler. The Soviets knew by then, that is the point. That is why Dick White, then head of counter-intelligence in the British sector of Berlin (and later head of MI5 and MI6 in succession) had their agent Hugh Trevor-Roper investigate the matter to counter the Soviet claims. His findings, as you know, were written in a report and published in book form in 1947. Trevor-Roper deserve credit for being the first to write a detailed western account of Hitler's last days (which countered the Soviet propaganda at the time). However, the book lacked information (and insight) of key inner-circle players who were locked up in the east by the Soviets and the book is now is quite dated. The FBI file is OLD; they were only investigating the rumors at that time. I know all about the "skull"; it is a red herring on the matter. The "skull" was from one of the many bodies buried in the Reich Chancellery garden. For example, the jaw and bridge fragments which had been recovered were not tested by the American researchers. So the "skull" does not matter as to the events in question. See:

Kershaw, Ian (2001). Hitler, 1936–1945: Nemesis. London: Penguin. pp. 1038–39. ISBN 978-0-14-027239-0.

Joachimsthaler, Anton (1999) [1995]. The Last Days of Hitler: The Legends, The Evidence, The Truth. Brockhampton Press. ISBN 978-1-86019-902-8.

Fischer, Thomas (2008). Soldiers of the Leibstandarte. J.J. Fedorowicz Publishing. ISBN 978-0-921991-91-5.

Linge, Heinz (2009). With Hitler to the End. Frontline Books–Skyhorse Publishing. ISBN 978-1-60239-804-7.

Cheers, Kierzek (talk) 22:40, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Excellent. That pretty much ends that debate. I'll look deeper into the matter using the sources you've been kind enough to share. My expertise (post grad-Ph.D. work) over the Nazi period is really ideological matters and their philosophy about geopolitics and race. Speculation is amusing nonetheless, but not academic as you noted here so its exclusion was the right decision. If you've ever seen the interview over this subject with Traudl Junge, you'd think she was hiding something with her distant gaze. Maybe she was just reflecting back and trying to contain herself from sharing that she knew more than she ever admitted. Anyway - thanks for taking this to task. --Obenritter (talk) 23:09, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Junge was probably uncomfortable with the subject and reflection on it; having a hard time coming to terms with the past and certainly she had a lot of emotional history and memories, I am sure. Kierzek (talk) 03:05, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

HAPPY WIKIBIRTHDAY!

Happy WikiBirthday friend. I hope everything is going good. I would like to thank you for the kindness you've shown me on Wikipedia. Unfortunately I didn't bring a gift. - Jonas Vinther

Thank you for the kind note. Kierzek (talk) 13:12, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Jacqueline Kennedy

"A large crowd of well-wishers and reporters gathered on the sidewalk outside her apartment." The photo adds to the text. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.102.74.23 (talk) 02:26, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

No, it really doesn't as it is just a photo of five reporters waiting. I also see that someone else has already removed it again. Kierzek (talk) 13:16, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Battle of Berlin again

Earlier you said that a simple sentence can be added to the article that reflects the view of Russian historians.[1]
What sentence do you suggest?
Do you agree with the sentence I recently suggested (Yelena Senyavskaya and other Russian historians have criticized such statements and argue that while instances of these crimes occurred, they were not widespread.)? -YMB29 (talk) 05:57, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

I would take out: "instances of" but otherwise find it the most acceptable proposed sentence which you have put forth thus far. With those 2 words omitted I could agree to the sentence cited to RS sources and your tag of "Attribution needed" in the Aftermath section of the article being removed in light of the detailed footnote therein. However, in the end, PBS is the one with whom you must reach an agreement with so there is stability and finality. If that is not reachable in discussion, I would suggest an RFC on the talk page over taking it to dispute resolution as you mentioned on the article talk page recently. Kierzek (talk) 14:14, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Ok, those two words can be removed.

The tag for the other sentence is another issue that I want to discuss next. -YMB29 (talk) 18:16, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

The tag has been discussed and should go. Kierzek (talk) 19:36, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

It was discussed, but there was no agreement yet as the focus was on the other issue.

That sentence violates WP:ASF, so the tag is needed until there is an agreement on how to attribute the statement. -YMB29 (talk) 19:56, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

@YMB29 that is your opinion. I only agreed to the placement of the Russian sentence if Kierzek conditions were met. So I have removed the template. Your choice either the Russian sentence or the template but not both.-- PBS (talk) 21:38, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

So you are going to take that sentence hostage?

The two sentences are different issues.

What you are basically saying is that you will agree on one issue, only if the violation on another is ignored.

This is not how things are done on wiki. You should know that... -YMB29 (talk) 22:24, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

The context is changed with the sentence added and the insertion of "attribution" you unilaterally made without WP:consensus; and what you did was not what I said I would agree to above. However, with that said, it is better to continue this conversation on the article talk page and not here; I have made comment, there. I would ask that anyone else do the same. Kierzek (talk) 13:53, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Reinhard Heydrich

Greetings, was Reinhard Heydrich ever referred to as Richard Heydrich? Right now "Richard Heydrich" is a redirect to Reinhard's page. I'm guessing that it was intended to direct to his father, whose article did not exist at the time that this redirect was created.

By the way, Himmler's wife has a huge article in German, while there is no article for her in English. It may be good for us to find someone who could translate the page well.Hoops gza (talk) 20:11, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Also, Hauptamt Sicherheitspolizei should obviously be merged with Sicherheitspolizei. Perhaps you would be good at merging the two?Hoops gza (talk) 22:13, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

As to point one: NO, he was never known by "Richard Heydrich". The only other way he was known was: "Reinhardt Heydrich".

As for point two: Good suggestion to make an English article for her. I don't have the time right now to invest in it. Why don't you have a go at it and I will look at it after it is done.

As for the merger you suggest, after the failure of merging Reichskriminalpolizeiamt with Kripo, I would not hold your breath. If you want to give it a go, then you need to list it for consideration. I do think it's a prudent suggestion you make, but others need to have an opportunity to consider it. Cheers, Kierzek (talk) 23:05, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

I leave points two and three up to you. I've had my fill of this sort of thing. There is certainly no hurry on them. I cannot speak German, otherwise I would proceed full speed on an article on Himmler's wife, but I do think it is essential to the English Wikipedia. Cheers.Hoops gza (talk) 05:05, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

After reading your conversation I decided to make Heinrich Himmler's wife English article, Margarete Himmler. Best regards.

- Jonas Vinther

Karl Bischoff

Hi, Kierzek. Your superb copyediting skills would be appreciated at Karl Bischoff. Hoops gza (talk) 23:26, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

I will be glad to have a look, thanks. Kierzek (talk) 03:10, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you

Dear friend, it was only just a few seconds ago I saw you created an article named "Albert Bormann". I have been looking for the article of that man for ages, I've seen him by Hitler's side countless times, and always wondered who he was, but of course, since I didn't know his name, I couldn't find his article. Thank you for creating it friend. - Jonas Vinther

Thanks for the note. Kierzek (talk) 18:26, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Adjutants

Actually, I'm making a list over all of Adolf Hitler's adjutants, so far I have noted Wilhelm Bruckner Julius Schaub, Otto Günsche, Gerhard Engel, Nicolaus von Below, Karl-Jesco von Puttkamer, Alwin-Broder Albrecht, and Fritz Darges. Do you know anymore? - Jonas Vinther

Karl Wilhelm Krause, is another for whom I wrote an article herein and Heinz Linge would qualify I suppose, as well. Kierzek (talk) 19:48, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes well, I considered adding Krause, but he was actually hired as Hitler's chief aid, not adjutant. It's because I made this article: Adolf Hitler's adjutants. - Jonas Vinther

I can see your point; I think there was some duty overlap, but will just add them to the "See also" section for that page. Kierzek (talk) 21:51, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Friedrich Hoßbach, and Willy Johannmeyer, here are two I just remembered that should be added. Kierzek (talk) 16:55, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Okay, nice I will certainly add them right away... By the way, I don't get any kind of notifications whenever you write something in these sections, do you? is there someway you could be notified, so you don't have to check everything all the time? - Jonas Vinther

Actually, if you make an edit on a page it will go onto your watchlist or if you click on the star at the top of a page, it will go on your watchlist. Then when someone writes or edts on a page on your watchlist, you will see it; that is your notice. Kierzek (talk) 01:11, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

1st SS Panzer Division Leibstandarte SS Adolf Hitler

Hi Kierzek. I noticed there's a Harvard citation error in 1st SS Panzer Division Leibstandarte SS Adolf Hitler: a citation points to "Reynolds 2006", but there's no such book in the bibliography. I am hoping you can clear this up using the books you have available in your collection. Thanks, --Diannaa (talk) 14:21, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

I have checked and no book of his matches up to that date. Reynolds wrote several books and an article for "World War II Magazine" which touch upon the LSSAH and the subject area cited, but none were 2006. Cheers, Kierzek (talk) 16:01, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

I am getting a copy of Steel Inferno sent to me on inter-library loan. If I can't source it from there, most of the content appears in Wilmot (The Struggle for Europe). Cheers, -- Diannaa (talk) 01:31, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Heyyy

Hi friend. Have you seen the Military Channel documentary called Inside the Mind of Adolf Hitler? it's very interesting and based on Langer's secret OSS report regarding Hitler's future conduct. If you wish to see it, it's available on youtube. Jonas Vinther (talk) 10:22, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, but I would not put too much faith in either a TV documentary or the book which is very dated (based on the OSS report done before the war ended). Kierzek (talk) 01:04, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

1940 Field Marshal Ceremony

Hi mate. We should nominate 1940 Field Marshal Ceremony for good article status. Jonas Vinther (talk) 10:21, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I will leave that determination up to you. I would recommend you have someone from the Wikipedia:GOCE run through it before you nominate it. Kierzek (talk) 17:09, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Alright, I will, but I don't know how to nominate an article for good status. Jonas Vinther (talk) 22:01, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

First, ask someone from Wikipedia:GOCE to run through it or someone such as, @Nick-D: may do it for you if you ask him and he has time. Then you can go to the next step; which after "the run through", the GA nomination will go easier and faster. Those are my suggestions, anyway. Good luck, Kierzek (talk) 13:11, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks so much, I'll do my best. Jonas Vinther (talk) 13:38, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

I left a message on the article's talk page regarding the recent confusion and edit-dispute. Jonas Vinther (talk) 20:33, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

I read it. Kierzek (talk) 22:27, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Don't you agree? Jonas Vinther (talk) 13:20, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Not overall. Kierzek (talk) 02:00, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Could you be more specific? Jonas Vinther (talk) 15:11, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

If it's because I didn't mention the name of the "German Waffen-SS survivor" it's because I don't know his name; the quote is from an interview with German war veterans like Galland, Steinhoff, and so on. The names are actually not mentioned, for some reason. I can show it to you it you like. Jonas Vinther (talk) 19:14, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

By the way, I also added a whole lot more regarding von Manstein's promotion. Jonas Vinther (talk) 19:26, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

When I say, I cannot agree overall, I was thinking about your statement: "...that books or other work created as close to the post-war era as possible is more reliable." Also, as to the quote by the Waffen-SS man, you must be very wary when relying on single comments which are self-serving after the fact. They do not carry a lot of weight by themselves. Kierzek (talk) 13:32, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

But you must agree that everything rely on the people who lived during the historical era, everything rely on the eyewitnesses. And also, I don't believe in the man who said the Waffen-SS quote, it was just meant to prove a point. Jonas Vinther (talk) 11:13, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Question

Have you published any of your work? Jonas Vinther (talk) 17:52, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Why do you ask? Kierzek (talk) 21:02, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, if you have published a book or something I'd love to read it. Jonas Vinther (talk) 17:11, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Nothing which is not online. However, what I have written on other sites over the years, mirrors, overall, what is herein. Kierzek (talk) 18:56, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Ahh, I see. Jonas Vinther (talk) 19:59, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

By the way, I nominated field marshal ceremony for GA status, I'd appreciate your review. :) Jonas Vinther (talk) 19:59, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Oh, I only first noticed now you're not allowed to review it if you contributed significantly, so don't think you could review it. Jonas Vinther (talk) 01:06, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi, friend. Thanks for your recent many edits on the field marshal ceremony article, I'm sure it will get good article status, eventually! Jonas Vinther (talk) 16:12, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Dear friend, when you can, check the article, made some major changes regarding each field marshals later career and life per talk page request, it's vastly improved I'd say. Jonas Vinther (talk) 17:03, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. I will be glad to do some ce work to help, when I have time, but you seem to be going in a different direction then I would. I believe the article needs to focus more on just the event while including tight passages on each of the field marshals with links to their own articles. With that said, it is your baby, but I would suggest following the comments of the GA reviewer. Cheers, Kierzek (talk) 02:02, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree on what you just said, but regarding the latest added information about each marshal's later life and career, it was because Nick-D suggested it should be a "key part" of the article, so only added it per his request. Also, we now have a good lead about the ceremony, a section regarding the prestigious of Germany's then-highest military rank, the role of each field marshal, their later life and career, and their involvement in the 20 July plot (I consider that part relevant since it kind of became the point where everyone in the high command or officers in general had to choose between obedience to Hitler or resistance, and also, as Manstein told Stauffenberg regarding his main reason not to join the resistance: "Prussian field marshals do not munity.") If you can already tell me now that the recent added parts will not improve the odds of getting the article the GA status, then it should be removed. My main hope in adding it, was that it would make a considerable difference. Jonas Vinther (talk) 13:10, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Also, I noticed you changed "35 senior officers" to "25 senior officers" was it 25 and not 35, are you sure? I remember it as 35, I once had a list I made for lecture purposes, and I'm sure it was 35. Maybe I confused semi-senior officers with senior officers, I'm not quite sure anything. Thank you. Jonas Vinther (talk) 12:17, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

You can recheck the 35>25 change, certainly; as for the article, Nick-D was nice enough to review it and make suggestions prior to GA review. With that said, in the end, you should give more weight to the GA reviewer and his or her opinions. Lastly, as for inline sentence cites, generally one good WP:RS cite will do, unless the statement is one of great weight or in some way controversial. For GA, the inline cites need to be present and in a uniform presentation and the books cited need to be represented in the Reference section. Kierzek (talk) 13:35, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Heinrich Himmler

You don't think it's worth noting where his father and mother were born and died? German Wikipedia makes note of this.Hoops gza (talk) 15:53, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't but you can ask @Diannaa: and I will go along with her on this one. In part, I thought the way it was inserted was not presented well. Kierzek (talk) 16:11, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't think it's important enough to include, as these facts had no impact on Himmler's life. -- Diannaa (talk) 16:14, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough.Hoops gza (talk) 16:34, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Generally speaking, what do you think about creating a navbox sometime for Himmler?Hoops gza (talk) 23:23, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

I surmise you think this a poor or misguided idea? Hoops gza (talk) 23:15, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

No, I would not phrase it that way. I would, however, say that I don't believe it is necessary. Kierzek (talk) 01:07, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Hedwig Potthast

Thank you for the edits on Gestapa. It was not entirely clear to me what this term meant, as I could only ascertain that it was an office of the Gestapo or something similar.Hoops gza (talk) 17:53, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

I am glad I could add something thereto. It is good to see that you are doing an article on her. Cheers, Kierzek (talk) 18:07, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Article now complete.Hoops gza (talk) 17:45, 26 April 2014 (UTC) I will be sure to link you to new articles from now on if you show an interest.Hoops gza (talk) 23:18, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

It looks good. I will be glad to lend a hand (when I have time) in the future; we are all in this thing together. Kierzek (talk) 16:58, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Margarete Himmler

Two of the sources in the "further reading" section are the German versions of English equivalents used in the article, namely, Longerich and Die Bruder Himmler. Should I remove these from the page?Hoops gza (talk) 01:43, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

I have to leave for the afternoon, but check to see if they are cited in the article directly. Even if they are not, I would leave them for there are some readers who would prefer to know of and read the original German versions of the books. Kierzek (talk) 17:04, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Recent Adolf Hitler edit

Hi, friend. I'm confused as to why you changed "girlfriend" back to "lover"? Here's a quote from the man who ran Hitler's Berghof:

"My wife was always very curious, as was I, and she often did Hitler's washing, and the first thing she'd do is to check if there had been any sexual activity. But there was never any evidence, my wife checked the sheets, and there was no signs of sexual activity, none. And if we had private conversations with the chambermaids, they'd say the same thing, no evidence could ever be found."

I would only say it should say "lover" if it's considered a more used synonym for "girlfriend". Jonas Vinther (talk) 14:33, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

"Lover", can mean more than just physical; although there is cited evidence of same:

"He was monogamous with Eva Braun for years, hiding this relationship from the public and all but his inner circle. Kershaw 2008, pp. 219, 378, 947. Within that circle however, most of whom survived the war, he was open about Eva Braun and they lived together openly at Berchtesgaden as a couple. Hitler's valet, Heinz Linge, stated in his memoirs that Hitler and Braun had two bedrooms and two bathrooms with interconnecting doors at the Berghof, and Hitler would end most evenings alone with her in his study before they retired to bed. She would wear a 'dressing gown or house-coat' and drink wine; Hitler would have tea. Linge 2009, p. 39. Braun biographer, Heike Görtemaker notes that Braun and Hitler enjoyed a normal sex life; Braun's friends and relatives described Eva giggling over a 1938 photograph of Neville Chamberlain sitting on a sofa in Hitler's Munich flat with the remark: 'If only he knew what goings-on that sofa has seen.' " Connolly, 2010. Kierzek (talk) 15:45, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Alright, friend. I'll give in. Jonas Vinther (talk) 17:15, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi Jonas. I found the same results as above when I did research to bring Eva Braun to GA; they had a normal sex life. "Lover" is therefore the most fitting term to use in my opinion. -- Diannaa (talk) 20:13, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi Diannaa. I'm just confused because I saw an interview with the man who ran the Berghof which quote I posed above. Hitler's housekeeper, Margarethe Hansen, also said something similar in an interview with Guido Knopp. Jonas Vinther (talk) 20:23, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Clean sheets does not necessarily mean no sex. They may have used condoms or engaged in oral sex. These possibilities are (in my opinion) likely, because an unwanted pregnancy was in those days a really big deal, and Hitler wished to maintain the fiction that he was married to his country, so a pregnancy would be highly undesirable for that reason as well. -- Diannaa (talk) 22:42, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

The quote was more to make it sound reliable from people who knew Hitler. Langer's report concluded that Hitler was somewhat disinterested in sex and appeared to be asexual. Sex, for Freud, was crucial to what drew and determined people. Geli also later told Strasser how Hitler got his sexual pleasures by having a women pee and defect on him. That would most likely leave evidence. However, I also share your opinion, because Hitler refused to keep his promise to marry Maria Reiter, because marrying a divorced women would hurt his public image and support from German women. There's no doubt Hitler cared more about his public image. But, then again, Hitler's relationship to Eva was secret, and I don't think the way he wanted the public to know him effected his sex life, that is, if he had any. Jonas Vinther (talk) 22:48, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Langer's report was written during the war and does not carry much weight anymore; As for Strasser's comments: "Historian Ian Kershaw contends that stories circulated at the time as to alleged 'sexual deviant practices ought to be viewed as ... anti-Hitler propaganda'." Kershaw 2008, p. 219. So those comments by Strasser carry no weight. Kierzek (talk) 00:08, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

If you say so. Jonas Vinther (talk) 00:29, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Hitler's adjutants

Hi mate. Schaub's section says: "Near the end of the war, on 23 August 1945, Hitler ordered Schaub to burn all his personal belongings, which he did." Please notice the date. Jonas Vinther (talk) 09:20, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

I fixed it. Kierzek (talk) 21:25, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I would have fixed it myself, but is not an expert on Schaub. Jonas Vinther (talk) 00:13, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

His article still needs work and I plan on doing it when I have the time. Kierzek (talk) 12:21, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Ernst Hermann Himmler

Do you think I'm taking too much from Longerich? If so, feel free to revert or reword. Hoops gza (talk) 20:21, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

No, it looks fine. Kierzek (talk) 21:26, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

That book is a beast. Two hundred pages of endnotes! Hoops gza (talk) 21:56, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Notability

Would you say it's worth writing an article about Paulus's son, Ernst Alexander Paulus, who also served in World War II, and rose to a high rank? Jonas Vinther (talk) 01:32, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

I would say no. It would be better just to add a section on his two sons in the father's bio article, if need be (I have not looked as to what is there already). I recall the one you mention serviced on the Eastern Front and years later committed suicide. The second son was killed in combat on the western front. Kierzek (talk) 01:55, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, according to his Geni profile picture he had the uniform of a general. But yes, I overall agree with you. I will add it as a section of Paulus's personal life sooner or later. Jonas Vinther (talk) 02:58, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Okay. Kierzek (talk) 14:13, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Excessive Categories

I don't know if I like this. Seems a bit excessive, especially since we don't have cats for other ranks held in other military structures. I regrettably don't have the time to start a thread somewhere for action, but may be you start this rolling for review. Thanks! -OberRanks (talk) 22:23, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

I believe cats for the higher ranks is okay but after colonel, it is just more clutter and a bit excessive. Also the cat changes and removals as to SS and Police Leaders has concerned me; see the linked [[2]] discussion. Kierzek (talk) 14:37, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Doing the math on this, it would seem that we have about 100 of each rank all the way down to lieutenant. Does that change your opinion? Hoops gza (talk) 18:41, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

As for the SS officer cats, I don't believe the lower officer ranks need more than the general "Category:SS officers". Kierzek (talk) 14:07, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

So you are proposing that I draw the line at Category:SS-Standartenführer? - Hoops gza (talk) 16:19, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Stopping at the end of the general rank would be a even clearer cut-off (Brigadeführer) point. Anyone else have thoughts? Kierzek (talk) 18:40, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

As I said on the parallel discussion of this matter on your talk page Hoops, I don't feel strongly enough about the issue to reverse the project; just remember to tread lightly when adding and changes cats herein. Kierzek (talk) 12:43, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Category:Nazis who served in World War I

I am tempted to create a Category:Nazis who served in World War I, as I think it might actually have some relevance. Thoughts? - Hoops gza (talk) 17:14, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

I cannot say, I see it as necessary. There were many Germans (and those of the Austro-Hungarian Empire who served in the German Army or fought along side) in the First World War; later, many were Nazis and many not. Kierzek (talk) 01:19, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Adolf Hitler's adjutants

Great you added cite's to Julius Schaub's article, those can be added to Hitler's adjutants article. Schaub was the only adjutant I couldn't find any sources too, now we have them all. Good job, friend. Jonas Vinther (talk) 17:55, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Kierzek (talk) 21:24, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Speaking on this point, I'm going to create a Category:Adjutants to Adolf Hitler. I'm just not sure if this makes more sense, or to say Category:Adjutants of Adolf Hitler. What do you guys think? - Hoops gza (talk) 21:10, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Like the prior "Chauffeurs of Adolf Hitler" cat, it should be done as: Category:Adjutants of Adolf Hitler. Kierzek (talk) 21:23, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Kierzek. Jonas Vinther (talk) 22:13, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Police category

I have created a Category:Police of Nazi Germany and am currently populating it. I am trying to mirror the de:Kategorie:Polizei im Nationalsozialismus as much as possible. - Hoops gza (talk) 21:22, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

There is a de:Kategorie:Ordnungspolizei (Orpo). Should I make an Category:Orpo with appropriate parent and subcategories? - Hoops gza (talk) 22:17, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't believe it is necessary given the new cat: Category:Police of Nazi Germany and given the cat Category:Law enforcement in Germany already exists. Kierzek (talk) 01:35, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

I exhausted all of the German categories for police except for the Gestapo, which you may wish to do yourself. I also did not complete the correcting of SSPF, which you may wish to do. I am taking a break from this topic for an indefinite time. Thanks for all of your help in these regards. - Hoops gza (talk) 06:32, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Good to hear from you. You may want to finish up the SS ranks and SSPF cats, only because they were "your babies" and it is good to finish out things started; with that said, I do understand wanting to switch gears. I will look at the Gestapo cats, when I have time. Cheers, Kierzek (talk) 13:22, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Hitler's adjutants

Hi friend. I was thinking: should Hitler's adjutants article be an article regarding the occupation of being Hitler's adjutant, the daily routines, the close contact with Hitler, and so on. Or, should it be a mini bio of all his adjutants as it more or less is now? Jonas Vinther (talk) 08:44, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

I believe some minor additions could be made as to specifc points one may have made but it should overall remain as an article of listing information and highlights of each man with links to their main articles for greater detail. Kierzek (talk) 21:46, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Alright. Jonas Vinther (talk) 23:48, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

1940 Field Marshal Ceremony: von Kluge

Hi, friend. I told a while ago when you asked whether von Kluge was actually involved or not. I found some more recent and updated sources from BBC and OJSC to support my belief:

"von Kluge, commander of Army Group Center, was awarded the Oak Leaves cluster to his Knight's Cross, but in secret, the field marshal was already plotting against Hitler. In July 1944, von Kluge was in France, commanding the Western Front, when von Stauffenberg tried to blow up the Führer at his headquarters in East Prussia. When it became clear the plot had failed, von Kluge took a cyanide pill. He was succeed by his former subordinate, Walther Model."

"The plotters discussed two ways of killing Hitler. One was a direct approach, a group of offciers volunteered to shoot Hitler while he was at lunch, but when news of this reached Gunther von Kluge, commander of Army Group Center, who was also sympathetic to the plotters, he refused to support them. Amazingly, it wasn't that von Kluge was against the removal of Hitler, he just didn't think it was right to shoot a man while he was eating."

I have seen more sources, although I cannot find anymore right now. I hope this helps to convince you. Jonas Vinther (talk) 20:33, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Martin Luther King, Jr

I would like to dispute your reversion to my edit. On what grounds do you make the assertion that it is not considered WP:RS source? Please let me know of any unreliable material on the page I linked to. It strikes me as being a very detailed biography with material additional to the Wikipedia page. The primary sources quoted are also extremely useful. Tartarusrussell (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 08:09, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

See my reply below. Kierzek (talk) 13:12, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Nazi Germany

Once again, I would like to dispute your reversion to my edit. Please explain on what grounds do you make the assertion that it is not considered a reliable source? Please let me know of any unreliable material on the page I linked to. This strikes me as being a very well researched resource, and the biographies of 140-odd Nazi figures is historically of great use. Tartarusrussell (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 11:13, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Spartacus Educational is a so-called free online encyclopedia, similar in some ways to Wikipedia; like Wikipedia itself and Britannica, it is not standing alone, a WP:RS source. Further, in the articles I have checked there, they do not have the citing of RS sources such as Wikipedia in its articles. It also mirrors Wikipedia in some of its content and does not present it as well; and again in not cited to reputable third–party sources for citations for the information of its articles. In fact, it does not have any citations which I have seen for the articles I checked. It is the work of one man only; that leads to WP:POV problems. Therefore, it has no reputation for fact-checking or accuracy. For example, taking one point to illustrate as to the Spartacus article on Heydrich. There it states that he took over the SD and Gestapo in 1936. That is wrong. That is when he became head of the SiPo. So, for all the reasons stated above, it is not a RS site and not reliable. Kierzek (talk) 13:11, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

You are right that Spartacus is essentially the work of one man, John Simkin, and I agree that a neutral POV cannot be claimed for the site as a whole. However, I have not seen any individual articles that suggest bias. Perceived POV problems do not necessarily imply a problem with fact-checking or accuracy.

I am surprised that you claim that references are not given when I consider these to be one of the strength of the site. (The Martin Luther King, Jr page that you removed the link to has some very useful sources.) The Heydrich article you choose to discuss, and claim is unsourced, cites two documents by Heydrich, one by Stephenson and another by Alexander Dubcek.

That there may be a mistake in this article is unfortunate, but you’ll have to agree that Wikipedia itself is not free from mistakes. Presumably the error can be corrected by contacting the editor. Unlike the majority of Wikipedia entries, it is very clear who the editor is, what his professional credentials are, his interests, motivations etc. For me, this makes any website-wide bias less of a problem.

I do not see why not including Wikipedia amongst its sources might devalue the site (nor the fact that it is not presented in a way that you like).

You clearly, and publically, accuse the site of plagiarism. I hope you can justify this! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tartarusrussell (talk • contribs) 14:50, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

I have told you my observations. I have not made any "plagiarism" claims per se; nor speculated of "perceived problems"; so please don't misquote me. The fact is, as you should know, the burden is on you for an addition. not me; per WP:BRD, you can take it to the talk page or better yet to WP:RSN. As you addition has also been reverted on several others pages by another editor, I would suggest that you seek a consensus from other editors or an opinion from RSN before re-adding. Kierzek (talk) 21:18, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Agreed--I'll take this to the talk page and see what others think of Spartacus Educational.Tartarusrussell (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 08:41, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Courtesy notice

I am challenging the reliability of a source you included in two articles with this edit and this one. Please see Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Gregory Douglas and TBRNews.org for more information. Thanks! Location (talk) 05:53, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the notice. Interesting; I was not aware of all that. The one time I cited to that book had to do with an written order found after the war and said to be authenticated. It only stated there was a proposed plan, and clearly not carried out. However, with that said, given the other questions apparently found with the book, it can be removed. O'Donnell, states the same basic information, a book I have at home, so I will check it tonight and tweak it accordingly. As shown above, I am all for RS citing in articles and on Wikipedia. Kierzek (talk) 12:28, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I've noticed your edits before and have observed that you do a great job citing sources. Given that "Douglas" appears to mix fact and fiction together, it wouldn't surprise me if what you have cited is actually correct. Some sources are obviously unreliable, but the fact that this one isn't makes it particularly harmful to Wikipedia. If you have an opinion on "Douglas", I would be appreciative if you would post it in the discussion. I think it would be helpful for future editors unaware of the problems. Cheers! -Location (talk) 16:21, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Done; revised the general flight info. stated, cited to O'Donnell only in the Betz article and made the changes to the Müller article. Cheers, Kierzek (talk) 01:43, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Nazi Germany and the Holocaust

I think that it is unhealthy for me to continue with this topic at this point in time. I have completed the re-categorization of SS officers for A through J. Perhaps you could work on the rest in your free time. It is easy to do in piecemeal. - Hoops gza (talk) 01:29, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for the note. Take a break, it can be a good thing to do. Kierzek (talk) 02:10, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Führerbunker

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Führerbunker you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Feitlebaum -- Feitlebaum (talk) 23:40, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I will change the parts you have mentioned. Kierzek (talk) 12:20, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

I made the changes per your GA check list. See what you think. Thanks, Kierzek (talk) 12:54, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Führerbunker

The article Führerbunker you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Führerbunker for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Feitlebaum -- Feitlebaum (talk) 01:22, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the thanks

Thanks! COL (chuckling out loud). Did you want to join up on that 'Cultural depictions of John F. Kennedy' page? I have a couple of Phil Ochs songs to add to it, plus all the films and TV shows. When I was a kid I had one of the Kennedy family board games (jeez, I just remembered Vaughn Meader's records). He probably even has clothes and clothespins named after him. Randy Kryn 16:10 19 July 2014 (UTC)

You're welcome. Don't forget the PT-109 model boat and GI Joe figure. I have some other stuff to work on but will check on the page when I have time. Cheers, Kierzek (talk) 16:14, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Ok, I'll start it up in an hour or so (first, food!) over yonder. I never had the boat or GI Joe, so if those are listed somewhere please do the honors. I don't even remember the GI Joe (my army men were of the little green variety). It's good to be 'swimming' in Kennedy waters. Randy Kryn 16:23 19 July 2014 (UTC)

I added the model and "GI Joe"; along with several films, accordingly to your sandbox. Keep up the good work. Cheers, Kierzek (talk) 12:16, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Ask not what Wikipedia can do for you...

I looked around, not in-depth but some, for more cultural pages and can't find any. I do recall a board game we used to have as a kid, where you could be one of the Kennedy family, complete with dice and cards. Don't know its name. The only other things I could think of is to go more in-depth on each item and give a good summary, but that can be done in spare moments and rainy days, if at all. Would it be okay with you if I mainspaced it? Seems ready to fly (not saying it will get far before the mother will have to feed it). If so, good working/editing with you, and anytime on that. Randy Kryn 18:33 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, go ahead, let it fly. Cheers, Kierzek (talk) 19:16, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Tis up, and I credited you in the punch, ah, the Edit summary line. It's actually surprising how few cultural depictions there are of JFK, considering his fame and the honor that people and society gives to him. I've added in another film, 'Young Joe, the Forgotten Kennedy', which we forgot. Randy Kryn 20:38 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. As for the "few cultural depictions", there would be more to add if there was not an article, Assassination of John F. Kennedy in popular culture already. Kierzek (talk) 21:48, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Another editor removed the 'John Kennedy High School' link on the template, it looks like there is a policy against linking to a disambiguation page on a template. That seems like a strange policy, as it links to relevant data, but I bump into strange policies in real life and if I broke them all would end up in prison and only edit Wikipedia on my home visits. So I'll remove the listing from the template, alas, although it's a perfectly good link if allowed to stay. I had a funny thing happen, check out the bottom of the talk page at 'Kennedy Space Center', an editor there, who seems to be a very good editor of space articles (bless his heart), didn't like the placement of the Kennedy template on the Space Center named after him. That's one I won't make a fuss over, although I hope he thinks about it and reverts himself and puts it back. The funny thing is the title of the section which contain his and my comments, a word I had to click on and read about to learn its meaning. Pretty clever. Randy Kryn 12:28 24 July 2014 (UTC)

I read the discussion over on KSC. I believe the other editor's revert is not correct. As I wrote, it should be noted that the article Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center has the LBJ template at the bottom of its page. Templates are a (collapsible) roadmap for further information and information for general readers is what Wikipedia is about. Adding relevant templates to related articles is not undue weight or misguided "praise". Kierzek (talk) 12:58, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Then you, Sir, are one of those who want to make Kennedy a saint. Marilyn would agree, wholeheartedly. I'll read your comment on the page, and if you joined in it should be a good discussion of Kennedy's role in the space center itself. Watching the tour de France as I write. Randy Kryn 13:48 24 July 2014 (UTC)

LOL, well I only commented on the inclusion of a relevant template not the "role in the space center"; that is well covered in the article. Enjoy the bike pedaling (race). Kierzek (talk) 13:53, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Those Kennedy and Johnson templates are looking good. High five (or six). Randy Kryn 19:14 25 July 2014 (UTC)

1940 F.M.C.

After all the work you and I (and others) have put into the article I have finally re-nominated it for GA status. I know you detailed told me about the problem with citing Britannica and Spartacus - however, having seeing Britannica sources being used on F-articles and Spartacus on G-articles, I will allow them to be there unless the GA reviewer specifically asks me to be replaced them with book cites (which I still haven't been able to find). As I also mentioned on talk page, the article is somewhat short, but, like Eva Braun's article, I believed it contains the necessary comprehensiveness to pass, regardless of it's shortness. I know I nominated it a lot of times before, but this time my intuition is quite convinced. So, if there is anything final you wish to add, please do it soon. Cheers. :) Jonas Vinther (talk) 16:12, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

I know of no GA article which uses Spartacus and it has been found not to be an RS source and frankly Britannica should not be used either (both for reasons I told you in the past). It can be hard at times, to find other, better sources for information, but it can and should be done. Kierzek (talk) 03:54, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Muller Bio

Please do not remove the mention to Spymaster on Muller's bio. The book is a work of careful, professional research and should be mentioned in the bio. There is no reason to dismiss it or its mention to the treated as a form of self-promotion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.147.15.198 (talk) 19:03, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Hello: you must take this to the article talk page for discussion, per WP:BRD. First, frankly it is written like a promotional book review; second, it is only "claims", speculation; third, if consensus does end up allowing it, it will have to be re-written in a NPOV way with page cites included. Kierzek (talk) 19:17, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

I have no connection with the author or the publisher, I have an MA in international relations from Tufts and a PhD in communication. I teach at a research one University in the US. I lived and wrote extensively in and about Eastern Europe. The book is 100% authentic and the author well respected. The sources are credible and significant. The paragraph is NPOV, it does not state things as a fact but as a claim. In fact, all statements should be stated as such as per NPOV. If page numbers is all you need, I can provide them... You are over-protective of the article as it is. Let it evolve and let new information flow in. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.147.15.198 (talk) 19:22, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

It is really not new "information", only some additional hearsay, conjecture and surmise; and it is also overall redundant to what is already stated by the cited, detailed online RS article from the U.S. National Archives and Records Administration in the article. Kierzek (talk) 03:00, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Not true. The book does not rely on hearsay, but on personal interviews with one of the KGB German-Austrian Service officers, Sergey Kondrashev. The fact that Muller might've been recovered by the Soviets is well documented by Bagley who read authentic documents, recorded Kondrashev, and had access to other sources. The US National Archives document you mention deals with the truly phantasmagoric claims that the US had something to do with Muller's fate. BTW, why should we spend so much time in a reference material on dispelling unjustified claims (re: US's purportedly involvement in Muller's survival) and why shouldn't we mention, at least mention, the fact that credible sources, including from inside KGB, say that Muller was protected by the Russians? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.147.15.198 (talk) 21:28, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

The US National Archives document cited in the article does not focus on claims "that the US had something to do with Muller's fate"; it covers the different investigations, false leads and conclusions reached; I suggest you read it. Also, what do you think these so-called "personal interviews are"; when people are stating things they have been told by others; in the end, it is one author's opinions of hearsay obtained and circumstantial evidence (at best) and conjecture; all which cannot be confirmed and has not been confirmed by any mainline historian. But, I am a reasonable man, so a small addition of a further claim of support of the contention already stated in the article with cited page numbers, which is not like the prior, lengthy addition which gave it WP:UNDUE weight, is something I would consider at this point but await other editors' comments on the talk page to see how consensus goes; but, in the end, it is another WP:fringe theory and I don't want to go down the G. Douglas road as to Muller's fate. Kierzek (talk) 21:58, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Note: I have written my comments on the article talk page which go along the lines of the above. Please write additional comments as to this matter therein. Kierzek (talk) 22:44, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the star (my second, one more and I'll have to make a cabinet). Templates are an animal I'm fond of, nice maps of the overall person and career. Yet the main page on the person, like your JFK page, is the foundation-stone and centerpiece of the same concept. So a template is, to uncoin a phrase, a chip off the old block. And nothing without the block. Thanks again, and appreciated. Randy Kryn 16:19 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Gestapo edits

Today I added some additional content to the most recently edited section of the Gestapo article. Please take a quick moment to QC the edits for clarity and flow when you get a chance. Thanks. --Obenritter (talk) 23:04, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Done and good additional cited information, btw. Cheers, Kierzek (talk) 01:40, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

A bowl of strawberries for you!

Hello, Good to know you are a lawyer too! Happy editing! Sign my Guestbook. The Pakistan (talk) 18:19, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Hello, Good to know you are a lawyer too! Happy editing! Sign my Guestbook.

The Pakistan (talk) 18:21, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, and good editing to you, as well. Kierzek (talk) 19:31, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

WP:ELN

In regards to your comments in User talk:Kierzek/Archive 4#Nazi Germany and Talk:Nazi Germany#Request for opinions: External Links, I am wondering if you might have further input at Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard#spartacus-educational.com. I noted some examples of errors that I found within the website, but another editor implied that they may not be as common elsewhere. Cheers! - Location (talk) 16:40, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

You have done a nice job laying out the problems (by example) with Spartacus. In the end, it is a personal website project without oversight and does not meet WP:RS and has WP:OR issues. Kierzek (talk) 12:52, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Adolf Hitler's adjutants

As you may or may not have noticed, I'm currently in the process of a GA-expanding of Hitler's adjutants article. So far I have arranged all book cites in alphabetic order, added Google Books link, added ISBN's, and retrieved lots of online sources to replace Spartacus, among others. I also added a whole lot more text. I'm not done yet, but if you want to do some ce's accordingly to my edits (as you did previously), then please do so -- after all, we have both spent some time on the article. :) Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 19:33, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Jonas: I did notice and that why I left the suggestions on the talk page. Keep working on it and I will check in when I can. One last suggestion, I don't believe the Google Books links are needed as the referenced books for each have a ISBN number link which readers can click on and then have a choice as to where they want to go to find the cited work; something to consider. Cheers, Kierzek (talk) 01:27, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Kierzek, I just finished a GA-review so I'll get back to the expansion. On second thought, I also agree that Google Books links are somewhat useless when ISBN and all the other information is there. Also, the links I added are to the entire book and not to the pages where the information is, so yea, I'll remove them right away. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 16:30, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Category:SS officers

Hello, again, Kierzek, hope you are doing well. I finished subcatting these. I intend to stop doing work on this type of WikiProject now. - Hoops gza (talk) 00:50, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Okay. Thanks for letting me know. Kierzek (talk) 02:25, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Double Honor Chevron

KZ. if you have access to "Triumph of the Will" please take a close look at the flag bearer as the Leibstandarte marches by at the end parade. The SS member is wearing a double honor chevron! You can see it clearly at this link at 1:28:04 [3]. Any idea the significance? -OberRanks (talk) 23:02, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

There were three SS Ehrenwinkel honor chevrons:

1. One was the Honour Chevron for the Old Guard, (Ehrenwinkel der Alten Kämpfer)

2. One for former Police officers and German Army members

3. One for former members of the Stahlhelm, Bund der Frontsoldaten

As the film shows, an SS member could wear a double sleeve honor chevron at the same time. From what I have read, one could wear either # 1 or # 2 on the upper right arm together with the chevron for SS rank (which would be worn on the lower right arm sleeve). The guy in the film you mention was wearing either # 1 or # 2 on the upper part of the sleeve and been a Sturmmann in SS rank. What do you think? Kierzek (talk) 14:41, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Best guess is an Old Fighter Chevron on top with a Stalhelm veteran chevron on the lower sleeve. The junior enlisted chevron ranks were only (to my knowledge) used on the grey tunic. Very rare to see that actually. -OberRanks (talk) 00:23, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Could be; it is a rare point of discussion. I don't have my Andrew Mollo books on uniforms anymore; I know you have them in the "collected version"; does he mention it? Kierzek (talk) 13:46, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Footnote: I did some further checking - it could not be a sleeve insignia rank chevron, you are right. So, it would have to be an Old Fighter Chevron on top with another honor chevron (given the timeframe, probably a Stalhelm veteran chevron) on the lower sleeve. Kierzek (talk) 21:18, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Adolf Hitler's adjutants

Since I am so busy with winning the GA Cup I will most likely put the GA-expansion of the adjutants-article on standby for a bit. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 23:06, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Okay. Kierzek (talk) 14:41, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Gestapo Artikel

Ich habe gerade einiger relevanten Inhalte an die Gestapo Artikel hinzugefügt. Es braucht ohne Zweifel einige redaktionelle Bereinigung von einem frischen Satz Augen (lach). Wann und wenn Sie Zeit haben - nehmen Sie ein Beil zu ! Auch - es scheint mir, dass das Segment auf der Nürnberger Prozesse sollten bis zum Ende gestoßen werden. Schau mal an, und tun, was getan werden muss. Im Voraus - vielen Dank. --Obenritter (talk) 18:40, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

I will be glad to have a look at it; no need for a hatchet (job). Cheers, Kierzek (talk) 21:58, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Heydrich's nicknames

Greetings, I know it's in the infobox, but shouldn't Heydrich's article state somewhere in the lead that he had several nicknames and then either list them or mention that they are in the infobox? - Hoops gza (talk) 23:50, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Also, I assume that there's no proof that Ludwig was Martin Bormann's middle name? I see that it has been removed from the article. - Hoops gza (talk) 01:25, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I believe Heydrich's so-called nicknames is placed and covered well where it is currently located; but if you feel strongly about it, you can mention it on the talkpage. As for Bormann, it cannot be confirmed. Cheers, Kierzek (talk) 13:44, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. - Hoops gza (talk) 17:11, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

New articles

Check out my new articles at your whim!

• Horst Böhme (SS officer)
• Heinrich Seetzen
• Walter Kutschmann

- Hoops gza (talk) 04:17, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

I will; thanks, Kierzek (talk) 11:18, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Done. Kierzek (talk) 21:04, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

1940 F.M.C

Looking at List of German field marshals and specifically noticing the dates, one can see that the 1940 F.M.C was not only the biggest field marshal promotion of World War II, but also the biggest field marshal promotion of German military history! Even more interesting, not all countries have or had the field marshal rank. Maybe it's the biggest field marshal promotion in military history! What's your take on this? Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 17:31, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

I would assume so. Kierzek (talk) 14:40, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Mustering SS Formations during WWII

KZ, pretty big mystery I was hoping to get your input. Funny, also, I'm bending my contract rules by talking about this on Wikipedia since its a major topic in my pending book. Anyway... Have you ever seen a photograph of a mustering SS unit during World War II wearing the Allgemeine-SS grey wartime uniform with pre-war General-SS insignia normally worn only on the black uniform. For instance, someone in the 77th SS-Standarten wearing a "77" on the collar of the grey jacket or a cuffband with the company number and colored pipping that indicates battalion affiliation. My research has turned up something pretty interesting - there appears to be no record of any mustering SS unit wearing the grey uniform. The only photos I've ever found have been Abschnitt staff members wearing the grey uniform with a bare collar tab. Thoughts? Thanks! -OberRanks (talk) 15:29, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

It could have been a mustering of some SS members who were "part time billets". As you know the Standarte numbers were used by the pre-war SS; so that is odd. As you know, full-time SS were regularly issued uniforms but part-timers had to purchase items (unless lost or damaged in the line of duty). Since, the photo is of Allgemeine-SS in the pale grey uniform, it was probably that way because: 1) ceremonial occasion of Allgemeine-SS, who's uniform requirements were not such a priority during the war, in general; 2) part-time members who were in a mustering.

I would check Mollo and if you have access: Angolia, John (1989). Cloth Insignia of the SS, R. James Bender Publishing. ISBN 978-0912138282. I unfortunately, don't own that great detailed tome anymore. What do you think? Kierzek (talk) 21:48, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Mollo's work (the man was a genius) gives some very fascinating info about the Main Offices and the Allgemeine-SS use of the grey uniform during World War II; however, he speaks not a word about the mustering formations. I have found some photos from 1944 showing guys standing around in the black uniform - two and a half years after Himmler ordered it discontinued. Part time mustering units during wartime were also kind of sneered at as shirkers - amazingly enough, and people in fact did not want to be seen in the black uniform since it meant they weren't serving in full time war duties. I think the option was to wear a grey uniform with a blank collar tab like I saw in the Abschnitt staff photo. Well - it will be in my book. -OberRanks (talk) 21:49, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I know the black uniform was no longer seen as a "badge of honor" during the war for the reasons stated. It would seem logical that it was a muster of part-time members for what you have described. BTW- as great as Mollo's work is, I do highly recommend you get Angolia's as well. Put it down as a business expense. Kierzek (talk) 22:22, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

1940 FMC

The GA-reviewer request we merge the field marshal and 20 July plot section together, but I don't quite see how all that could be arranged. Any ideas? Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 16:52, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't have time to do it right now, but what needs done is connector sentences between the two sections. Start with the additional promotions part and go on to state that Hitler's involvement in the war effort deepened as the war went on; especially after appointing himself commander in chief of the army in December 1941; from that point forward he personally directed the war against the Soviet Union, while his military commanders facing the western Allies retained a degree of autonomy.(Kershaw (2012) pp. 169–170) Hitler's leadership became increasingly disconnected from reality as the war turned against Germany, with the military's defensive strategies often hindered by his slow decision making and frequent directives to hold untenable positions.(Overy (2005) pp. 421–425). Then put in about the opposition and the 20 July plot and outcome for the field marshal's who were involved. (BTW-for book cites above - see Hitler article). This are some ideas to consider. Kierzek (talk) 17:06, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Excellent points - I will edit according them tomorrow, as its pretty late for me right now. Cheers. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 01:16, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

The other option is to make it a foot note as to the ones (FMs) who were promoted on the date in question and at the event which is the subject of the article. Kierzek (talk) 20:21, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

What do you think about changing "20 July plot" to "Aftermath" and then, very briefly, mention what role each field marshal played throughout the rest of the war and make some sub-sections like "20 July plot"? Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 17:06, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

You could try that; just remember to put in connector/transition sentences as to the FMs who were promoted on that date and at that event; keep it tight and focused so it does not get too remote or off topic, per the article GA page suggestions. Kierzek (talk) 17:35, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Kierzek, take a look at "The ceremony" section. I tried a new idea - what's your thoughts on that? Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 17:46, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

The problem with the new statement added: "...which all had played a compelling role in the victory." How did they do that? It is not explained; I would also take out the word "compelling". Kierzek (talk) 18:57, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

OK, will take out compelling. I suppose instead of just writing "Colonel General Walther von Brauchitsch" I could write "Colonel General Walther von Brauchitsch, overall in charge of the army" and very briefly mention what role all the others played. Or I could just remove "which all had played a compelling role in the victory", even though I think it's obvious they played a compelling role as they were promoted. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 21:12, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

OK, three new major updates. One, I have removed the "the number of promotions were unexpected" as I, after second thought, didn't think it was that important; if you disagree feel free to add it back. Two, I have expanded the lead to make sure it summed up the article properly. Three, I have, as discussed, replaced the "20 July plot" section with an "Aftermath" section which briefly describes the future of each field marshal. I would like your thoughts on these updates and appreciate some ce's. Cheers. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 02:11, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Have a look, I did some ce work. I believe the "Aftermath" may need a little more work. State with a transition sentence how the tide of the war turned against Germany and that feeds into what happened to those promoted. But be brief. Something like this: In 1943, after a series of German defeats on the Eastern Front, the Allied invasion of Italy which brought about Italian surrender, the German military lost all initiative. Hitler's leadership became increasingly disconnected from reality as the war turned against Germany, with the military's defensive strategies often hindered by his slow decision making and frequent directives to hold untenable positions.(Overy (2005) pp. 421–425). Then add the rest... Kierzek (talk) 14:40, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Good idea. Between the these-generals-would-all-play-a-major-part-in-Barbarossa and Witzleben-and-Kluge-20-July-plot parts I have added this: "In 1943, after a series of German defeats on the Eastern Front, and the Allied invasion of Italy, the German military lost all initiative.(Rees 2012) Hitler's leadership became increasingly disconnected from reality as the war turned against Germany, with the military's defensive strategies often hindered by his slow decision making and frequent directives to hold untenable positions.(Rees 2012) His response to the worsening war situation was to unceremoniously sack general after general, a routine which ultimately effected all field marshals.(Rees 2012)" Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 13:55, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Okay, but about this sentence: "a routine which ultimately effected all field marshals"; might it be better to mention briefly how it affected the ones promoted that day. Kierzek (talk) 14:06, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

You're right, will rephrase it. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 15:05, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

It now reads: "a routine which ultimately effected all field marshals promoted at the ceremony". Also, do you think the Aftermath section needs a paragraph or two? Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 15:08, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

A brief mention of how it affected the FM promoted that day (since you have written it effected all of them); you already have a mention of the 20 July FM's. But don't push it and go off topic; keep it tight. Kierzek (talk) 15:12, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

OK, I guess that sums up the improvement/expansion. Will inform the GA-reviewer we are ready for he's judgment. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 15:14, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

See above and consider it further. I tweaked the sentence to: "a routine which ultimately affected the field marshals promoted at the ceremony"; you can ask the reviewer but he may want to briefly know what happened - maybe in a footnote. Kierzek (talk) 18:47, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Nick-D has noticed the "Aftermath" section does not mention that several of these generals would go on to commit serious war crimes. Will add some info about that - your input is welcome. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 15:13, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, well certainly that is something to briefly add into that section. The general reader will want to know what, in brief detail, happened to the ones promoted after the "event", as I have stated and we have discussed. Kierzek (talk) 16:12, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

I've got writers block! I cant figure out what wording to use regarding the war crimes-thing nor where to place it. In fact, I've asked the GA-reviewer to fail the article as I, after reading it through thoroughly, believe the article needs much more work. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 18:42, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Well, you can always have another go at it, if you wish, in the future. Kierzek (talk) 17:12, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, of course, I intend to finish the article at some point. Right now, I think I'll go back to the GA-expansion of Hitler's adjutants. I think that's closer to the criteria and will be relatively easier. I trust you will do some ce's if you see the need for it. And cheers for all the help on 1940 FMC. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 00:56, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Richard Wagner

He is not mentioned once in Hitler's article. I'm guessing that this matter has already been discussed somewhere ad nauseum? - Hoops gza (talk) 08:20, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

I know he is discussed, for example, in Political views of Adolf Hitler. I have to go for now, but you could add him as a See also, if you wish. Kierzek (talk) 15:29, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Himmler

Do you think it would be possible to create a Category:Personal staff of Heinrich Himmler, or would that be a little too complicated? - Hoops gza (talk) 21:23, 3 December 2014 (UTC) I think it would be around ten people in the category. - Hoops gza (talk) 00:51, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

You could but there would not be a lot there; lets see: Karl Wolff; Hedwig Potthast - secretary/mistress; Karl Gebhardt; Werner Grothmann; Heinz Macher; Walter Schellenberg; Maximilian von Herff; Felix Kersten. - Kierzek (talk) 00:54, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Jochen Peiper, Hermann Gauch. - Hoops gza (talk) 01:00, 4 December 2014 (UTC) How could we forget Rudolf Brandt and Karl Maria Wiligut? - Hoops gza (talk) 01:02, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

I did think about Peiper-I guess so; Brandt should be included; I must say that I feel much stronger about leaving off: Karl Maria Wiligut and Hugo Blaschke - who frankly was as much or more Hitler's dentist and dental surgeon than Himmler's or even Martin Bormann's. Kierzek (talk) 01:09, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

It is done. I created a subcat that is perhaps best to empty into the parent and delete. What do you think? - Hoops gza (talk) 02:27, 4 December 2014 (UTC) By the way, Karl Wolff does not have a category linking him with Hitler. - Hoops gza (talk) 02:32, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

I am not sure what you mean by, "...to empty into the parent and delete". If you mean, removing them from the main Cat:Heinrich Himmler, then that is okay. As for Wolff, there is no reason for him to be linked to Hitler, really. Himmler is the one to link to him. Where it gets harder is someone like Hermann Fegelein (he was part of Hitler's entourage and brother-in-law to Eva Braun through his marriage to her sister, Gretl Braun, but also best known for being Himmler's liaison officer and representative of the SS at the FHQ. Kierzek (talk) 14:07, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Don't worry about it. Thanks for commending me. I think I shall be done with biographies on these people, though a couple more articles still to come. - Hoops gza (talk) 01:50, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Okay. If you want me "to eye-ball" any of them for copy edit review, just let me know. Cheers, Kierzek (talk) 14:32, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Fegelein ranks

I answered on the talk page. You are correct, I failed to understand that he held two different ranks in the Allgemeine SS and Waffen SS. I had to re-read my source to fully comprehend this. Sorry MisterBee1966 (talk) 14:14, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

No problem; it can get tricky with some SS members who were both in the Allgemeine SS and Waffen-SS. Cheers, Kierzek (talk) 14:27, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

I think I fixed it MisterBee1966 (talk) 11:11, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Precious again

justice
Thank you for quality articles and contributions as a member of the German military history task force, such as Heinrich Himmler, and for doing justice to editors, - you are an awesome Wikipedian! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:45, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Two years ago, you were the 336th recipient of my PumpkinSky Prize, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:32, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, again. Kierzek (talk) 14:01, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Shirer

Shirer had access to a vast archive. Just because YOU consider him dated doesn't mean he is. And, 19 million is a gross exaggeration. 20 million was the total sum of Soviet casualties, be it KIA/MIA both military and civilian.Historycurious (talk) 15:24, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Edit: I'll give you the latest figures for that, from a "non outdated source", since you're rather picky in that regard ;-) Historycurious (talk) 15:29, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply, but please do post this to the talk page of the article for discussion with the other regular editors, as well. Nothing personal, but as for Shirer his book was published 50 years ago and before the Soviet archives were opened up. Further, as for Soviets casualties: The Soviet Union lost around 27 million people during the war, including 8.7 million military and 19 million civilian deaths. But, just take it to the talk page and it can be discussed therein. Thanks, Kierzek (talk) 17:30, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Ok, but out of curiosity, where did you get that exaggerated sum? (I'm not criticising,just seems over the top.) In every single history book I've read, the admitted figure of Soviet Killed/missing is circa 20 million.Historycurious (talk) 20:47, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Well as you know, it is not an exact science, estimates are what is used. The figure of 26.6 million Soviet war dead is most commonly cited by historians for World War II. Various sources published in Russia during the "Glasnost era" estimated from 21.8 million up to 46.0 million total war dead. The figure of 26.6 million war dead is from a study published by the Russian Academy of Sciences in 1993 that estimated total population losses from mid-1941 to 1945. This is the official Russian government figure. Also see: David M. Glantz and G. F. Krivosheev works (books listed in my Library section on user page link).

Approximately six million European Jews were Holocaust victims. Martin Gilbert estimates 5.7 million (78%) of the 7.3 million Jews in German occupied Europe were victims. The United States Holocaust Memorial Museum estimates Holocaust deaths in the range of 4.9 to 6.0 million Jews. Historian Richard J. Evans lists the range as between 5.5 to 6 million Jews (representing two-thirds of the Jewish population of Europe). For non-Jews, total number of Holocaust victims is in the range of 11 million and 17 million people. Kierzek (talk) 14:31, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

"And God bless us, every one"

Merry Christmas my friend. All the best to you and your family. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 21:47, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, same to you; have a relaxing holiday. Cheers, Kierzek (talk) 22:05, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Best wishes for a happy holiday season

		Happy Holiday Cheer
		Season's Greetings! This message celebrates the holiday season, promotes WikiLove, and hopefully makes your day a little better. Spread the seasonal good cheer by wishing another user an Awesome Holiday and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone with whom you had disagreements in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Share the good feelings! Joys! Diannaa (talk) 23:49, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks and again I hope your holiday is a good one. Kierzek (talk) 15:29, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Frohe Weihnachten to you too!

Many thanks for the good wishes, Kierzek, and very Happy Holidays to you too! Keep up the excellent work--I'll try to chip in more when my brain recovers from short nights and long works days ;). All the best, Malljaja (talk) 02:19, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Glad to hear from you! Get some rest and then come back around with your ce skills; lots to do around here. Kierzek (talk) 15:31, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks!! (JFK's Berlin Speech Photo, "Backwards")

Hi, Kierzek, I just posted this on the John F. Kennedy "talk" page, but I wanted to thank you directly, also. Thanks, Guys!! Thanks for getting JFK's Berlin Speech photo "flip-flopped," especially so fast!! (His hair part, not to mention his breast-pocket handkerchief.) So, I went to the article's edit section (the West Berlin Speech section) and "flip-flopped" the photo in the article, also. Now, I need to see about his photo "facing in." Take care, Rob Thanks again, Rob BeatlesVox (talk) 00:50, 26 December 2014 (UTC) P.S. I meant WEST Berlin, of course.  :-O BeatlesVox (talk) 01:06, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Rob, keep up the good work. Cheers, Kierzek (talk) 16:57, 26 December 2014 (UTC)