User talk:Elinruby/Archives/2023/June

Talk:The Holocaust in Poland
Hi Elinruby, I'm reaching out to again express concerns about the level of discourse at the talk page, such as string me up right now!, Scratch the hanging, obviously I need to be burned at the stake! etc. I'm sorry you feel attacked but I'm not getting this read at all. What's more concerning is the borderline accusation of atrocity denial: Apparently, if the victims weren't Jewish it doesn't count.

The latest comment is deeply personal and discusses, across multiple paragraphs, the contributor, not the content:. Would you consider toning the posts down/refactoring them? -- K.e.coffman (talk) 00:11, 12 June 2023 (UTC)


 * In short, no. I am discussing unacceptable behaviour, as you think you are doing here. I could enumerate Buidhe's behaviour, but all that would do is enable your failure to read the actual dispute, where I have tried lo these many times to assume good faith. I am sure an ideal editor would assume good faith even in the face of a party to an Arbcom case about the Holocaust in Poland claiming that there are no sources for the Holocaust in Poland. Hell, *I* might be able to if the conversation hadn't started with how I obviously not competent because I didn't give her a contentious topics warning (even though she had already marked herself aware). I am concerned that you plan to do what you did at Torture in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, ie parachute into a dispute of which you know nothing, and take random measures that help not at all.
 * AGF goes both ways, you know. Maybe you could ask Buidhe to consider that she can occasionally be wrong, as when she reverts corrections to her English. Despite this ridiculous post I am still neutral on the subject of rewriting the Holocaust top to bottom; I just don't think that this should be decided by Buidhe alone according to some notion of 'quality' that can't be defined except by Buidhe.
 * That said, I've been quite ill for several days and have just now come back into Wikipedia. If progress has been made in my absence then yay. I'm pretty skeptical though. Most likely this will need to go back to AE. Elinruby (talk) 08:06, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Oppidum of Moulay
Hello, Elinruby. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Oppidum of Moulay, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again&#32;or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 00:04, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Unclear
https://www.straitstimes.com/business/sembmarine-unit-s-alleged-irregularities-linked-to-brazil-s-operation-car-wash Elinruby (talk) 09:18, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Chateau de Meudon
somebody took off the copy-edit tag; they were pretty wrong about that Elinruby (talk) 20:42, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Brazilian criminal justice
I've got a project suggestion that I think would be ideal for you, would keep you busy for a while, as well as fill a gap in our coverage, as we have nothing on Brazilian criminal justice.

This idea came to me following your 'thanks' at Examining magistrate, which led me to look down the article, where I realized that the section says nothing about Brazil at all. That led me to wonder if we have an article about Brazilian examining magistrates that we could summarize in that section, so I looked for Examining magistrate (Brazil) or Investigating judge (Brazil) or some such, but no luck. So then I wondered if Brazil even has an inquisitorial system at all. So then I checked Judiiciary of Brazil, and there's precious little about the criminal justice system per se, the strings  and   don't appear in the article, and there's virtually no coverage of criminal justice. So I did a very brief search, and came up with The Criminal Justice System In Brazil: A Brief Account, and it seems they have a hybrid, inquisitorial/adversarial system, and that article doesn't mention investigating judge, either. Anyway, unless I'm missing an entire article under some other title (but I don't think so), there's a big gap in our coverage that could be filled with an article on Brazilian criminal justice. That would be a great addition to the encyclopedia, and a really interesting research subject. We've already got the Brazil glossary as a starting point for terminology support, so that could help.

As for me, I'm back after vacay, and had a longer than expected de-jet-lagging after, during which I've been mindlessly wikignoming here and there, but now I need to get back to expanding French criminal law and filling in the rest of the red links at the nav template French criminal law (and I've got Draft:French historiography lurking in the background). So, I can't take the lead on a new article focused on Brazil, but I think you're the perfect person for it, and if you want to take it on the lead content-creation role, I can give ongoing support in four areas: 1) creation of a skeleton Draft page (i.e., just the scaffolding: top and bottom matter, and a proposed section structure (something like what you see at this page in support of War guilt question); 2) glossary support (I can research and expand it with new terms you run across from Brazilian Portuguese pages on criminal law) so you can concentrate on content creation and not on chasing down obscure stuff like condução coercitiva; 3) a nav template, analogous to French criminal law, maybe broader, so perhaps Brazilian justice or Brazilian law, where one of the horizontal groups could be devoted to criminal law; and since I love search, if you can't find much on a particular subtopic, I can try to locate some reliable sources for you.

Tempted? I hope so, because I'd love to see you take this on, and if you do, I can create a Draft scaffold for you within the day, if you wish. I think this could be a fun topic, and a great collaboration. Lmk your thoughts. Mathglot (talk) 17:23, 23 June 2023 (UTC)


 * I am interested. I actually got into this whole thing because I went from Panama Papers to this juicy-looking stuff about money-laundering in Brazil, and wait the terminology doesn't match our articles and slowly realized to my horror that yeah, none of the terminology matched our jurisprudence and aha there was an Empire of Brazil once, headed by a Bonaparte. Anyway, I think we do have to individually approach the individual hybrid systems separately (the ones that are important enough) because of the separate historical factors of each...Louisiana for example has elements of French law but is not codified, and while invading Russia apparently Napoleon set up this whole Duchy of Warsaw administration on his way through. and Volunteer Marek told me that despite being a foreign invading despot he was is to this day pretty popular with the Polish population because he brought constitutional law and therefore was an improvement over the Russians. And I keep finding journal articles about a civil law system in New France. TL;DR yes please do but I think I should also slowly chip away at French administrative law because if as seems likely it was the original template it's actually still needed even more than I thought.
 * By the way, I spent some happy time referencing at Napoleonic code last night, which appears to have been machine-translated by a semi-smart WikiEdu group that at least realized that they weren't in common law anymore, Toto, but had absolutely no idea about the French Consulate, the Directoire or any of the other history of the period. I am telling you about this not to give you nightmares but to point out the rather interesting effects on document maintenance when your legal system is becoming a database. Apparently there will be no new codes. I will ping you when I come back across that again. I also want to add the laws on the status of Jews to the administrative law glossary...
 * A related question that I have been meaning to ask you: On one of the early Vichy articles, a bio of a police official I think, wasn't there some discussion of an elaborate system of paper files that made it easier to organize and carry out a rafle? Wondering how this fit with the punch card systems that IBM sold to the Nazis. Elinruby (talk) 18:16, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
 * PS - You might want to look: I rewrote the scope section of the administrative law section to exclude both non-French civil law and the flurry of discussions surrounding the concordance of the Napoleonic code into European Union law. As far as I know a lot of the discussion was around the rights of terrorism suspects but that does include pertinent matters like regulation of intelligence agencies, immigration and refugee law etc. Notable but excluded for modality purposes Elinruby (talk) 18:30, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Cool; I'll start working on a Draft skeleton. (Spoiler: actually, I already have started; I got energized by my own post, and began looking at it, and am coming up with a proposed structure.) Will get back to you before eod today. Will respond to other points after I do, but as to your last question, I don't recall the system of paper files for the rafles, but I'm pretty sure that the Green ticket roundup had to have been done that way, because it wasn't a "random street roundup" the way many of the others were, but had a predetermined hit list, so that list had to come from somewhere, and may fit what you are talking about. The other ones, which just grabbed people off the street who were in the wrong place at the wrong time, didn't need to have that level of paper prep, at least not before the fact.
 * Interesting stuff you came up with wrt the relevance of the Admin law glossary for the non-France parts of the world that may have been influenced by that; also, I think the scope change is fine, as long as it's clear what's in, and what's out. (Btw, I should add that I just got a "draft warning" on my UTP for the Compact TOC template that is part of the draft Admin glossary; that either needs to be updated once every 6 months-minus-one-day, or it will get deleted; otherwise, we can just import the content of the template directly into the glossary at each letter tab. The point is, if you ever notice that the Admin glossary has a couple dozen red error messages warning of a non-existing template, that means I forgot to diddle the Compact TOC draft template, and it got deleted. (See bottom of my UTP for the warning message.)
 * P.s. I screwed up the link to the Brazil glossary; it's at WP:Brazil-G. (A reduced version of that in Mainspace is at Glossary of Brazil investigative terms.Mathglot (talk) 19:35, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Also: Napoleon never invaded Poland, he only invaded states that occupied Poland. Hence many Poles saw him as an ally and liberator. Napoleon, of course, saw Poles only as useful tools, but well, it was an alliance of convinience, with Poland being a junior partner here.
 * One can speculate what would happen if thsoe states allied during the French revolution era, when they nearly simoultanesly passed liberal constutions, among the first in the world (first three, IIRC, counting the American one). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 07:12, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Afaik the US was first and the French were second. Or such was the history I learned in France and the US, and as I recall French history at the.high school level didn't have much to say about the Americans, lol. If you're saying Poland was third, that's quite interesting and I would like to see that included in Napoleonic Code at some point. Feel free to send any references this way if you encounter them in your travels. There may well have been a missed opportunity for human rights, but the British in particular.saw him as a rampaging threat to business as usual because of course they were a monarchy... By the way have they decided yet that there was no such thing as Poland in World War II? Curious what this does to the topic bans &lt;g>
 * Elinruby (talk) Elinruby (talk) 11:22, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Created a skeleton at Draft:Brazilian criminal justice. It's full of "Empty section banners" (I can make them smaller and less obtrusive, if it's distracting) but don't ignore them, because I added "find sources" links in Portuguese to about 90% of them, and they should be really helpful in finding sources (in Portuguese) for those sections. For finding English sources, just search the section names. Feel free to slash and burn, or reorganize as seems necessary or advisable. Let's use the Talk page for questions about Brazilian terms that need attention, or just add them to WT:Brazil-G and ping me from there, and I'll add them. Once it becomes clearer what the constellation of related articles is, I can create a Brazilian criminal justice nav template for them as well. Let's do this! Mathglot (talk) 07:35, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
 * By the way, don't get daunted by the length of the skeleton. I wanted to get everything out there at first, so we can refer to it later, but now that it's out there in the history, if we want to go with a much shorter article with just a few sections, or even a stub, just to get something out there in mainspace, I'm fine with that. By no means do I think that all those sections need to filled out; or even most of them. So, take control of it, and do whatever you feel is right for an initial version, and we can always fill out the other sections later. Mathglot (talk) 08:24, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
 * ok. Next deep dive will be this and Vichy/Collaboration Elinruby (talk) 11:24, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
 * PS - didn't you make a start at this once? Elinruby (talk) 11:50, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Not really, but I have various templates offline (by which I mean, boilerplate, copy-paste text files, not Wiki-templates) which I can copy and alter to quickly come up with new article skeletons in certain areas, mostly French and WW2 history, but also a few others, including Brazil ones which came out of our work on OCW. After that, it's some judicious use of advanced search to see what we have already and organize it, and of DeepL (or Wikidata language links) to come up with the pt-BR equivalents and add them either to the "find sources" links (currently embedded in the Empty section banners), and the Further ill links for subtopics which exist on pt-wiki but not on en-wiki (haven't added those yet). As in the case of French criminal law, it's at the tip of a pyramid of topics about Brazilian law that could be written on en-wiki, if there's an appetite for it, but at least this one topic would be a good start, and be an incubator for new articles if this one got long and needed to be split per WP:SS. Mathglot (talk) 17:35, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Completely off-the-wall but perhaps tangentially relevant: Brazil has a special judiciary (independent of the executive, the legislatures, the states and the government bureaucracy) just to manage elections; for example, a novice election judge might begin by accompanying a ballot box or booth upriver to some remote settlement. —— Shakescene (talk) 18:51, 24 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Yes, note there is already a section (empty, like all of them) at the draft; see Draft:Brazilian criminal justice. You'll see from the Main links there, that we already have two articles about it: Superior Electoral Court and Regional Electoral Courts, as well as links to find more Portuguese sources below that. Feel free to start adding content to this section (or any other); that's what the draft is for.
 * Also, as this TP section was a proposal to kick-start and get this project going, and that's been achieved, now, so I think that further discussion about the draft (including follow-up from this question) should really take place at Draft talk:Brazilian criminal justice. Mathglot (talk) 19:04, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
 * yeah corruption is so rampant they really need it. Come join the party! There's probably a fresh crop in the news for List of scandals in Brazil, also Elinruby (talk) 19:19, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

I was looking at the Judiciary of Brazil article, which has some awful translation in it, and had an opaque section organization. I've started to fix the latter (see Talk:Judiciary of Brazil for rationale), and some of the translation problems, and listed it at WP:PNT for further attention. Also, I've been working on Template:Courts of Brazil diagram, which has helped me understand the court system a lot better. Mathglot (talk) 08:38, 27 June 2023 (UTC)


 * thanks. I looked at that article and found it, to put it mildly, quite unhelpful. I put some work into the draft and the List of scandals article. The former is still very much in chaos mode, but I found and added some good links. I really appreciated some of your section headers once I started to work with them btw, especially drugs and organized crime, which I should have realized would be a thing, but didn't somehow. In other news I found a bunch more bribery/kickback articles. Surprise! Elinruby (talk) 08:50, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Absolutely unhelpful; would read several paragraphs or a few sections, and still couldn't understand the basics of the Brazilian judiciary. The current section structure *suggests* what the structure must be, but the content is still pretty much what it always was, with maybe a bit of cleaned-up translation, so the content still needs an overhaul to make the article comprehensible. The table has helped me understand, but the links still go to articles that are not very good, so they need cleanup, too. I've noticed you starting on the Draft, and am excited to see it starting to expand.  Ha ha, yeah, big surprise! Mathglot (talk) 08:58, 27 June 2023 (UTC)