User talk:Joel Mc

Good work on the "humanitarian principles" article. Be careful to use sources and not stray into the dreaded "Original Research". Thanks for your help! yandman 10:13, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Disabling link to www.deathcamps.org/occupation/ghettolist.htm
Hi. I responded to your question -- see my talk page. --A. B. (talk) 03:32, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Hä??
Was there a reason for this? I don't really mind, just curious.--Weltweltwelt 16:23, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi Weltweltwelt. Not sure about your question.  This is what I posted on the talk page on 24 April 2007 after I followed your link to Granta:
 * Thanks for the reference. I was able to download it today. Fascinating.--Joel Mc 09:05, 24 April 2007 (UTC)--Joel Mc 07:13, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

You erased my last edit when you posted:
 * I saved the article on my harddrive. Give me a message if you need it!--Weltweltwelt 07:59, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

but nevermind.--Weltweltwelt 07:48, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * So sorry, it is a mystery to me how it happened. I reverted.  I must stop being in a hurry.  Thanks for what I found to be an interesting article, certainly to be followed up on.  Cheers--Joel Mc 09:51, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Alright. I myself am kind of new to this. And thank you for the flowers!--Weltweltwelt 20:45, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Help?
If you have ten minutes: could you maybe read this article I just created and check it for any grammar, vocabulary etc. mistakes? I nominated it for the "did you know" page. I guess he is kind of interesting, also for you to read. --Weltweltwelt 14:53, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I have just seen this (coming back from a dinner party) and am most happy to check it out in the next day or so. I am off on a trip tomorrow and will try to look at it before I leave.  --Joel Mc 20:02, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I posted on your user page, but here it is again:

Klaus Traube
Hear is my promised response. The rather unusal nature of this response--usually I just would have gone directly to the page--is due to the fact that during the next two weeks I am in a small village in So. France and have difficulty (so far) getting access to an ADSL line. I am putting below my lightly edited version--you really don't need much correcting of grammar or spelling etc. You can just cut and paste from it. I have indicated questions between €€€s.

My short experience tells me that you will probably find the article tagged by a bot to "wikify" it. As far as I can tell this has mainly to due with putting sections and categories. (You could go to earlier versions of the pages I put up: either SCHR or Red Cross NGO Code of Conduct--I am not sure which was was the first--to see what I did to take the tag off.)

As promised, I found the article interesting and look forward to more of the same.

Klaus Traube (born 1928) is a former manager in the German nuclear power industry and today one of its leading opponents. He also became known as a victim of an illegal eavesdropping operation by the BND because he was falsely suspected of sympathizing with terrorism, notably the Red Army Fraction.

Klaus Traube was born in 1928 in Hannover, the son of a Jewish dentist. In 1938 his father, a social democrat, committed suicide because he could no longer bear the terror of the National Socialists. Klaus Traube had to leave the Gymnasium he attended because of his Jewish background. Towards the end of World War II at the age of 17 he himself was briefly put into an Arbeitslager (labor camp).

After the war Traube stayed in Germany despite his bad experiences and studied mechanical engineering (Maschinenbau) and romance studies. He started his career at the German AEG where he quickly rose to become director of the department for nuclear power. After living abroad for some time he (he worked for General Dynamics in San Diego) he returned and became head of Interatom, a company that was a member of the Kraftwerk Union, part of the Siemens conglomerate. Among other things he was responsible for the developement of the German fast breeder-project in Kalkar.

Originally a proponent of nuclear power the report of the Club of Rome, Limits to Growth, in 1972 made him slowly change his view. Because of his resulting contacts with the student movement in Germany, which at that time was slowly becoming more militant, and especialy because of contacts with the Red Army Fraction, the BND (the German secret service) started to monitor him intensively. Because he was suspected to have passed secret information to opponents of nuclear power he was labeled the "biggest security threat of Western Germany" ("größtes Sicherheitsproblem der Bundesrepublik")€€€by whom???€€€. In a covert operation called "Operation Müll" ("operation trash") the BND in 1975 planted a number of wiretaps in Traube's appartement and later informed his employer who as a result fired him. This illegal operation was uncovered in 1977 by the newspaper "Der Spiegel" and led to the demission of the then minister of the interior Werner Maihofer one year later. Traube was cleared of all charges. The "Three Mile Island" incident in 1979 finally transformed him into an open opposition to nuclear power.

Since than he has been one of the most prominent and influential critics of nuclear power. Traube does not believe that the operation of nuclear power plants is economically feasible or that it is possible to overcome the security risks. Also the construction of fast breeders, that are essential for a long term use of nuclear power, is in his view too difficult to be realistic. He is a strong supporter of renewable energy. During the 80s Traube has achieved iconic status among German opponents to nuclear power. From 1990 to 1997 he was director of the institute for energy-economics and -politics at the University of Bremen.


 * Thank you a lot. I integrated that in the article yesterday! I didn't find out who exactly called him "biggest security threat". I think it was the BND, but removed it because i'm not sure. --Weltweltwelt 11:12, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Image:Dachau cold water immersion.jpg
Hello, Joel Mc. An automated process has found and removed an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, and thus is being used under fair use that was in your userspace. The image (Image:Dachau cold water immersion.jpg) was found at the following location: User:Joel Mc/Holocaust section. This image or media was attempted to be removed per criterion number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media was replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg, so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. Please find a free image or    media to replace it with, and or remove the image from your userspace. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 23:30, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:RomanichildrenAuschwitz.jpg
Hello Joel Mc, an automated process has found an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, such as fair use. The image (Image:RomanichildrenAuschwitz.jpg) was found at the following location: User:Joel Mc/Holocaust section. This image or media will be removed per statement number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media will be replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg, so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. The image that was replaced will not be automatically deleted, but it could be deleted at a later date. Articles using the same image should not be affected by my edits. I ask you to please not readd the image to your userpage and could consider finding a replacement image licensed under either the Creative Commons or GFDL license or released to the public domain. Thanks for your attention and cooperation. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 07:39, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Holocaust dispute
Thanks, Dreadstar, for slowing this thing down. This is the second time I had to wade my way through a huge number of small edits, done seconds apart. It is not conducive to a reflective response. --Joel Mc 20:30, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * You're welcome Joel! I'm glad I could help out.  I've been trying to get Hanzo to understand that edits with a large number of changes, as well as throwing a slew of fast-paced smaller ones is not the most desirable editing style..especially on high-profile or contentious articles.  And edit-warring to keep disputed edits in...well, that's absolutely terrible.  This is not the only article he's been doing this on, check this out.  And hey, thanks again for the supportive words..those kinds of battles can wear ya down!  – Dreadstar  †  01:32, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

"Buddhism" Article Dispute
Hallo Joel Mc. I really like what you have written on the "Buddhism" Discussion Page. I totally agree with you. Thanks for saying what you said. Stay well and happy. Warm wishes to you. From Tony. TonyMPNS 18:49, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Your note
Hi Joel, it might be a good idea to e-mail Mike Godwin to ask why he made that edit. Certainly, we need sources for contentious BLP material. Sometimes, with BLPs who are borderline notable, we've been known to remove certain sources, because they paint the person in such a poor light. But where the subject is a public person, and there is a lot of other material known about him to balance any negativity, and where the negative material has been so prominently published by very reliable sources, the sources really ought to be included so the reader can learn more. But Mike is likely to have reasons we're unaware of for having made that edit, so in your shoes, I would ask him offwiki. SlimVirgin (talk) (contribs) 18:02, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Holocaust
Would you be willing to work with me to clean up the section on non-Jewish victims? My literary skills are in need of improvement. I just crunch numbers for a living.--Woogie10w (talk) 15:51, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Ruud Lubbers
Yes, this has been protected for too long. I will make enquiries. Rich Farmbrough, 10:28 12 March 2008 (GMT).

Blacklisted Cathar link
I don't know why it was blacklisted, but there should have been something about it in the blacklist archive. I'd assume that it is because of the poor referencing, though. MSJapan (talk) 17:26, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * After a little more digging, while I still can't find the discussion either, the cathar addy redirects to another site, and that site is clearly designed as a tourism resource (as stated in their about page), and is thus likely commercial/adspam. MSJapan (talk) 18:16, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Sarah Gordon
Could you write what did she wrote exactly. I have experience with Stork's edit that they often imply his views rather then authors.--Molobo (talk) 23:10, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

International Humanitarian Law
I think the article is missing a section on humanitarian law (its developments) pre-Geneva Conventions and WWII). I did some work on War rape and the section "Humanitarian law prior to World War II" might provide some inspirations. It appears that some of the great philosophers and jurists that helped establish humanitarian law, as well as some of the pre-Geneva Conventions War Codes already have their own Wikiarticles, so a pre-Geneva Conventions section in the humanitarian law article would pull this all together nicely... I don’t think I will have the time to write such a section in the near future, but you might be interested. --SasiSasi (talk) 12:32, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I will try and follow up your suggestions after reading your recent edits. --Joel Mc (talk) 15:36, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Many Thanks
Your answer is much welcomed. I always feel saddened that such gems as your knowledge are usually lost in the sea of Wikipedia(especially in historic/political articles). Anyway, my best regards.

--Molobo (talk) 17:09, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Les Bienveillantes
I don't really see the point in keeping reviews as external links. Just integrate them in the article if you think that they are relevant. The link to Karp's review - which is already cited as a reference - does not even work! About the article to Haaretz, it's already mentioned as a reference, so I don't think there is any point in mentioning it again as an external link. Thanks. Evenfiel (talk) 02:34, 8 March 2009 (UTC)


 * A separate section with every link that was used in the article seems unnecessary to me, specially if you take into account that some articles can have a lot of references. Mentioning all of them would lead to a giant link section. Evenfiel (talk) 22:35, 8 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Fine, but we should add every review then, not just one or another.Evenfiel (talk) 16:40, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! I know it's better to accumulate a lot of updates in one big edit instead of doing small ones all the time, but unfortunately I can't change the way I work. Anyway, I would like to submit The Kindly Ones and Jonathan Littell to peer review in the coming weeks, so it would be great if you could read both articles and edit them as you see fit. I still wanna read a couple of articles about the book, so I'll probably do a few more updates in the future. Btw, if you speak french, I highly recommend both interviews with him that appeared in the journal Le Débat. Evenfiel (talk) 22:16, 22 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Ok, no problem. I've just created a bibliography section, but I've only added four articles in English. Do you think it would be pertinent to add those in French, or even German? Oh, and thanks for the review! Evenfiel (talk) 00:33, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi Joel. Thanks for the article. I did read it once two months ago, but I've read it once more again. =) I hope everything is going well for you in China. Cheers! Evenfiel (talk) 16:18, 26 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Joel, I'm thinking about nominating it for good article. What do you think? Evenfiel (talk) 19:54, 18 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Done! Thanks. Evenfiel (talk) 16:26, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

The Church and Einstein
What is your view on this? I think the article as all other articles should reflect the truth as best we can. At the moment, the Church is portrayed as being a party in the Holocaust, or at least "turning a blind eye". It this really the case? Could they have done more? - the Pope said that directly confronting Hitler could have made things worse. I am personally appauled at the Holocaust and fully support the Jewish people in their suffering. However, I would always like to see the truth portrayed, even if it hurtful to both me and the Jewish people. Wallie (talk) 14:38, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Re: The churches and compliance

OK and thanks for your comments. When I was speaking about the churches, I meant their hierarchy, not individuals who spoke out. I was trying to establish whether or not the churches should be considered guilty. I queried Friedlander's statement, as it roundly accuses the various religious institutes. From what you say, that criticism is justified. I am sure that if it were not, Christians and others would have challenged it strongly, which they have not. As far as keeping slience is concerned, I'm afraid I have found this is a very bad side human nature - I guess that higher standards should be expected of churches though. As an example, I was horrified at the same sorts of things coming out of the ex-Yugoslavia, when I saw the massacre, albeit on a lesser scale. I though "my God, its happening again". However, I didn't rush over to stop it. The Dutch soldiers on the spot let it happen too. Wallie (talk) 16:49, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Holocaust definition
I put this topic up to try to clarify a difficult topic. The problem as I see it is:

From the Jewish perspective. They want the Holocaust to be represented as a Jewish experience, as to bring others in, in any way, would lessen the significance.

From the other groups affected. They feel they are just being left out, and they feel they suffered too.

I don't really to what the solution is. I can see both viewpoints, and both are valid. I actually am quite surprised to see that most people agree with the definitions they would like to see, which is encouraging.

Some have suggested another term, such as Shoah. But if that became the mainstream term, then everyone would switch to that term. The term Holocaust is also changing. I think that in the 1950s, it referred specifically to the Jewish people in concentration camps in Poland.

Also, if an overall article of WW2 Genocide or similar covers all the genoicides and massacres, the Holocaust will be treated as "just" one of these. This would be a gross distortion, would it not? Wallie (talk) 09:38, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Arrendt
It is in Eichmann in Jerusalem which is generally taken to be her principal work on the Holocaust. Note: I am by no means an expert on Arendt whose ideas as you say are complicated but I do believe many scholars consider her views in Eichmann in Jerusalem and On Totalitarianism to be divergent. That said, in this point I think they may be consistent - her point in identifying the Nazis and the Bolsheviks was to identify as "the" problem "totalitarianism" which she sees as having to do with 20th century phenomena, not medieval anti-Semitism. But as i said I am noit an expert on Arendt. What I do know - and this was my point - is that she is a significant view on the Holocaust so her views belong in the article, and they move us away from was the Holocaust unique or not to a much more complicated set of questions and arguments. It is a shame, in my view, to see the article get bogged down in a silly argument over something that is ultimately a matter of opinon when there is so much more serious research in Holocaust Studies out there that the article doesn't even seem aware of. I am not an expert on this stuff so I cannot contribute much, but I do know that a course on Holocaust Studies at an Ivy League university today would cover topics the article does not and would include readings this article is unaware of and I think that reflects poorly on the article ... Slrubenstein  |  Talk 15:34, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Chldren as Holcaust Victims
Please read the recent post I have made to the Holocaust discussion page, and then reconsider your opinion, regards--Woogie10w (talk) 14:37, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

WP:RUN
I see that you have contributed to Long slow distance. May I invite you to become more involved with WikiProject Running? We can always use contributions from talented editors. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 07:42, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

November 2010
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to The Holocaust, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. The reverted edit can be found here. Thank you. some jerk on the Internet (talk) 20:51, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Non-free files in your user space
Hey there Joel Mc, thank you for your contributions! I am a bot, alerting you that non-free files are not allowed in user or talk space. I removed some files I found on User:Joel Mc/sandbox/PD/PD CG.


 * See a log of files removed today here.
 * Shut off the bot here.
 * Report errors here.
 * If you have any questions, place a template, along with your question, beneath this message.

Thank you, -- DASHBot (talk) 05:00, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Bombing of Dresden
Regardless of whether it is POV, it was still fact. Anonyma Madel19:32, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Merge discussion for Customary International Humanitarian Law
An article that you have been involved in editing, Customary International Humanitarian Law, has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. ALR (talk) 19:54, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Dispute
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Holocaust denial". Thank you. --Dalai lama ding dong (talk) 18:17, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Blocking
{unblock-auto|1=129.194.8.73|2=The IP address that you are currently using has been blocked because it is believed to be an open proxy.|3=ProcseeBot}}

This is really a pain in the ass. I have lost most of the afternoon trying to figure this out. I am a historian not a technician.--Joel Mc (talk) 14:37, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I know that it is a pain, and yet the IP is blocked for being a open proxy, of which it is (just checked). Email [mailto:unblock-en-l@lists.wikimedia.org unblock-en] and request a IP-block exemption. Hope it's of help.   Ebe  123  → report 16:27, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I've gone in and granted you the IP block exemption, given your history. --jpgordon:==( o ) 18:27, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Holocaust
Bravo! Thanks so much for the offer! It will be nice to have some help on it! I'll get cracking on one of the sections tomorrow! ColaXtra (talk) 13:47, 19 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Sorted, old boy! ColaXtra (talk) 12:52, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:22, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Finklestein
I'll restore it if you really think it's necessary, but I don't think it contributes anything to the page. The page itself gives it (due) heavy disclaimers, and the position it espouses is fringe. The nod to Israel is odious. Even if you think I'm just offended, his reliability is also a serious issue. I'll give sources that put it into question. --Monochrome _ Monitor  14:15, 17 February 2016 (UTC) Now I'm not saying he's antisemitic, I'm saying that he's heavily biased. For example, his comments about Simon Wiesenthal promoting antisemitism. --Monochrome _ Monitor  14:42, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Just a thank you note
As that conversation is ending, I would feel it was not quite rounded off, if I failed to thank you for the link to Yehuda Bauer's obituary on RH, which I had read when it came out but had pocketed it away in the memory blank, unconsulted, and rereading it at your prompting gave me a particular joy, esp for the tone of deep feeling of amicable trust between men who disagreed on so much. I suppose you've read Norman Finkelstein Remembering Raul Hilberg Counterpunch August 22, 2007 and Nathaniel Popper, In memory of a Mensch April 2nd, 2010. If not, and you do now, I've paid my debt. Regards.Nishidani (talk) 20:44, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your note. Re-reading Bauer's obit of RH also gave me a feeling of joy.  There was that little light of humanity shining through.  I had seen the Counterpunch piece, but not Nathaniel Popper's.  He deals so well with the intricacies and nuances of the relationships.  He could have so easily focused only on the sharp corners.  Thanks for an added joy. --Joel Mc (talk) 21:45, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel Romanovsky
Thanks for your support on this. I am also puzzled why the article was deleted. Or for that matter how it even came to anyone's attention that they would want to delete it in the first place. Thoughtmonkey (talk) 14:40, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I am notifying everyone who took part in the AFD discussion on Daniel Romanovsky. Deletion review/Log/2016 August 3 Thoughtmonkey (talk) 18:56, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Editing Holocaust Article
Thank you for your message! I just saw it today, I think. I am new in Wiki, and have been trying hard to learn for day - it is very challenging.

How can I post, in "Holocaust" article, that "he neutrality of this article's title, subject matter, and/or the title's implications, is disputed. This is a dispute over the neutrality of viewpoints or other implications of the title, or the subject matter within its scope, rather than the actual facts stated. Wikipedia articles may have only one unique title; the use of the current title does not imply an endorsement of that title. Please see the relevant discussion on the talk page. (February 2013)."

Thank you in advance for your kind help.Henia Perlman (talk) 16:26, 26 May 2017 (UTC)