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

Draft:CoinMarketCap
K.e.coffman, thanks for reviewing the draft created by me. I wonder why you think the subject isn't notable per WP:NORG. The WP:ORGCRITE says 'A company, corporation, organization, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject.' Coinmarketcap was the centre of the story covered by Wall Street Journal, about the so-called 100 bn crypto storm, which was also covered too many other media like Reuters, USA Today, Financial Times etc. Apart from this, the acquisition news of Coinmarketcap by Binance was the center of discussion as covered by major media. There are many other referenced from NYTimes, WSJ, Washington post and many more. I strongly think that the subject is notable and it satisfies WP:NORG and the review needs further consideration, but since you placed a red hand sign, I am not able to resubmit it. Your help is much appreciated here. ItoniaJHS (talk) 23:22, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

On Western Belorussia
Dear K.e.coffman, I have noticed your revert and I have not understood what you meant by "...sources are too dated for this claim".

I looked at WP:DATED and it only cautions against breaking news information (which neither of the sources are) and avoid certain words (which were not present in the reverted claim). Could you please clarify how these sources are in any way unsuitable?

Best --Cukrakalnis (talk) 07:23, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I did not link a particular guideline, but I had WP:RSAGE in mind. The 1933 source is particularly suspect, as coming from, who in 1933 joined the Nazi Party and later made a career in the SS Race and Settlement Main Office. Much better sources are needed for this claim. --K.e.coffman (talk) 22:37, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Upon closer inspection, there is no need to worry about this book going against WP:RSAGE's various guidelines. The book was published by a respectable publishing house, the Anthropologische Gesellschaft in Wien (according to ), when Nazis were not in control of Vienna (In 1933, Austria was still a free state). Ergo, the book itself was not published by Nazis, but instead by a serious scientific society - actually the oldest in Austria! Although the author became Nazi in 1933, that wouldn't have affected the book, as books take years to be written.
 * Moreover, if the book was just another phony Nazi pseudoscience book, it would not be cited by researchers as much as it is now. The book was cited frequently enough as a source throughout various decades since its publication. E.g. in the 1960s, , in 2010s Litauer%2C Weissrussen" "Hesch"&f=false or as recently as 2020 . I would agree that a better source would be great, but we have to do with sources we have and not the ones we wish to have.--Cukrakalnis (talk) 18:28, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Watch out, though, citations are not always an endorsement of the cited source. I also note that de:Anthropologische Gesellschaft in Wien states that some of its members had questionable connections with Nazism, including trying to justify Nazi race theories. I'd probably try to find a more recent source. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:02, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Edit at Königsberg
Hi K.e.coffman, do you have any idea if this edit at Königsberg is legit? - the user has been adding the 80% dead figure to various pages.--Ermenrich (talk) 21:15, 22 August 2021 (UTC)


 * the sourcing seems concerning:
 * This source -- Michael Wieck, Zeugnis vom Untergang Königsbergs. Ein "Geltungsjude" berichtet. 2009 C.H. Beck oHG Munich.Page 303. -- is the memoirs of Michael Wieck, who was a teenager during the events; his estimates are not suitable for matters of history.
 * This one -- Hans Deichelmann, Ich sah Königsberg sterben. Aus dem Tagebuch eines Arztes von April 1945 bis März 1948, 2016 Verlag Siegfried Bublies, Schnellbach, pp. 298-299 -- is from, an extremist publisher in Germany.
 * The last one I looked at is a scientific source -- Bernhard Fisch and Marina Klemeševa, Zum Schicksal der Deutschen in Königsberg 1945-1948 (im Spiegel bisher unbekannter russischer Quellen), -- but it does not support the editor's contention of the massive scale of starvation in Königsberg. The authors estimate that Königsberg's residents numbered 63,000 after the end of the siege, so it's not conceivable that – people died of starvation following the Soviet occupation, as was claimed in this edit at the List of famines article:.
 * --K.e.coffman (talk) 04:30, 24 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks! I’ve reverted him where I’ve found him making these additions - this editor probably should bear some watching if he’s adding far right fantasy numbers on expellees.—Ermenrich (talk) 12:11, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
 * thank you. I made two additional reverts: and ; there also appears to be a history of using Wikipedia to publish original thought. --K.e.coffman (talk) 17:33, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Response on Emmerich's talk page:

The sources given are:

1. The diary of Hans Deichelmann, pseudonym of Johann Schubert, physician in Königsberg. Whoever the editor is, there's nothing right-wing about the diary itself, which is also cited on the Wikipedia page about Schubert. His estimate is in the order of 80 % (80,000 deaths, 17-20,000 survivors). Deichelmann estimated that there were about 70,000 Germans in the city in June/July 1945. Deichelmann is cited in Peter B. Clark, ''The Death of East Prussia. War and	Revenge	in	Germany’s Easternmost Province'', 2013 Andover Press, e.g. on p. 282 of the PDF edition. Also in Andreas Kossert, Ostpreussen Geschichte und Mythos, e.g. on p. 339 of the PDF edition. I don't know that Clark is a right-wing author (I suggest you read Chapter II of his book), and Andreas Kossert certainly is not. I suggest you read the chapter "Unterm Hakenkreuz" of his book. Regarding the death toll Kossert writes the following (p. 347):

"Am	Ende	der	Belagerungszeit	lebten	126	000	Zivilisten	in	Königsberg (Starlinger	schätzt	100	000),	24	000	wurden	nach	1947	/48	nach	Deutschland abtransportiert.	In	der	kurzen	Zeitspanne	dazwischen	starben	also	mehr	als hunderttausend	Deutsche	an	Hunger	(75	Prozent),	an	Epidemien,	vor	allem	an Typhus	(2,6	Prozent)	und	durch	Gewalt	(etwa	fünfzehn	Prozent)."

2. An article by Wilhelm Starlinger, head of two Königsberg hospitals, who provided a detailed estimate. Also no right-wind affiliation that I know of. His book Grenzen der Sowjetmacht contains no anti-Soviet hostility. He estimated a range of 90,000 - 130,000 inhabitants at baseline, assumed a mid-range figure of 110,000, deducted 10,000 deportees and estimated that of the remaining 100,000 in April 1945 (73,000 according to a census at the end of June 1945) about 25,000 survived. Starlinger is cited by Clark (p. 326), Kossert (pp. 346/347) and in ''Vertreibungsverbrechen 1945—1948. Bericht des Bundesarchivs vom 28. Mai 7974. Archivalien und ausgewählte Eriebnisberichte.'' Kulturstiftung der deutschen Vertriebenen, Bonn, 1989. He is obviously considered an authoritative source.

3. The memoirs of Michael Wieck, a half-Jewish survivor of Hitler's and Stalin's regimes. He provided the highest estimate (120,000 - 130,000 inhabitants, less than 20,000 survivors). Wieck refers to Starlinger and is cited by Clark and Kossert.

4. Bernhard Fisch and Marina Klemeševa, "Zum Schicksal der Deutschen in Königsberg 1945-1948 (im Spiegel bislang unbekannter russischer Quellen)", ''Zeitschrift für Ostmitteleuropa-Forschung Bd. 44 Nr. 3 (1995)'', pp. 391-400. An article in an academic journal, co-authored by Bernhard Fisch. The article refers to figures from the Soviet city administration's passport department, whereby there were 68,014 German civilians in Königsberg at the beginning of September 1945. The figure roughly tallies with those of Deichelmann and Starlinger for June/July 1945, which suggests that these two sources are credible as concerns figures. No statement about the total number of deaths, but suggests a mortality rate in the order of 65 %. Thus I wrote "up to" 80 %, which means this is a maximum.

For further details see my article The Great Mortality in Königsberg. Certainly not a right-wing publication.

So please reconsider reversion of changes.

Regarding:


 * The last one I looked at is a scientific source -- Bernhard Fisch and Marina Klemeševa, Zum Schicksal der Deutschen in Königsberg 1945-1948 (im Spiegel bisher unbekannter russischer Quellen), -- but it does not support the editor's contention of the massive scale of starvation in Königsberg. The authors estimate that Königsberg's residents numbered 63,000 after the end of the siege, so it's not conceivable that – people died of starvation following the Soviet occupation, as was claimed in this edit at the List of famines article:.

The edit in the list of famines says that deaths were caused mostly by starvation, which is what becomes apparent from the diaries/memoirs of Graf von Lehndorff, Deichelmann and Wieck and from Starlinger's related chapter in Grenzen der Sowjetmacht. Deichelmann and Starlinger are cited by Clark and Kossert, see above, Starlinger also in the above-mentioned publication of the German Federal Archives. Kossert estimates that 75 % of deaths were caused by starvation. My own estimate of the death toll (about 65 % out of 90,000), based on these sources plus the article by Fisch and Klemeševa, is rendered in The Great Mortality in Königsberg.

Regarding the publisher of Deichelmann's diary: Bublies is extreme right, but that was hardly known to Schubert/Deichelmann, who died in 1951. Clark also cites Deichelmann after a Bublies edition, which seems to be the only one currently available on the book market. Kossert cites after "[Nachdruck	der	ersten	Fortsetzungen	des	zur	Zeit	in	den ›AN‹	erscheinenden	Tatsachenberichtes.	Dieser	Druck	schließt	mit	der Fortsetzung	in	Nr.	76	vom	2.	Juli	1949.	Altpreußische Geschlechterkunde	25	(1995),	S.	180-346,	S.	192." I could change the reference if that helps.

Cortagravatas (talk)

August thanks
Thank you for improving articles in August! I try, today DYK for a GA by a banned user. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:28, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

James Bacque
Why was my edit (demonstration that a certain number claim of Bacque's in Crimes and Mercies has no substance) reverted? Cortagravatas (talk)

PS: For a more detailed refutation of Crimes and Mercies see this article: Crimes and Mercies, by James Bacque Cortagravatas (talk)
 * Because Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought, see wp:ESSAY. Everything here has to be sourced to wp:reliable sources - and blogs and other self-published sources don't count.--Ermenrich (talk) 14:30, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

The Holocaust Controversies blog site (founded by a British historian) contains articles that have been cited by several academic sources in the field, and this particular article is a sound refutation of Bacque's essential claim in "Crimes and Mercies". But never mind. I'll accept that what I wrote is my original thought and thus not for WP. Keep on promoting Bacque's nonsense by stating that it was received with "far less hostility" by historians than "Other Losses". I'm sure Bacque would have loved to read that.

Cortagravatas (talk) 18:15, 25 August 2021 (UTC) I edited the article about Bacque as suggested by Ermenrich. Cortagravatas (talk)

The Signpost: 29 August 2021
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:43, 29 August 2021 (UTC)