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

A goat for you!
reading about your wiki exploits was the best thing I've heard in a while. I fight the same fight on a different field, and your work is inspiring! (GOAT as in Great of All time)

Markass530 (talk) 06:13, 3 October 2021 (UTC) 
 * thanks! I hope you'll stick around. --K.e.coffman (talk) 15:19, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Enslaved vs slaves
K.e.coffman, I noticed that you reversed some changes I made recently. didn't reply to my concerns but since you made change I will ask you here. Per a recent MOS talk page discussion there was no consensus that we should use "enslaved people" (or similar) vs "slaves" and there was a general consensus that we should follow the sources. Given our MOS says follow the sources why would we follow AP? As I said at that discussion, wikipedia shouldn't be forcing language change but instead should follow when it is clear the change is well established in RSs. Currently we aren't there. Since you restored the recent language why do you feel it is better. Springee (talk) 12:26, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi thanks for stopping by to talk about this. The discussion you linked in the edit summary -- Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Words_to_watch -- is just that: a discussion. It was not an RfC, nor did it result in a MOS change. Here's the AP style guide on the matter, in a Facebook post. In the absence of MOS guidance, I'm relying on the AP. --K.e.coffman (talk) 14:38, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reply. While it wasn't a RfC with a change to the MOS, the AP guidelines don't apply to our MOS.  We have a bit of a conflict, should we follow an influential but external MOS or should we reflect how the sources discuss the topic?  None of the sources I checked used "enslaved people".  Springee (talk) 14:56, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * The sources are generally paraphrased. Language usage changes, as, for example, reflected in the ever evolving AP style guide. For statements in wiki voice, I feel it's appropriate to reflect such changes in the articles. K.e.coffman (talk) 15:00, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, things do change over time but Wikipedia should be the laggard, not vanguard of such changes. Springee (talk) 15:06, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * , imagine what would happen if we "followed the sources" when writing about Jim Crow or lynchings. No, that is not really how this goes: best practice is to use language as it is currently used by reliable sources within that field. And for me that means "enslaved persons", and "Black" with a capital B. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 16:02, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
 * , I think your point is very valid if we are following sources that are clearly obsolete. Think of the terms for those who have developmental disorders that were common but are now not acceptable.  However, in this case we are talking about modern sources.  Using "slaves" vs "enslaved people" might be on the way out but it is not obsolete and a recent MOS discussion reached no consensus on making such a change.  Perhaps it's simply because I'm not used to hearing the new vs older phrasing but it comes across as pointy rather than factual to me.  I think that is doubly so when I noted it was made with a series of edits like this one  (not claiming this is the most illustrative example, just one of many) that seems to be pushing a point rather than following what the sources have said.  This is no net change in content but does read as though an editor is trying to push a point rather than emphasize what the sources emphasized.  In at least some cases the changes result in usage that was inconsistent within the Wiki article.  As I've said before, Wikipedia isn't supposed to push changes in language, rather it should follow when it is clear things have changed.  A change to the AP style guide can suggest a change is coming but we are far from that change having clearly occurred.  Springee (talk) 20:41, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

, thanks, but I think if the AP makes a change that means that the change has already occurred. As for that diff by, I don't know how that's pointy: they added valid and valuable information and did so with the kind of phrasing that seems perfectly valid to me, and very appropriate for 2021. Now, the source actually doesn't indicate that enslaved people built it, but that's pretty obvious, especially since the source is copied literally from this survey--but with the exclusion of "slave labor". And it's not hard to see that the only POINTy thing here is that the direct source left that out. In other words, following the source would mean an exclusion of historical truth. That that is rectified here, in the appropriate wording, that only improves our article. Never mind that I don't know whether content from the Mississippi Department of Archives and History is exempt from copyright, and that that touristic page doesn't indicate where the information came from. Drmies (talk) 21:02, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
 * In many cases these plantation articles go into great detail about the construction of buildings and growing of crops, sometimes implying that the landowners did the work themselves, without including the work of enslaved people which is mentioned in the sources. It seems right to add a brief mention of slavery to maintain NPOV and reflect what the sources say.
 * I concur that the AP style guide is a good indicator of current usage. Many of the sources in question are 1860s census records and late-20th-century National Register of Historic Places entries which are factually accurate but tend to use outdated language and are unlikely to be updated. It's entirely appropriate to paraphrase rather than restore the 1860 verbiage.
 * The lack of consensus in the MOS discussion certainly doesn't dictate enwiki-wide practices. However, I would point out that "enslaved people" and "slaves" are both in widespread use in our articles and there is no MOS guidance on this, so a lack of consensus would mean that we stick with the status quo of using either/or. –dlthewave ☎ 04:35, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * , perhaps the reason why the sources focus on the buildings and not the slavery aspect is because they are focused on the architecture. Part of the issue with your edits is they were poorly integrated with the rest of the text and in at least one case the edits were not supported by the cited source.  That is just poor quality editing.  I would agree that articles that don't mention the slavery aspect at all should include it (assuming sourcing).  However, when things like "Mr Smith built this house in 1830" to "Mr Smith, using enslaved people, built this house in 1830" it changes the focus from the house to slavery.  At that point NPOV is violated when the emphasis the Wikipedia article puts on slavery is greater than the source material.  It also just makes the sentences jarring to read.  The AP is not a benchmark for where language is, rather it's a benchmark for where the AP things it should be going forward.  I think you will find many MOS discussions that say we shouldn't automatically switch because the AP guideline has changed recently.  As you say, using either or is fine so why change what was long standing in the article?  I will note you didn't object when I changed some back and you haven't said that you would oppose using "slavery" vs "enslaved people" if it fit with other uses in the same article.  I tried to ask you about that on your talk page but you deleted the comment rather than replying.  Deleting the comments without reply is certainly your prerogative but I was disappointed to see you picked that path none the less.  Springee (talk) 19:21, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * from looking at the interaction history, it appears that you followed Dlthewave to several pages you'd not edited before (Wyolah Plantation, etc) to revert him/her. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:08, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
 * , you misunderstood my comment, I was saying that in many cases the source (usually the NRHP) details the use of slave labor but the Wikipedia article does not. I think we're in agreement that this should be rectified. Do you have a suggestion for how best to phrase your example, Forestdale Plantation? I was using the NRHP Historic survey source which is cited in our article and lists "slave labor" in the Builder field. –dlthewave ☎ 01:55, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
 * , if you are open to it I think we could take one or two articles as examples and try to find a smoother way to integrate the content. Springee (talk) 12:34, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm open to hearing your suggestions. –dlthewave ☎ 15:18, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
 * , should we do it on your talk page (or mine)? I don't want to flood K.e's talk page too much.  Springee (talk) 16:22, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't mind if you guys continue the discussion here; it appears to be some sort of a neutral ground & I'm interested in the discussion as well. But of course it's up to you guys. --K.e.coffman (talk) 16:28, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
 * K.e, if you are fine with it here that works for me as well. Dlthewave, please assume that I will check for updates and I will assume you will do the same so we don't need to ping one another. When I get a few more minutes I'll pick two examples that we can work on. Springee (talk) 16:34, 28 September 2021 (UTC)


 * OK, sorry for the delay. The real world has been busy.  I figure we could start with two articles.  I'm just picking these as ones we could try to improve.  They aren't meant to be best/worst examples.  Mount Holly  and Rosedale Plantation Barn . My hope is we can come up with smoother phrasing that still makes it clear these were slave holding plantations.


 * Starting with the second one, I don't know that anyone refers to these as "slave plantations" and it seems odd to say that about a barn. The current sentence is, It is the last surviving structure of a slave plantation that was established in 1860, and was disassembled and reconstructed at its present location in 2002 to save it from demolition. with "slave" being a new addition. Plantations, like farms are often described by their crop, not how they are worked (cotton plantations or tobacco plantations, not John Deere farm).  What about removing slave from that sentence since it focuses on the barn and instead, per the source, note that The the original plantation included a plantation home, a separate brick kitchen, ten slave quarters. The barn is the last surviving structure.  This was it is clear the plantation had slaves but doesn't use a term "slave" to describe the type of plantation.


 * I'm not sure if Mount Holly's source supports the claim that the house was build with slave labor. Made of red bricks and built with the forced labor of enslaved people, it has two storeys and thirty-two rooms.[2].  The source is here.  That reference doesn't say the house was built with slave labor.  The paragraph before makes it clear the property was slave holding, "It came with outbuildings, livestock, and 100 African slaves.".  So this one seems like a claim not supported by the source.  However, let's assume we found a source that said slave labor was used in the construction (thus we can refine the language used).  It again seems awkward to mix the architecture with a discussion of the slave labor aspect.  Perhaps (with strikeouts and underlines):
 * Margaret's husband, Charles, commissioned the construction of the mansion as a present for his wife.[2] Made of red bricks and built with the forced labor of enslaved people, it has two storeys and thirty-two rooms.[2] It was designed in the Italianate architectural style, either by architect Samuel Sloan or Calvert Vaux, after the Dudleys consulted with both architects.[7] The construction of the house included the use of slave labor. 
 * The same information is there but in a way that flows better. In both cases slave labor can be hyperlinked per the recent additions.  Springee (talk) 03:24, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the suggestions. I think it's fair to say that "slave plantation" is in common use and would be appropriate here even though the equivalent "John Deere farm" is not. However, your idea of mentioning other buildings including slave quarters at Rosedale Plantation Barn is a good one that I'll keep in mind for future edits.
 * The NRHP source mentions that Mount Holly was built by a "construction crew of slaves". We often mention who built a home alongside the materials and architectural style, and I'm not sure why the labor of enslaved people should be treated any differently. In fact I would argue that the flow of these romantic narratives about southern gentlemen building/commissioning homes for their spouses should be disrupted by mentions of the people who they forced to do the actual labor. I use "forced labor of enslaved people" when I write even if it doesn't "flow" (whatever that means) as well as other terms might, and I'm not sure why I'm being asked to change it here to suit your preference. –dlthewave ☎ 03:45, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Please find examples of "slave plantations". That would be a plantation that grows slaves as the product rather than cotton or tobacco.  Do any of the source materials use such phrasing?  If no, then why would we?  Since we have a source for the use of slave labor in construction that should be added as a reference to support the sentence in question.  Pushing that the house was built by a crew of slaves into a jarring juxtaposition is something that would need to follow sources.  If we do it on our own we change the emphasis given in reliable sources.  Do keep in mind that when you say "changed to suit my preferences", you are the author of the recent changes that made it this way and I have objected.  That means we don't have consensus for the change.  Springee (talk) 13:18, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Speaking as a son of the South whose family, I fear, may have owned a slave at some time, I think this emphasis on frank realism is long overdue. The tendency to coat treatment of the old slaveholding South with a syrupy "moonlight and magnolias" sentimentalism is obsolete and has no place in our project. -- Orange Mike &#124;  Talk  13:37, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
 * But isn't that POV pushing if the sources don't use that same emphasis? Springee (talk) 13:40, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
 * We have long acknowledged that it is perfectly acceptable to draw on biased sources, as long as we recognize the biases and do not carry their biases over into Wikipedia's own voice. Seems to me this is a fine example of not letting the biases of our sources shape our narrative. -- Orange Mike &#124;  Talk  13:45, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
 * But changing the phrasing as discussed here is letting our bases shape the text. The sources are not considered biased in this case.  Springee (talk) 13:51, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Mentioning slavery in a context of a plantation does not reflect a bias, but simply acknowledges reality. --K.e.coffman (talk) 14:59, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
 * But this isn't a question of not mentioning slavery. It's a question of inserting it in a way that emphasizes something that is either not the focus of the article (an article about a building, not the plantation system) or in a way that doesn't reflect the sources. Springee (talk) 16:22, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history about use of u.boat.net as a source and removal of submarine commander's success lists from articles
See this discussion which has been sparked by a couple of your edits. Your involvement in helping to develop a broad consensus would be helpful.Nigel Ish (talk) 09:19, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
 * thank you for the notification -- I appreciate it. I'll respond there. --K.e.coffman (talk) 13:25, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

A kitten for you!
I appreciate the work you've done to keep Wikipedia true to its mission!

Nathan Carlson (talk) 01:10, 5 October 2021 (UTC) 
 * thank you -- positive feedback on my contributions is very much appreciated! --K.e.coffman (talk) 13:26, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Stahel, D. (2018). The Battle for Wikipedia: The New Age of ‘Lost Victories’?
Hi K.e.coffman, just passing this on to you in case you are unfamiliar with the article. Keep up the great work.

Stahel, D. (2018). The Battle for Wikipedia: The New Age of ‘Lost Victories’? The Journal of Slavic Military Studies, 31(3), 396–402. https://doi.org/10.1080/13518046.2018.1487198 #

AugusteBlanqui (talk) 09:58, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
 * thank you -- I'm aware of the article. It was extensively discussed at MILHIST talk when it came out:
 * Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history/Archive_147
 * I have a pdf of the article for anyone interested. --K.e.coffman (talk) 14:37, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

"clean Wehrmacht" and Category:German resistance members
I stumbled across this article Boeselager, and discovered that two members of this family who were in on the 20 July Plot were being tagged as members of the "Resistance Against the Nazi Regime" as if they'd been members of the Weiße Rose or something. It turns out that Category:German resistance members includes everybody from martyrs like the Weiße Rose to members of the 20 July plot. -- Orange Mike &#124;  Talk  15:13, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi : Thank you for your note. The military opposition to Hitler is considered to be part of the overall resistance, although the officers' motivation and goals were distinct from the civilian resistance, including both the conservative-nationalist circles and the grass-root resistance. As I understand it, the military's primary motivation was due to, in their view, Hitler being responsible for losing the war. Their aims was to eliminate Hitler so that a separate peace could be concluded with the Western Allies, and to set up a military dictatorship, rather than promote a democratic Germany.
 * On the topic, you are welcome to join the recent discussions at Talk:Georg_von_Boeselager and Talk:Georg_von_Boeselager, which started after I attempted to edit the article on Georg von Boeselager. K.e.coffman (talk) 16:07, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

October thanks
Thank you for improving articles in October! - Today: see yourself, read about a hymn praying to not be on earth in vain, about a comics artist whose characters have character (another collaboration of the "perennial gang", broken by one of us banned), and in memory of the last prima donna assoluta, Edita Gruberová. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:32, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 October 2021
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:14, 31 October 2021 (UTC)