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

Wikiproject Military history coordinator election nominations open
Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election are now open. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting doesn't commence until 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the coord team. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:58, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Talk page temporarily protected
Hi, I have temporarily semi-protected your talk page given recent edits. Please let me know if you'd rather it stay open ~TNT (she/they • talk) 10:59, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Request
Hello. I sent an email a couple of days ago. Best wishes, Kablammo (talk) 21:12, 7 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Hi, I received the email but I could not quite figure out what the question / request was. I saw your change to the article, but it looked to have been unopposed. If I misunderstood, pls clarify. There did not appear to be anything of a private nature in your message, so we could discuss this here if this works for you. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:54, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Wikiproject Military history coordinator election nomination period closing soon
Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election are still open, but not for long. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! No further nominations will be accepted after that time. Voting will commence on 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the current coord team. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:43, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

September thanks
Its most likely frowned upon to post this kind of stuff here, but I just (read the Wired article) and wanted to thank you for your effort! ;) - Marc from Germany. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.10.0.134 (talk • contribs) 23:43, 9 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Ditto! - Jim from Oakland Md. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.251.67.167 (talk • contribs) 23:43, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Thank You For All Your Work
Was reading the Wired article. When Wikipedia was newer, I would contribute articles and try to edit mistakes. It has become harder and harder to do this. I admire the countless hours you have dedicated to routing out glorification of systematic murderers. I have had the misfortune of having to deal with unrepentant NAZIs. I thought as most of them have died, I would not have to deal with it any more. Your work proves me wrong. A new generation is editing Wikipedia. For me, one of the biggest lies is that “20 July plot” was anti NAZI. The plot leaders were attempting to stop the revenge that was coming from the Soviets and their western allies. I do not condemn all Germans. I friend of mine was a secretary in Alfred Rosenberg's office and became a repentant sister of a Lutheran order. Recent analysis of German vs. US tanks shows that German tanks had a very low availability for combat, that the German economic system was so flawed that they could not ship coal in sufficient quantity. Thank again.Saltysailor (talk) 03:00, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
 * thank you. Indeed, recent historiography, especially the German-language one, has been far less generous in its assessments of the plotters' motivations. --K.e.coffman (talk) 20:35, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * thank you! --K.e.coffman (talk) 20:36, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * thank you; I appreciate it. --K.e.coffman (talk) 21:28, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Yes, congratulations. I also read the article today. Cheers, Kierzek (talk) 16:00, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
 * much appreciated -- thank you! --K.e.coffman (talk) 22:46, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Congratulations
Read the Wired article and wanted to say kudos for your hard work at making Wikipedia better. For better or worse, lots of people get their information from this site, and if it spreads misinformation we're all in trouble. Great work!!

Incidentally, if you have an interest in WWII historiography, don't forget the Pacific theater. We Westerners tend to neglect that aspect of the conflict, but it was every bit as brutal and bloody as the European theater.

Mark from St. Louis, MO. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6c40:4000:3576:dc69:9b5c:dd64:c782 (talk • contribs) 23:43, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Königsberg and related articles

 * Soviet War Crimes

Hi K.e.coffman, I have a few questions, maybe you can help me.

An editor named "Emu", apparently a robot, removed the text below I posted on the Soviet War Crimes page, stating that it promotes far-right sources.

Do you see any a far-right source mentioned in the text below?

"Estimates of the number of German civilians in Königsberg on the eve of the final Soviet assault (6-9 April 1945) in the Battle of Königsberg range from 90,000 to 130,000. According to the director of the city’s German hospitals for infectious diseases the number was in the order of 110,000. German historian Andreas Kossert assumes about 100,000 - 126,000 German civilians. An unknown number of civilians were killed in the battle, were murdered by rampaging Soviet troops, died from exhaustion when taken by the Soviets on forced marches across the countryside, or were deported to Soviet camps.

The first effort after the battle to establish the number of the city’s inhabitants, by the Soviet administration’s passport department, yielded 63,247 Germans living in the city in late April 1945. The number was about 60,000 in June and 68,014 (out of a total of 140,114 in the Königsberg region including the city and other communities) in September 1945. The Soviet administration recorded a massive die-off in the city in the period from 1 September 1945 to 1 May 1946. On 20 September 1,799 deaths outside of hospitals and 881 in hospitals were recorded, 2,933 outside and 901 in hospitals on 20 October 1945, in the whole period 21,111 deaths. The Soviet administration attributed this mortality to two epidemics of typhoid fever, which in turn were attributed solely to the crowded conditions in which the German population lived. However, the non-working part of the German population, ca. 42,000, received just 200 g of bread per day against payment, 15,900 unskilled workers received 400 g, 1,100 skilled workers 600 g. Moreover, the nutritional value of this bread was very low. As the rations granted to non-workers and unskilled workers were by no means sufficient to ensure survival, malnutrition was the main reason for the high mortality. According to Starlinger mortality from infectious diseases was comparatively low, with 2,700 deaths among 13,200 patients treated in the hospitals for infectious diseases. Violence, hunger, cold and exhaustion were far more prolific killers than all epidemics together. Hunger and violence were also mentioned as the main causes of death in the diaries of physicians working at the city’s central hospital.

A total of 102,407 German inhabitants of the Kaliningrad Oblast were deported to the Soviet occupation zone between April 1947 and May 1951. How many of these were from Königsberg does not become apparent from Soviet records. It is estimated that 43,617 Germans were in the city in the spring of 1946. According to Kossert (as above), about 24,000 survivors from Königsberg were deported in 1947/48, while the rest of the population at the time of the Soviet conquest, about 76,000 out of 100,000 to 102,000 out of 126,000, had perished in the interim. Hunger accounted for 75 % of the deaths, epidemics (especially typhoid fever) for 2.6 % and violence for 15 %. Starlinger estimated 75,000 deaths out of a population of 100,000, Deichelmann assumed about 80,000 deaths and 17-20,000 survivors , Wieck 20,000 survivors out of 130,000.

Wieck was under the impression that the Russians wanted all Germans to starve and to this effect tried to hinder their efforts to survive by work, black-market trading or otherwise. Deichelmann considered some official measures - reducing the number of hospital beds at a time when they should have been increased, barring starving people from hospital treatment, chasing away begging children – to be sadistic. He left it open whether this sadism was a matter of the local administration only or the Soviet central state was also behind it. A commission from Moscow was reportedly horrified about the living conditions of the German population. Wieck mentioned the great mortality of Königsberg’s German population alongside the Holocaust, stating that Hitler wanted Europe without Jews and Stalin East Prussia without Germans. Nevertheless he pointed out that the two events cannot be compared with each other. "

So, what source could be far right here?

Lasch? A Wehrmacht general's self-aggrandizing memoir, but it didn’t strike me as apologetic of the Nazi regime (though the Wehrmacht is presented as blameless, like in all memoirs by generals published in Germany in the 1950s). Anyway, it’s a source I can do without, as the range of figures I used it for is also mentioned by Starlinger.

The publisher Motorbuch Verlag? Not far right as far as I know. Motorbuch belongs to Paul Pietsch Verlage and is specialized on technical literature. They also publish (German) military history, but does that make them far right? Wilhelm Starlinger? Not far right as far as I know. His Grenzen der Sowjetmacht isn’t even hostile to the Soviet Union. Do you have any information about far-right affiliations of Starlinger’s?

The publisher Holzner-Verlag Würzburg? Not far right as far as I know. Do you have any information to the contrary?

Fisch and Klemeševa? Certainly not a far-right source.

The journal Zeitschrift für Ostmitteleuropa-Forschung? Don't think so either.

Michael Wieck? A Holocaust survivor, certainly not a far-right source.

C.H. Beck oHG Munich? Not far right as far as I know. Do you have any information to the contrary?

Andreas Kossert? A noted German historian, not a far right source.

The publisher Pantheon Verlag? Not far right as far as I know. It belongs, or used to belong, to the Random House publishing group. Kossert’s book is also published by Siedler Verlag, a respectable publisher of contemporary history books. Hans Graf von Lehndorff? Hardly far right, he had relatives in the German anti-Nazi resistance.

The publisher Biederstein Verlag? Not far right as far as I know. Do you have any information to the contrary? It seems they mainly published novels and poetry.

Hans Deichelmann aka Johann Schubert? His diary happens to be also published by the far-right Verlag Bublies (through no fault of his, he died in 1951), which is why I sourced it instead to the genealogy journal "Altpreuβische Geschlechterkunde", also referred to by Kossert.

I'm the last person who would want to promote far-right sources, and I would be grateful if you could help me spot any far-right source I may have overlooked. Cortagravatas (talk)


 * List of famines

A related subject:

On the page List of Famines, the robot "Emu" removed this edit:


 * 1945-1947 || Famine in Königsberg(Kaliningrad) || Soviet Union || –
 * 1945-1947 || Famine in Königsberg(Kaliningrad) || Soviet Union || –

Again with the claim that this was promoting far-right sources, even though the only source is Kossert. Cortagravatas (talk)


 * Königsberg

Also related is this reverted edit on the page Königsberg:

"About 100,000 to 126,000 survivors remained in the ruins of the devastated city. The German civilians were held as forced labourers until 1946. Only the Lithuanians, a small minority of the pre-war population, were collectively allowed to stay. Between October 1947 and October 1948, about 100,000 Germans were forcibly moved to Germany. The figure refers to the whole region of the Kaliningrad Oblast, where according to Soviet documents there had been 140,114 German inhabitants in September 1945 (thereof 68,014 in Königsberg), of whom 102,407 were deported to the Soviet occupation zone between April 1947 and May 1951. How many of these were from Königsberg does not become apparent from Soviet records. It is estimated that 43,617 Germans were in the city in the spring of 1946. ."

Again "Emu" saw promotion of far-right sources here. Kossert is no such source, neither are Fisch and Klemeševa.

By the way, the current text on the page Königsberg:

"About 120,000 survivors remained in the ruins of the devastated city. The German civilians were held as forced labourers until 1946. Only the Lithuanians, a small minority of the pre-war population, were collectively allowed to stay. Between October 1947 and October 1948, about 100,000 Germans were forcibly moved to Germany. The remaining 20,000 German residents were expelled in 1949–50. "

contains a flagrant misrepresentation of what Michael Wieck wrote. According to him the 20,000 expelled were survivors from a city population of 120,000 to 130,000, the rest had died.

You may consider Wieck's estimate too high (I also do, see my article The Great Mortality in Königsberg), but omitting his having claimed that most of the population died is simply false. So is claiming that 100,000 were deported from the city. The number, as the Soviet sources cited by Fisch and Klemeševa show, refers to the Kaliningrad Oblast, not to the city alone. There's no Soviet information known so far about how many of the 100,000 deportees were from the city itself. Cortagravatas (talk)


 * East Prussia

Edit removed by "Emu" from the page East Prussia:

"More than 300,000 civilians died in war time bombing raids, in the battles to defend the province, through mistreatment by the Red Army, or from hunger, cold and disease, in the last year of the war and the following years. "

Again the claim that far-right sources are being promoted.

Again, Kossert is no such source.Cortagravatas (talk)


 * Battle of Königsberg

Last but not least, the page Battle of Königsberg. Edit removed by "Emu":

"Almost 80% of the city was destroyed; first by the Royal Air Force in August 1944, and then by Soviet shelling in April 1945. About 100,000 to 126,000 German civilians remained in the ruins of the devastated city at the time of capitulation. In September 1945, according to Soviet documents, there were 68,014 German civilians in Königsberg and 140,114 in the entire region of what became the Kaliningrad Oblast, including the city. A total of 102,407 were deported to the Soviet occupation zone between April 1947 and May 1951. How many of these were from Königsberg does not become apparent from Soviet records. It is estimated that 43,617 Germans were in the city in the spring of 1946. ."

Again, the accusation that far-right sources are being promoted (which for someone like me, who has dedicated a lot of his spare time to refuting Holocaust denial on Holocaust Controversies and elsewhere, is quite insulting).

Again, neither Kossert nor Fisch and Marina Klemeševa are far-right sources.

Incidentally, the current text on the page:

"Almost 80% of the city was destroyed; first by the Royal Air Force in August 1944, and then by Soviet shelling in April 1945. Almost all German residents who remained at the end of the war, an estimated 200,000 out of the city's prewar population of 316,000, were expelled from the city."

is incorrect and not based on any sources. There were never 200,000 Germans in the city on the eve of the Soviet conquest to start with (estimates range from 90,000 - 130,000). There were no expulsions before April 1947. In the spring of 1946 the city's population was 43,617 (Fisch and Klemeševa, as above p. 399). Cortagravatas (talk)


 * much of the above is original research. For example, the contents on the article about Soviet war crimes should use sources that specifically tie the events to war crimes, rather than bring disparate sources together, including dated accounts, 1st-person narratives, etc, to construct a narrative. I.e.: is an epidemic of typhoid fever a war crime? I did not say that Fisch and Klemeševa were far-right sources, merely that they don't support a contention of 60,000 - 100,000 famine victims, given that they estimate that there were 63,000 residents in the city at the end of the siege. This was discussed here: User_talk:K.e.coffman/Archive/2021/August. As an aside, there's no need to copy/paste article contents to an editor's talk page; a diff is sufficient. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:50, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply.

I assume that "original research" refers to the use of primary sources. Such would be Lasch (memoirs) Starlinger (first-hand testimony), Deichelmann (same), von Lehndorff (same) and Wieck (same), so information that directly refers to them, even if it is worded like "According to so-and-so" or "So-and-so claims", is original research, right?

Kossert and Fisch and Klemeševa would be secondary sources, so where information is based on these secondary sources it's not original research, right?

As to the numbers: my estimate is about 60,000 deaths from all causes. It includes a population reduction in April 1945 from 90,000 to 63,000 (with 10-15,000 of the loss being deportees and 12-17,000 being deaths) and then to 60,000, an increase due to return of refugees to 73,000, a reduction from there to 68,014, then to 60,642, then to 43,617 and finally to 37,517 (my estimate of the number of Königsberg citizens among the 100,000+ deportees from the whole oblast mentioned by Fisch and Klemeševa, which is way above the 17-25,000 estimated by primary sources Starlinger, Deichelmann and Wieck and by secondary source Kossert), to which an assumed mortality of 50% among the deportees (according to a 1974 report of the German Federal Archives, which I guess would be a primary source) is added. Just an aside as this is of course my original research.

According to Kossert (secondary source) the total number of deaths among the city's remaining inhabitants at the end of the battle was about 76,000 out of 100,000 to 102,000 out of 126,000, and in either case 75 % (also according to Kossert) would be from starvation, with 15 % from violence and only 2.6 % from epidemic diseases, so starvation deaths would be 57,000 (75 % of 76,000) to 76,500 (75 % of 102,000) according to Kossert. It's not original research to post these figures and refer them to Kossert, right?

Epidemic diseases are a force of nature and thus nobody's fault in particular, which is why the Soviets attributed the mortality they recorded to epidemic diseases and blamed these in turn on overcrowding alone. However, it's not only the primary sources that consider this claim to be false. Fisch and Klemeševa expressly state that malnutrition attributable to meager food rations (not overcrowding) was the main cause for what they accept were devastating typhoid epidemics, while Kossert (obviously based on Starlinger and other primary sources) attributes only a minority of deaths to epidemic diseases and the large majority to starvation. It's not original research to reproduce these statements by Fisch and Klemeševa and by Kossert, right?

I’m trying figure out a WP-adequate way to present the information. Your help is much appreciated.

Cortagravatas (talk)

I posted the following edit on the Königsberg page (the second and third source references and respective text were left unchanged):

"About 100,000 to 126,000 survivors remained in the ruins of the devastated city. The German civilians were held as forced labourers until 1946. Only the Lithuanians, a small minority of the pre-war population, were collectively allowed to stay. Between October 1947 and October 1948, about 100,000 Germans were forcibly moved to Germany. According to Soviet documents, there were 140,114 German inhabitants in September 1945 in the region that later became the  Kaliningrad Oblast, thereof  68,014 in Königsberg. Between April 1947 and May 1951, according to Soviet documents, 102,407 were deported to the Soviet occupation zone of Germany. How many of the deportees were from the city of Königsberg does not become apparent from Soviet records. It is estimated that 43,617 Germans were in the city in the spring of 1946. "

I also removed an incorrect rendering of two primary sources (Michael Wieck: A Childhood Under Hitler and Stalin: Memoirs of a "Certified Jew," Hans Lehndorff: East Prussian Diary, A Journal of Faith, 1945–1947). The latter did not mention the number of deportees, the former stated that about 20,000 deportees were survivors from a population of 130,000 and the rest had perished. The removed edit mentioned 20,000 deportees, but omitted the rest of the information.

I trust that's OK now as concerns content and sources (4 secondary sources). As concerns formatting your advice is much appreciated.

Cortagravatas (talk)

P.S.: The East Prussia page was also edited, as follows:

"An estimated 300,000 died either in war time bombing raids, in the battles to defend the province, or through mistreatment by the Red Army or from hunger, cold and disease. "

Cortagravatas (talk)

And then, the Königsberg was reverted again ...

Could it be that someone at WP has a problem with the information itself and not with how it is conveyed?

Cortagravatas (talk)

Please ignore my previous message. The problem seems to have been solved (for now). I left the existing text untouched and added mine below. All my sources are secondary sources, no original research.

Cortagravatas (talk)


 * Hi, I commented at Talk:Königsberg. Please post any further comments there, or at other related articles' Talk pages, so that any other interested editors can see them. I added these articles to my watch list, so will see them as well. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:51, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Keeping History Honest

 * thank you -- much appreciated! --K.e.coffman (talk) 04:25, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Hello!
I read the Wired piece about you this morning and I just wanted to say what a pleasure it is to encounter you from time to time here and that you are fighting the good fight and I'm glad. Jorm (talk) 19:34, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
 * thank you for stopping by -- always good to see your user name! --K.e.coffman (talk) 04:26, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

tiny edit suggestion
Greetings K.e.coffman, I saw on your user page you did quite a bit of work on the Franz Kurowski article. So I decided to leave an edit-suggestion here, as article talk-page notes often go unnoticed (in my experience), and you obviously care. I believe the second to last line here, where "Stalingrad – bis zur letzten Patrone" is translated as "Stalingrad: To the Last Round", would be better translated into "Stalingrad: To the Last bullet", because there could be ambiguity in the meaning of round. There is non in Patrone or bullet. I also don't think round or bullet should be capitalised in English, as they do in German, but that's of minor importance. I leave it up to your judgement. Regards, Dutchy45 (talk) 14:06, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
 * thank you; I've changed "round" to "bullet". The capitalisation is fine since the book titles in the English language use "title case", i.e. a book title, including a subtitle, would be written like this: The Wages of Destruction: The Making and Breaking of the Nazi Economy, by Adam Tooze. Even though most of Kurowski's works have not been translated into English, this approach makes sense to me. --K.e.coffman (talk) 06:53, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

WikiProject Military history coordinator election voting has commenced
Hey y'all, voting for the 2021 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche is now open. This is a simple approval vote; only "support" votes should be made. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2021. Voting will be conducted at the 2021 tranche page itself. Appropriate questions for the candidates can also be asked. Thanks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:39, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Misgendering in 11/2018 EOTW award?
Hello! I, like many others, came across your story in Wired. It seems very strange to me, however, that your WP:EOTW award from the WP:WER misgenders you. It's possible that in 2018 your gender was not widely known, and the nominating editor simply assumed or had a particular distaste for the singular they. Nevertheless, I'd say that fixing the template to change "he" and "his" to "she" and "her" is a fine way to edit the template. I don't know of any process by which an EOTW can be amended, so my policy justification is WP:IAR, placing Editors' pronouns above the verbatim historical accuracy of the EOTW template. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) please always ping! 13:47, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi, thank you for your concern. I do not consider it misgendering since my gender was not known at the time. In general, I'm fine with whatever ways Wikipedians refer to me, and not everybody would be familiar with the Wired article. However, since this is coming up a second time, I've changed the wording in the award to the singular they. --K.e.coffman (talk) 16:53, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Joint barnstars for your efforts

 * thank you -- much appreciated. If you are interested in editing in this topic area, please let me know! --K.e.coffman (talk) 14:45, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Another barnstar

 * thank you for the barnstar and for your prior contributions in the Nazi Germany topic area. As a native speaker (I assume) with access to German-language sources, are you perhaps interested in contributing further? It's always more enjoyable when I can edit an article with another contributor. I'm open to suggestions (in the area of the German war effort). My books are listed here: User:K.e.coffman/Library, and I have access to a large library system, plus interlibrary loan. --K.e.coffman (talk) 22:27, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Of course; I'd be honored. I am unfortunately just a monolingual American, though. I have a library of PDFs based on your library and those of a couple other users, though it was almost totally wiped out by my hard drive dying last year. – ♠Vami _IV†♠  23:31, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Apologies for the faulty assumption. I must have made it because I saw you a couple of times at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Germany, and, IIRC, you previously used Germany's colors: black, red, and yellow. As far as potential articles to work on, what do you think about Leon Degrelle? I recently removed a number of citations to the Encyclopedia of the New Order (!), but could not get rid of all of them because they were intermingled with a reliable source. I have, which discusses Degrelle.
 * In general, Hitler's European collaborators have inspired a lot of fan fiction and uncritical accounts, as in: such brave lads! what adventures they had! etc. Other potential articles to work on are SS Division Wiking, Spanish Blue Division, and Finnish SS volunteers. It would be good to expand / sources these articles. Please let me know if any of these sound interesting to you. --K.e.coffman (talk) 04:36, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I'll gladly agree to work with you on Degrelle. A quick JSTOR search has already revealed some additional material, in English and Spanish. I'll work on acquiring and/or accessing the other sources used on that article and verifying what comes from where. Should be a quick GAN between the two of us, I think. – ♠Vami _IV†♠  05:20, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
 * P.S.: Indeed Hitler's international accomplices have attracted quite a bit of admiration from the right wing. I believe my introduction to the Blue Division in my fascist days was that great big painting of them by Augusto Ferrer-Dalmau. – ♠Vami _IV†♠  05:30, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Leon Degrelle
Update: I have actually ripped out the rest of the citations to the Encyclopedia of the New Order and used a French-language, Belgian encyclopedia to rewrite and expand the article. I've also acquired Joining Hitler's Crusade and For Rex and Belgium: Leon Degrelle and Walloon Political & Military Collaboration 1940-1945. I am currently hard at work on #Early life, #Writing and journalism career, and #Political career. – ♠Vami _IV†♠  04:38, 18 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Vami, IDK if you speak Spanish well enough, but I do, so if you'd like any help with that... (t &#183; c)  buidhe  04:58, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Mine is rusty, but even if I were fluent I wouldn't pass up a chance to finally work with you. Can you look into his time in Mexico with the Cristeros and in Spain as a holocaust denier? – ♠Vami _IV†♠  05:44, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
 * You guys are impressively fast! Thank you. --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:36, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
 * fixing ping . --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:37, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

On review, there is absolutely a Featured Article to be made out of this article. With the assistance of and, I've discovered a veritable galaxy of sources for this. This article will be of interest to you, as it talks about his post-war days in Spain (specifically the matter of possibly deporting him to Belgium to face the music). – ♠Vami _IV†♠  06:02, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * P.S. By extension, Rexist Party can also easily be brought to FAC with some elbow grease. – ♠Vami _IV†♠  08:08, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * this is awesome -- thank you for all the work (and others). The article is unrecognisable! --K.e.coffman (talk) 14:52, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

September thanks
Thank you for improving articles in September, - a good harvest! On Peace Day, Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:10, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
 * thank you -- that's a beautiful photo. --K.e.coffman (talk) 14:30, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Joining WP:DISCORD
Hey K.e.coffman, just wanted to say that I'm really honored to be working with you on Léon Degrelle. Vami and I have been coordinating the development of the article on the Wikimedia Discord server, and I'd like to extend you an invitation. Thank you, Roniius  talk to me 05:57, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
 * thank you for the note. I've not used this resource before; I'll check it out. --K.e.coffman (talk) 14:31, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Read the article on you!
I loved the article about you, and actually wrote the author to send you my user name so we could connect. Then the friend that sent me the article in the first place found you - so here I am. I hope you don't mind. I know this is kind of wiki-puppy-ish, but I wanted to tell you, I really admire what you are doing, and most of all, how you are doing it. I am doing the same kind of thing but in the field of religion, and I have not found it without its difficulties. :-) I also wanted to tell you that I tried to redo the section on the Nazis on the Persecution of Christians page and was opposed and then stopped with a third party arbitration. Perhaps you could take a look at it if you have any interest. Anyway, I just mostly wanted to say hi, I admire your work, and someday I hope to be half as accomplished as you! :-) Thank you for all that you do to improve the encyclopedia! Jenhawk777 (talk) 02:39, 9 September 2021 (UTC)


 * If this is about the article "One Woman’s Mission to Rewrite Nazi History on Wikipedia", the I'd like to say that I too have just read it. Someone recognised my username in it and told me about it. It reminded me of the days I was fighting the good fight on wikipedia as well. It's been too long, I hope you are well. I'm glad to see you got some recognition for the hard work. While I'm proud to have contributed a bit myself, you certainly deserve enormously more praise. Cheers! --MaxRavenclaw (talk) 19:39, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Congratulations. Love your rigour and determination. Awesome to have you as a fellow Wikipedian. Keep it up!  Schwede 66  23:33, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
 * thank you; I appreciate it. @MaxRavenclaw -- I'm glad that the writer included your quote: ...history is written by the literate...; it's a great one! --K.e.coffman (talk) 04:28, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:15, 13 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Great job. Jacona (talk) 12:08, 13 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Afraid I can't take credit for it. I think I read it somewhere on reddit, in one of the historical subreddits. I'm not sure if in this exact form or if I changed it a bit to make it snappier. But I'm happy to have been a vehicle to propagate it. It's a lot better than the fallacious but far more popular original which it criticises. --MaxRavenclaw (talk) 18:21, 13 September 2021 (UTC)


 * I hope you stick around! There's still plenty of historical distortions, omissions, and hagiography on Wiki. --K.e.coffman (talk) 16:00, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Draft:Grove Estate
Thank you for reviewing the Grove Estate article.

This article was rejected on the grounds that it was not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia. However, per the criteria in the WP:NORG, Grove Estate has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, including the local newspaper, a national Australian winery publication, and an encyclopaedia of wineries in Australia. These sources meet the four criteria of 1. Contain significant coverage of Grove Estate, 2. Are completely independent of the Grove Estate, 3. Meet the standard for being a reliable source, and 4. Are secondary sources. For example, the Halliday Wine Atlas of Australia is an internationally recognised wine authority. There are also articles from a several newspapers, including the local newspaper 'the Witness' and national newspapers including The Sydney Morning Herald. In addition, there is significant coverage of this winery. Most of the sources contain articles that are exclusively about Grove Estate Wines.

Several of the sources that are referenced are not available online. It seems that a lot of the rejections have only be based on the sources that are available online. However, the written sources do go in depth and describe the significance of the winery without relying on interviews with its personnel or other primary sources.

Please let me know what you would advise, as Grove Estate has made an impact on its local and regional community and there is verifiable, objective evidence as to this contribution, and is a worthwhile addition to Wikipedia. Perhaps I should provide more information on the vineyard itself? I know it is very short. Originally it had more content but the feedback I received from reviewers was that the sources were not sufficient, so I have took out content that was not supported.

Any feedback would be greatly appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sophia4100 (talk • contribs)


 * Hi, I see that the draft was rejected multiple times, by various editors. Like myself, they must have found that the entity does not meet WP:ORG, and especially WP:ORGDEPTH. The sources are routine announcements and / or WP:SPIP. Separately, the nature of your editing suggest that you are connected to the subject. Please see WP:PAID about how to make necessary disclosures, if applicable. --K.e.coffman (talk) 14:29, 22 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Hi, ok, thank you for your feedback. Sophia4100 (talk) 23:09, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Rommel
Have you been paying attention to what's going on over at Erwin Rommel? I have my own experience dealing with the user pushing these changes and I view them as less than unbiased, however you have a good record of dealing with Nazi war crimes and German military figures in a balanced way. Rommel has surely been built up into some kind of hero both by British and German propaganda, and that needs to be dealt with, but I'm not sure how unbiased the result of the changes pushed by MyMoloboAccount over there is going to end up.--Ermenrich (talk) 14:18, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * the discussions have been difficult to follow, given how numerous the posts are. Some posts lack signatures and one has to figure whose posts they from the context. I.e. I don't know about Poland, but I don't think...; there's no indent in the post that follows, plus it's only one signature for both of them. It's quite confusing, but I'll see if I can contribute. --K.e.coffman (talk) 14:55, 22 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Hello, I would appreciate it very much if you pay attention to this conversation in particular, because I think you have an idea what German news outlet is controversial. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Erwin_Rommel#Section_on_massacres_of_Italian_soldiers_by_German_forces_is_incredibly_POV_presenting_only_historians_who_defend_Rommel_while_omitting_others
 * Thank you. Deamonpen (talk) 09:24, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I've commented. I will also discuss Samuel W. Mitcham being used in the article. His writing hews closely to the Lost cause of the Confederacy and the Myth of the Clean Wehrmacht, and his use in the article is concerning. --K.e.coffman (talk) 13:17, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I wasn't aware that Mitcham held such views and such deem him unreliable. I have therefore started removing him from article--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 13:40, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

...And on a related note,
...If you feel that the coverage is for want as is noted in the story, I have a question: why not run for a seat on the MILHIST coordinator team? You've an obvious knack for the R&D work, and it would be interesting to see what you could do as a coordinator. Give it some thought, and if you feel it may be worth a try sign up to run as a coordinator candidate. TomStar81 (Talk) 14:05, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I concur with this excellent suggestion! (And with all those who have congratulated you on the coverage of your efforts to improve this project.) -- Orange Mike &#124;  Talk  23:39, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Agree!Hal Boo (talk) 18:11, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
 * thank you; it's an intriguing take. @TomStar81, since you've been a coordinator yourself and know how the project works, I'd like to pick your brain, if I may. I was never able to figure out why I got on the wrong foot with the project in general, and with its coordinators in particular. I.e. when the extent of the problems in the Wiki's coverage of the German war effort became known, why weren't the resources of the project directed to fixing them? Instead, the reactions were this, this, and this. The feedback would help me decide if the suggestion to run for a coordinator position is something I should consider. --K.e.coffman (talk) 04:57, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

The answer to that is simply, really. To quote Friedrich Nietzsche, "There are no facts, only interpretations." Based on that position, it is possible for different people to examine the same set of information and arrive at two different conclusions. When these interpretations clash, people withdraw into their own gated communities to dig in and defend what is on their side of the fence at the expense of health and well being of the project and community members as a whole. It is this simple problem, then, that drives the need for admins, noticeboards, arbitration committees, trust and safety units, and the Wikimedia Foundation. In your case, you've challenged what are held to be orthodox positions within the community, and for that the community has fractured into three camps. One camp doesn't care, one camp is curious about your new position, and one camp has withdrawn into its gated community and taken up arms. Its not that you've done anything wrong per se, its just the way western minds work ("If you're not with me your against me"/"The enemy of my enemy is my ally") If we could all just try and keep an open mind and give each other the benefit of the doubt, to ask questions, and weigh the answers in all respects, then we would work so much better with one another, but in an age of nation states and special interest groups everyone is out only to defend their own small patch of the project. Into this group come the moderators, the peacemakers, and in our project's case the coordinators who are charged with giving equal weight to each side and to ensuring that the material present is to the demanding standards that both the community and the project have placed upon it.

Then there's the problem of human psychology: when confronted by an issue of this magnitude, most people find it is easier to simply do nothing than to chase down and correct the problem. Its an old story, one long repeated too: if its not an issue right here and right now, or if its not a nuclear level disaster, then people presume its not urgent or important enough to drop everything for, so it persists, all the more so if people can provide a good or reasonable enough explanation as to why something should remain when it clearly either serves no purpose or is false and misleading. Consider for example the long running issues with or concerning harassment (or lack thereof, depending on where you stand on that issue), for which the community - despite existing for over 20 years - is only now beginning to move on a universal code of conduct. We have done nothing about it until called out for it, and only now do we reluctantly decide to start addressing this in any capacity, and that capacity does not necessarily take into account any meaningful change beyond feedback and rough guidelines. Other similarly long running issues include (but are not limited too) lax or inadequate coverage of minorities and woman's subjects, absences of war crime articles for the Allied Powers in World War II, insufficient LBGTQ coverage, etc. If the issue doesn't exist in the here and now, then the people and the communities they are a part of put it on the back burner.

As for you, you've been baptized by fire and survived. You continue to contribute to the project, and from what I've seen admirably. In reading the wired story piece, and in observing your contributions, I was reminded of a quote from Kennedy: "Let the word go forth from this time and place, to friend and foe alike, that the torch has been passed to a new generation of Americans, born in this century, tempered by war, disciplined by a hard and bitter peace, proud of our ancient heritage, and unwilling to witness or permit the slow undoing of those human rights to which this nation has always been committed, and to which we are committed today at home and around the world. Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and the success of liberty." The catch, though, is that for the torch to be passed to a new generation that generation must be willing to rise to the occasion. Within the coordinator's circle are more or less the same two dozen or so contributors, men and occasionally women who do their best, but without a more robust coordinator team issues such as the one you encountered will be a problem moving forward. We need people who can see from different angles, different perspectives if we are to build a healthy coordinator base that possess the ability to weigh issues like this from all sides, and sadly we will not get it if we don't endeavor to bring in new contributors, nor will the project members find a just body of coordinators if the coordinator tranches can not draw new people with diverse perspectives into itself. If we are unable, the community members are unwilling, then eventually we will suffer the fate of those before us and die a slow death from apathy. TomStar81 (Talk) 07:49, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

(PS: Sorry that got a little long, but I got to thinking about it and decided I should tell it like it is/was, based in part on observations and my own experiences - and yes, I've been on the other side, and no it is not a pleasant experience. TomStar81 (Talk) 07:49, 13 September 2021 (UTC))
 * To TomStar's thoughtful piece, I can only add the obvious: MILHIST by its very nature draws few Quakers like myself, and many people inclined to an exaggerated respect for valor in arms and martial achievement, with too little (IMHO) regard for context, intent and effect. This can lead to a somewhat amoral approach to wars and warriors, which your insistence on context, K.e., disturbed and challenged. -- Orange Mike &#124;  Talk  12:24, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I can attest to a personal need and efforts to de-militarize just my basic speech. – ♠Vami _IV†♠  13:27, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Tom, I agree with much of what you said, however, rarely are things totally black and white. Part of the problem in the past has been that sometimes when writing on a subject an editor gets too close to it and it becomes a personal matter. Especially when they’ve poured many hours of work into an article. Also, I think sometimes editors become “blind”, missing certain aspects because they have not thought of them or they haven’t been pointed out to them or due to their perspective brought on at least partly by sources they are relying upon. It’s hard to have a unified coordinated effort with so many people from different walks of life and different perspectives are involved. It’s always best to follow the reliable sources and stay objective. And patience! There is something also to practice and I say these things from my own time on here and certainly don’t claim to have been perfect all these years. I’ve worked with K.e.coffman, on and off for the past six years and I remember well us bringing Nebe’s article up to GA status. I think she should run for coordinator and I would encourage her to do so. Kierzek (talk) 20:14, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Alas, the nomination period is now closed. – ♠Vami _IV†♠  20:37, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Pity. I feel you'd have made a good coordinator. TomStar81 (Talk) 16:22, 20 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your thoughtful comment; it aligns with and also clarifies some of my thinking on the matter. As you note, the change has to occur from within, and I hope that the new crop of coordinators would contribute to creating a collegial atmosphere when it comes to controversial topics of historical distortions, omissions, and hagiography. The run was probably not in the cards for me this year, given the short timeframe, but I will think about it.


 * completely agree with you. Treating all parties to the conflict with an equal measure, so to speak, can lead to a myopic approach, if it does not take into account the historical context. Another thing is that Military History is not just military hardware and battlefield action. It's also about war aims, strategy, diplomacy, alliances, industrial capacity, force generation, intelligence / counterintelligence, and so on. That's why I found WWII so fascinating. I also appreciate the interdisciplinary approach that the German scholars appear to have pioneered; now Anglophone historians are following suit. Anyway, the field of military history is evolving in very exciting ways, and I hope to continue to contribute to Wikipedia to reflect the contemporary research.


 * I totally think that you should run for a coordinator position next year. You would be great at welcoming new users and helping them figure out things around here. I fondly remember our initial interactions at Talk:Arthur Nebe, and how you helped me figure out how to make the necessary change (and helped my head to stop spinning at how Nebe "worked to reduce atrocities committed"). I think you would be great in this role. --K.e.coffman (talk) 16:33, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks K.e. for the vote of confidence. Cheers, Kierzek (talk) 15:23, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Hi thank you -- I really appreciate it. --K.e.coffman (talk) 16:54, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Wikiproject Military history coordinator election voting period closing soon
Hey y'all, voting for the 2021 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche will be closing soon. This is a simple approval vote; only "support" votes should be made. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2021. Voting will be conducted at the 2021 tranche page itself. Thanks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:32, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

A kitten for you!
Haha, can't believe I totally missed the publication of the article. Congratulations--well deserved.

Drmies (talk) 15:59, 26 September 2021 (UTC) 

The Signpost: 26 September 2021
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:56, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Gurbaksh Chahal
The attempt to white-wash Gurbaksh Chahal's reputation took a new turn yesterday. Editor Faizal batliwala wrote, "...a San Francisco judge dismissed all charges related to (his domestic violence) incident." However, the citation for the entry points to an SCRIBD page with a document that was uploaded by Gurbaksh himself! SCRIBD is in its own words "a place where anyone can share their ideas with the world, quickly, easily, and for free." In this instance, the "anyone" was Chahal, the subject of the article. Moreover, looking at the document on SCRIBD, you can see it is a petition for dismissal, not a dismissal. As before, if you would help me keep an eye on this bullshyte, I would appreciate it. (I'm starting to wonder what Faizal batliwala's relationship with Chahal is.) Chisme (talk) 16:33, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Chisme, that relationship may have been financial, given the block just placed on that account. Drmies (talk) 21:04, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Saw you in Wired
Thanks for all your hard work, you da real mvp. → Σ σ  ς. (Sigma) 09:34, 9 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Ditto. If crowdfunding were to work at all, this is the kind of work that'd have been funded. Imagine Reason (talk) 15:03, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Ditto.VR talk 20:52, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
 * +1. A really nice article. Thank you for your tireless and inspiring work that helps to make Wikipedia a more reliable encyclopaedia. --zeno (talk) 22:20, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
 * thank you; I sincerely hope that more editors start paying attention to the topic area. --K.e.coffman (talk) 04:31, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Thank you and kind regards from deWP! --Sujalajus (talk) 10:23, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
 * That was an excellent article and I commend you for fighting against Nazi "cruft" or anything that legitimizes this despicable murderous ideology. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  06:35, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you -- much appreciated! Are you guys interested in contributing in this topic area on en.wiki? I could recommend some articles that need improvements. Would love to edit them as a team; it's always more fun. --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:34, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I would be willing to do a little bit but I do not have the time or discipline to immerse myself in the monumental literature of that era. Most of my reading about it was half a century ago. Perhaps a niche article or two. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  02:52, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
 * My virtual library is located here: User:K.e.coffman/Library, so you can see what books I have. As far as a discrete project, I've long been thinking about improving Białystok Ghetto or Minsk Ghetto. Perhaps one of these? I have a very interesting book: Evgeny Finkel (2017): Ordinary Jews: Choice and Survival during the Holocaust, Princeton University Press. It was literally a page turner, if one can say this about a book covering the Holocaust. The book covers the two ghettos in detail. I'm also interested in the legal proceeding related to German crimes; I have several books on the topic. But I totally understand that you'd rather not -- no pressure. --K.e.coffman (talk) 14:17, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Ysselsteyn Nazi and SS-cemetery
Dear ms Coffman, I would like to connect to you through regular e-mail if you please, esp. concerning the Ysselsteyn Nazi- and SS-cemetery (largest SS-cemetery in the world and a place of very serious Holocaust denial and distortion by omission of many negative facts). I've read the Wired piece on you and fully agree. Please contact servicepress@deds.nl. (BTW: I used to live in Mtn Vw). Thank you! Webnetprof
 * Wikipedia provides an email service and that is a way one can email an editor, if that editor has "opted in" the free email service. Of course, one can always discuss an article on the talk page for said article (if there is one) or can discuss a subject on a user talk page, as long as the editors want to do same. Ke will let you know how they wish to proceed as to your request herein. Kierzek (talk) 14:25, 30 September 2021 (UTC)