User talk:K.e.coffman

A page you started (Waffen-SS in popular culture) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Waffen-SS in popular culture, K.e.coffman!

Wikipedia editor MainlyTwelve just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Nice work

To reply, leave a comment on MainlyTwelve's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

I agree, K.e.coffman, excellent work! Nanorsuaq (talk) 19:09, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Corruption within the Wehrmacht

Hello, K.e.coffman. Corruption within the Wehrmacht, an article you either created or to which you significantly contributed,has been nominated to appear on Wikipedia's Main Page as part of Did you know. You can see the hook and the discussion here. You are welcome to participate! Thank you. APersonBot (talk!) 12:01, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Sadly, the nomination failed on a technicality, a rule I wasn't aware of. However, there seems to be a strong view that the hook is well worth going on the main page if you could get the article promoted to GA status. Do you have any plans as such? Calistemon (talk) 21:43, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

@Calistemon: That's a good idea; I got the book with the Goda work on the topic and will review to see if the article needs any adjustments. Are there any other sources that you've seen that may be helpful? K.e.coffman (talk) 19:11, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

For what is currently covered in the article only the German one that I have already mentioned. If you do decide to carry out further work to get it to GA status I would suggest mentioning other forms of corruption in the Wehrmacht as well, at least in the lead. From what little I had a look into there seems to have been a culture of selling anything from food to weapons by Wehrmacht, police and civil administration in occupied territories. Calistemon (talk) 21:53, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

@Calistemon: Yes, I saw in literature the content along these lines, especially as it related to work permits. I will to try to find out more; agree, that other forms of corruption should be mentioned as well. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:58, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

The danger I can see is that the article could unintentionally become something of a Himmerod memorandum on corruption within the Wehrmacht by mentioning only the highest ranking Generals and thereby incorrectly exonerating the rest of the Wehrmacht. While corruption at lower levels may have been "small fry" compare to the sums received by the high command it also seems to have been very widespread. I've added a little paragraph to the intro stating that much a few days ago. The source, while initially seeming a bit dubious, possibly Ukrainian-nationalistic, is actually Canadian and the work of, from what I could establish, a qualified historian. Calistemon (talk) 02:14, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

You make valid points, Calistemon. I reproposed the renaming, as Bribery of senior Wehrmacht officers. This will allow to narrow the scope to what's currently discussed in the article, while leaving the current name ("Corruption") for a future broader article. I posted the discussion at the article's Talk page. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:20, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Steven J. Zaloga has his own forum/board

BTW - you may not know that Zaloga has his own forum/board known as "Allied WWII AFV Discussion Group", which is dedicated to Allied Armor which incorporates "militaria" interest; including model making. See: "Allied WWII AFV Discussion Group". Therefore, military board affiliation in and of itself does not prove an author/historian is not an RS source as to his books/works; ofcourse, I am not saying a board or forum by anyone should be used for RS citing; I am talking about affiliation, only. Before I came over to Wikipedia to edit and write, I used to post on a number of boards and still read a few once in a great while; that is how I know of this one. Kierzek (talk) 14:03, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the tip. I will check it out. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:38, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Nice Work

nice work on 'black supremacy'..at least what is there currently (minus the final section) is in line with Wikipedia article policy and simply no longer so god awful embarrassing....see the section I created in talk on the final section (and added to)...respond there if want...it's tempting to leave some meat in the article but...68.48.241.158 (talk) 12:58, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

commented more in talk thread on final section if your still interested in working on it..(note I asked the page be unprotected and also looked into creating a username but ran into problems with both so I can't edit the article)..68.48.241.158 (talk) 12:05, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Wehrmachtbericht

Please refrain from deleting the Wehrmachtbericht wording, which is properly cited, without achieving prior consensus. I consider removal without consensus vandalism. Thanks and happy editing. MisterBee1966 (talk) 15:36, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your note; I responded at Talk:Erwin_Rommel. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:38, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Aftermath section in Barbarossa

Hi K.e. I think it's best to hold off on any edits to that section till consensus on linking it is confirmed to the infobox. I have a few ideas on how it should read which gives a more balanced view, i.e the Axis forces were never again able to mount an offensive on the entire Eastern front, and the surprising recovery of Red Army armaments production. Note that Operation blue was just a shadow of Barbarossa, and subsequent Nazi offensives diminished in scale and ambition, culminating in Kursk. Also a major Red Army offensive was mounted in May 42 with huge resources, which was stymied, due to poor tactical control. But the bottom line was that the Red Army was able to outnumber the Heer in that offensive. On a side note, check out Second Battle of Kharkov which I am hoping to link to aftermath. Its a POV mess. I had to take out an Irving quote just 20 minutes ago. A David Irving citation still lurking on WP?? FFS! Anyway, take a look at the article. I'm seeing some classic BS that you enjoy debunking. I would suggest a conversation on how aftermath is to be shaped, ideally taking in some of the 5 points that I was shot down over. I think there is scope there. Cheers. Simon Irondome (talk) 03:56, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

@Irondome: Yes, good suggestions. I've removed the obvious POV stuff such as "shipped to Germany" (vs "deported") and "conquering", among others. Agree with your line of reasoning. So give it about a week or so? What do you think? K.e.coffman (talk) 04:15, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Sounds good to me K.e. Catch you later today. Cheers Irondome (talk) 04:19, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Party number and SS number

K.e. I would ask that if known and cited, please leave in the NSDAP and SS membership numbers for bio articles; it can be of interest to many readers and helps tell one when they joined (early member or "bandwagoner") and also, I have had at least one occasion where others have argued someone was not a "Nazi" as they were not a Party member; not the strongest argument, for sure, but when you present to them the Party membership number it helps end that argument. Thanks, Kierzek (talk) 20:43, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Makes sense! I re-added the numbers to Hermann Florstedt‎ and Michael Wittmann. Would you have a cite for Wittmann? I'd like to submit it for B-class review in the near future as the article appears to be in good shape now. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:50, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I don't have an RS cite from Wittmann's membership number; in fact, I don't have any works on Wittmann. I checked Google Books just now and the only one I saw who cited his number was Agte. Its up to you whether you want to cite him for that or not. Kierzek (talk) 22:26, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Kierzek Just out of interest, the "old Nazis" called post March 33 NSDAP members March Violets Irondome (talk) 22:33, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Kierzek, thanks for checking on Wittmann. In this particular case, the number is probably not important, as his notability was not due to his SS career or role as a party functionary. So I think it's safe to remove. For articles such as on Hermann Florstedt‎, the numbers look much more relevant. Thanks for explaining the informative value of these numbers, which I've not considered before. I'll refrain from removing them unless a lack of citation is blocking a review, and an RS cannot be found.

Irondome, thanks for sharing—always something interesting to learn on Wikipedia. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:48, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

I was surprised to note that there was not a link to the phenomenon on WP, so I had to link the Kerr novel. It would make an interesting article or section in the nazi party article. I was aware of it for decades, since uni days. It just stuck in my memory. Nazi humour indeed! Irondome (talk) 22:57, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

You are correct, K.e. his number is not needed. As for the "March Violets", I had heard that term before, but not in a long time. A chassis example of "old timers" being jealous of the wave of "bandwagon" Germans who joined after the Nazis came to power. Kierzek (talk) 14:22, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Waffen-SS foreign volunteers and conscripts

K. e. Do have a look at this article. It still needs copy edit work. I am not happy with the current layout. The lede is too long and detailed and really there is still too much redundancy between it and the "History" section. As you know the lede is only to be a summary of the main points of an article. The lede needs to be shortened and some of the detailed information in it should be put into the "History" section; and then the redundancy (of detail) removed in the latter section. And as I said recently, the "Reference" section needs work (including sfn of the cites). Kierzek (talk) 13:25, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for pinging me on this. I've done some edits for NPOV and concision. Will go back later and work some of the background back into the lead. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:59, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Institute for Creation Research

Wouldn't {{primary sources}} be more appropriate? Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 09:15, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, Jim1138. I updated the tag and responded on the article's Talk page. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:40, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Recent changes to A-class articles

G'day, I notice that you have been removing large amounts of text from A-class articles, for instance here, here, here. While I have no doubt you are doing so with the best of intentions, perhaps a better way of doing this would be to request an A-class re-appraisal, where you could outline your concerns. As these articles were promoted by consensus, you could then gauge whether there was consensus to remove this information. The current situation has resulted in stress for MisterBee1966, who has said that they are retiring. MisterBee has done a lot of work to improve Wikipedia and it would be a shame to lose them. As such, I respectfully ask that you consider pausing and trying to engage in a broader consensus building approach, where all views can be discussed prior to implementation. My suggestion would be to pick one article, nom it for A-class reappraisal and then invite interested parties to comment. That could then serve as a test case to establish a broad consensus either way. @WP:MILHIST coordinators: Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 21:41, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

@AustralianRupert: Thank you for your note; I responded at Talk:Hyazinth Graf Strachwitz. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:13, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

@AustralianRupert: I feel like I need to clarify as it could be construed from above ("current situation has resulted in stress for [the editor]") that I drove MisterB off Wikipedia with my approach to editing. MisterB's retirement was not related to the diffs above, as I did not make these edits until after June 4, while MisterB announced their retirement on June 1. The events that appeared to have precipitated MisterB's departure were related to the May 30th Wehrmachtbericht topic above; please see this and this.

Apart from me being on the receiving end of a string of (unjustified) "vandalism" labels, MisterB's and my interactions were quite civil, especially after the epic MilHist discussion on GA articles and Franz Kurowski, after which we seem to have decided to do our own separate things. I did not expect this outcome, but it happened. I wish MisterB well. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:44, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

G'day, agreed in relation to these specific articles, and I'm not seeking to throw any stones here. In fact, I am hoping to get all parties talking again and potentially try to mend some fences so the project keeps valuable editors on both sides of the debate. That said, I believe the removal of content from other articles (for instance Erich von dem Bach-Zelewski and Erich von Manstein) in a similar fashion to those articles cited above did potentially contribute to MB's decision. I'm not saying the removal is necessarily unjustified, all I'm saying is that large scale removal of content from articles that have been reviewed through consensus-based processes probably should be re-reviewed through the same processes, with the concerns being discussed in those forums. This will achieve a couple of things: (hopefully) broad consensus for an approach, and also potentially adjust the process's standards so that similar issues are not accepted by it (if it is deemed that the original approach was flawed); or it will re-affirm the original acceptance of such material. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 01:15, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

I have pre-emptively restored these three articles to their pre-existing (A-Class) state. I would like to know what other A-Class articles have been subject to this editing approach. Consensus for changes of this scale should be sought via the A-Class re-assessment process. I will participate in such a process for any and all articles. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:20, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

@AustralianRupert and Peacemaker67: thank you for your comments. It should be further clarified that in the case of Manstein's and Bach-Zalewski's articles MisterB tried to add content, which was subsequently removed by several editors, not just myself. The Wehrmachtbericht transcript was never part of these two articles.

In any case, regarding the GA reassessment process should I be using "Individual reassessment" or "community reassessment" track? K.e.coffman (talk) 01:31, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

A community re-assessment would seem the most appropriate in the circumstances as it gives more editors the opportunity to make decisions, thus hopefully adding to the legitimacy of any outcome. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 01:36, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Sounds good. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:48, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Gustloff

Did the older talk get archived? Sca (talk) 13:56, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes, please see: diff. Now in Talk:MV_Wilhelm_Gustloff/Archive_2.K.e.coffman (talk) 17:59, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Fine, but perhaps I'm blind – I don't see how one accesses the archive from the main talk page. Sca (talk) 23:04, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

It's in one of the yellow boxes: "Archives: 1, 2". Can you see it now? K.e.coffman (talk) 23:19, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Nope. Don't see any yellow boxes. Sca (talk) 01:11, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

William L. Uanna

I noticed that you have commenced a community reassessment of a different article. Given your expertise in such matters you may want to examine the one pertaining to this article cited above. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 22:31, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Nominations of articles on Knight's Cross recipients for deletion

G'day. I've noticed that you have been nominating articles on Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross recipients for deletion, after you have deleting significant amounts of text and possible sources from them. You have also made no attempt to establish "what links here", which would have quickly provided citations for the awards (where the awards weren't already cited in the article). That type of behaviour is deplorable, and not appropriate on en WP. I suggest you stop, otherwise I will take your conduct to ANI and request that the community sanction you for it. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:09, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

@Peacemaker67: I appear to be following the appropriate processes and guidelines: Wikipedia:Deletion policy and Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Notability guide. In the case of Georg Schönberger, for example, I just left the following comment:

The WP:Soldier states,

"In general, an individual is presumed to be notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple verifiable independent, reliable sources. In particular, individuals will almost always have sufficient coverage to qualify if they: Were awarded their nation's highest award for valour." The footnote states: "Some awards are/were bestowed in different grades. For the purpose of this notability guide only the highest military grade of such awards qualifies. See: Discussion regarding awards with multiple grades."

While the Knight's Cross was a prestigious award, it was not the highest grade (there ware Swords, Diamonds, etc). Moreover, the GNG still needs to be met, through multiple verifiable independent, reliable sources, which appear to be lacking in this case. The sources that I see are memoirs by Kurt Meyer and a work by a HIAG-affiliated Patrick Agte: Google books.

Please also see Waffen-SS in popular culture on these two authors. That's my read on where things stand with this nomination; I'd be happy to be corrected via presentation of sources, or clarification on the grade of the award.

Here's another example: Helmut Wendorff; the article has been tagged Refimprove since Dec 2015; while the accuracy of the article has been disputed since 2013. This appears to be sufficient time to improve an article.

Could you please specify what is inappropriate about using the existing process? K.e.coffman (talk) 04:40, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

For starters, you have been deleting information and sources from the articles prior to nominating them (ie have removed information that might assist other authors to locate reliable sources on the person in question), and have made no attempt to follow "what links here", which would have taken you to lists where the citation for the awards are provided (where they are not already there). You are using a unique concept of what a reliable source is, rather than using what en WP uses. It is clear from the ongoing GAR that you misunderstand or misapply several core en WP policies, including notability and verifiability. I believe these misunderstandings are resulting in you effectively vandalising en WP with your deletionist zeal. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:47, 13 June 2016 (UTC)