User talk:LargelyRecyclable

Can you say what other account or accounts you have used? The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:26, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

I'd rather not. I started editing over ten years ago and this is my only active account since I came out of retirement, so to speak. I'd be happy to work with a private check user though. I trust DGG to perform it if that's what you'd like. LargelyRecyclable (talk) 13:33, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Given that this account immediately started disputes concerning articles developed by K.e.coffman and has engaged in personal attacks on him and others, I don't think that this is a good faith clean start. Nick-D (talk) 00:40, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

@Nick-D: Well then, alright. I guess I only have two questions. What do you think I've said or done that constitutes a personal attack, and do you, objectively, think this improved the article? LargelyRecyclable (talk) 02:09, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Historians

This is getting into philosophical debate territory, so I'm moving this here. Here's the M-W's definition of a historian:

• a student or writer of history; especially: one who produces a scholarly synthesis

I agree with your criteria in terms of identifying the most reliable sources. I've frequently dealt with various hobbyist / militaria authors described as "historians" on Wiki; pls see sample here: diff. I've even had other MilHist editors tell me that I don't seem to grasp that, in general, the default judgement on Wiki is that a book is RS (meaning any published book; cited from this GAR). Multiple editors argued that Franz Kurowski was RS for military biographies at this RSN discussion, which was the impetus for the Franz Kurowski article. So your take on sources is refreshing.

But if we go with the dictionary definition, I'd say that Watson is a historian. I've read the relevant chapters from Exit Rommel, and they have struck me as a "scholarly synthesis". In any case, I follow WP:SCHOLARSHIP; it does not suggest that RS are only produced by academics that would meet the criteria that you outlined. Hope this answers your questions. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:04, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

I think we can both agree that being "a student or writer of history" does not qualify someone as an RS, much less as an RS historian, so I'm not sure what you're asking me to approve of. Your aforementioned objection to Kurowski is indicative of that trap. Historians as RS here must meet stricter guidelines than Webster's dictionary. I also don't see which bullet point in SCHOLARSHIP you think Watson falls under. LargelyRecyclable (talk) 22:55, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Makumbe

Hi- I have been accused of being you- or you of being me! "They" think you are my sock puppet or vice versa. Anyway- I'm not you so it should all work out.Makumbe (talk) 18:38, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Hey @Makumbe:, good to be acquainted. I'm disappointed that didn't get a head's up from Nick, but not surprised. On the upside, this has made me aware of at least one other editor that shares a lot of the same concerns as me. So, on that note, I very much look forward to working with you. LargelyRecyclable (talk) 19:00, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Not Me. I am doing research now for the Panzer Ace article. It may be a month or two before I finish but on Wikipedia we have all the time in the world to get our facts straight. I find that the "in popular culture" paragraphs in many articles have the same wording and are thinly disguised editorials with a non-neutral POV. I wasn't a Panzer expert before but slowly but surely I am learning enough to edit the Panzer Ace article which used to be called "Panzer Ace" in Popular Culture. So cheers!Makumbe (talk) 19:06, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Well, there's on rush. I actually had to order some obscure, abused books myself. The farther I look into what's going on the deeper the rabbit hole gets. I promised myself I'd stay off Wikipedia but when I saw what I saw while referencing something I fell off the wagon. The POV and content forking you're dealing with at Panzer Aces spreads across hundreds of articles and centers around two or three activist editors working in coordination. LargelyRecyclable (talk) 19:12, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes- the whole thing is a bit weird. My interest in WW2 is Eastern front mostly- I don't use Wikipedia too much for general knowledge but it should be the perfect place to find out- "top scoring German tank commander" or "Waffen SS battles"! Instead each article is infused with this editorial on " uncritical portrayal of the SS" or some such nonsense. Not facts and figures but rather Soviet style historiography. Hilarious really the propagandizing. Yes- it is a little cabal who have been left to their own naughty devices. Were it not for the Sock Puppet imbroglio I might have forgotten them...Makumbe (talk) 01:52, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, it largely escaped my notice until I ran into the flat out absurdity that was the Panzer Battles article. It was then that I realized a lot of the "weird" things that had been bugging me about so many of the WII articles were all traced to the same source. The wreckage goes back over the past year and a half. MILHIST worked to push back some but a lot of them seemed to just give up and go home out of fatigue. Fortunately it seems there are still some editors out there who have a little left in them. I'll be sure to send Nick a Barnstar of Fellowship at some point in the near future. LargelyRecyclable (talk) 04:10, 26 September 2017 (UTC)