Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2018-04-26/Op-ed: Difference between revisions
Appearance
Content deleted Content added
K.e.coffman (talk | contribs) re Kudpung |
reliable sources may be non-neutral |
||
Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
::::*{{ping|Hawkeye7}} I was not going to ping you again, but since you've commented here, could you clarify your statement in the comments section of the [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/News/April 2018/Review essay#Comments|''Bugle''' essay on the same topic]]. You wrote: {{tq|Sometimes poor or outdated sources are all we have, so that is what he must use}}, presumably referring to primary sources as was clear from your follow-up: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3AWikiProject_Military_history%2FNews%2FApril_2018%2FReview_essay&type=revision&diff=836330248&oldid=836326656]. |
::::*{{ping|Hawkeye7}} I was not going to ping you again, but since you've commented here, could you clarify your statement in the comments section of the [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/News/April 2018/Review essay#Comments|''Bugle''' essay on the same topic]]. You wrote: {{tq|Sometimes poor or outdated sources are all we have, so that is what he must use}}, presumably referring to primary sources as was clear from your follow-up: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3AWikiProject_Military_history%2FNews%2FApril_2018%2FReview_essay&type=revision&diff=836330248&oldid=836326656]. |
||
:::::I responded with a request for a clarificationn and pointed to a MILHIST A-Class article, which, IMO, uses "poor" and "outdated" sources; see: [[Talk:Helmut Wick#Propaganda origins]]. I would appreciate hearing from a professional military historian on whether you believe the article should retain its A-Class / GA status. --[[User:K.e.coffman|K.e.coffman]] ([[User talk:K.e.coffman|talk]]) 22:31, 27 April 2018 (UTC) |
:::::I responded with a request for a clarificationn and pointed to a MILHIST A-Class article, which, IMO, uses "poor" and "outdated" sources; see: [[Talk:Helmut Wick#Propaganda origins]]. I would appreciate hearing from a professional military historian on whether you believe the article should retain its A-Class / GA status. --[[User:K.e.coffman|K.e.coffman]] ([[User talk:K.e.coffman|talk]]) 22:31, 27 April 2018 (UTC) |
||
::::::That's not an opinion I give as a military historian, because it is not the subject area where I am the world expert. But our policy on Wikipedia is clear: [[Wikipedia:Neutrality of sources|reliable sources may be non-neutral]]. It's not enough to drive-by template the article based on your own opinion; you have to detail specific factual errors. On that basis, there is no issue with the German or English versions, and any passing editor is entitled to remove the template unless details are forthcoming on the talk page. [[User:Hawkeye7|<span style="color:#9933ff">Hawkeye7</span>]] [[User_talk:Hawkeye7|<span style="font-size:80%">(discuss)</span>]] 12:38, 28 April 2018 (UTC) |
|||
*People interested in this Op-ed may like to know that there's a related Request for arbitration [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case| here]], filed by {{U|K.e.coffman}}, which currently looks like it'll be accepted by the Arbitration committee. [[User:Bishonen|Bishonen]] | [[User talk:Bishonen|talk]] 22:13, 26 April 2018 (UTC). |
*People interested in this Op-ed may like to know that there's a related Request for arbitration [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case| here]], filed by {{U|K.e.coffman}}, which currently looks like it'll be accepted by the Arbitration committee. [[User:Bishonen|Bishonen]] | [[User talk:Bishonen|talk]] 22:13, 26 April 2018 (UTC). |
||
:*Anyone considering expressing dissident opinions should [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3AWikiProject_Military_history&type=revision&diff=838049971&oldid=837959070 think again]. "most respected and experienced arbitrators" are ready for you. [[User:MPS1992|MPS1992]] ([[User talk:MPS1992|talk]]) 22:26, 26 April 2018 (UTC) |
:*Anyone considering expressing dissident opinions should [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3AWikiProject_Military_history&type=revision&diff=838049971&oldid=837959070 think again]. "most respected and experienced arbitrators" are ready for you. [[User:MPS1992|MPS1992]] ([[User talk:MPS1992|talk]]) 22:26, 26 April 2018 (UTC) |
Revision as of 12:38, 28 April 2018
Discuss this story
- Huh. I am minded to agree that enWikipedia has some issues with its coverage of the Wehrmacht. Our articles often seem to emphasize military performance and deemphasize war crimes when compared to deWikipedia pages, with adulatory adjectives "outstanding performance" or the like being common. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:52, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
- Are there armies, commanders, campaigns, weapons etc which ENWP describes in detail and unfavorably? Jim.henderson (talk) 13:48, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, indeed. But it isn't easy. As K.e.coffman points out, you need to know more than just the history; you need an understanding of the historiography in order to avoid the pitfalls of various national myths and narratives. For anyone interested in this sort of thing, my recommendation is a book called Frogs, Snails and Feminist Tales (1989, 2003), in which the author examined children's books written by well-meaning feminist authors, but their messages hilariously fail when they encounter the entrenched gender notions of children. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:34, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
- K.e.coffman, having worked with you on Kurowski, and in view of my close association with the Bundeswehr in the early 70s, I turned my German WWII research towards a deeper interest in German WWII 'historical fiction'. I thought I would do a translation for en.Wiki for de:Bertold K. Jochimhttp another author for the Pabel pulp. As the German Wikipedia is not so concerned about references as we are, searching for sources I came across this October 1959 issue of Der Spiegel , a much earlier source than the ones being used in our en.Wiki articles, and even more critical of the hero-drivel. Worth reading. I didn't know that Der Landser sold up to 3mio copies of each issue. That was a sizable percentage of the post war population. I shared offices for years with supposedly denazified Wehrmacht NCOs and officers but I never saw one of those rags lying about. Perhaps they read them on the loo in the lunch break. OMG. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:58, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
- @Kudpung: yes, thank you for your translations of Kurowski and Clean Wehrmacht. I found it surprising that an article on the myth of the 'clean' Wehrmacht did not exist on en.Wiki in 2016, while - at the same time - Field Marshal Erwin Rommel was described as a "humanitarian". And I would find it odd for any general, whose job is to wage war, to be described as such, irrespective of whether they were Allied or German. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:24, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
- For those who haven't heard of it, the "clean Waffen-SS" myth says that it was the Allgemeine SS which committed the atrocities and not the Waffen-SS (or presumably the SS-Totenkopfverbände or Sicherheitspolizei). But of course all the branches were involved in, well, everything. This myth came to wider public attention due to the Bitburg controversy in 1985. The "clean Wehrmacht" myth is similar; it says that the atrocities were committed by the SS, and not the Wehrmacht. In the article on Albert Kesselring, I purposefully highlighted one war crime each by the SS, Heer, Kriegsmarine and Luftwaffe to avoid giving oxygen to the myth. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:34, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
- An ideal of even-handedness, especially considering the article reached FA status here on English Wikipedia. MPS1992 (talk) 22:38, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
- Thank you! I wrote about my trials and tribulation in writing it here in this MILHIST 2011 Op-Ed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:02, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
- I think we all have a lot to learn from that honest and forthright account of the difficulties of presenting a historical account of terrible times. (I have fixed and expanded the link because I think it is important.) MPS1992 (talk) 23:33, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
- @Hawkeye7: I was not going to ping you again, but since you've commented here, could you clarify your statement in the comments section of the Bugle' essay on the same topic. You wrote:
Sometimes poor or outdated sources are all we have, so that is what he must use
, presumably referring to primary sources as was clear from your follow-up: [1].
- I responded with a request for a clarificationn and pointed to a MILHIST A-Class article, which, IMO, uses "poor" and "outdated" sources; see: Talk:Helmut Wick#Propaganda origins. I would appreciate hearing from a professional military historian on whether you believe the article should retain its A-Class / GA status. --K.e.coffman (talk) 22:31, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
- That's not an opinion I give as a military historian, because it is not the subject area where I am the world expert. But our policy on Wikipedia is clear: reliable sources may be non-neutral. It's not enough to drive-by template the article based on your own opinion; you have to detail specific factual errors. On that basis, there is no issue with the German or English versions, and any passing editor is entitled to remove the template unless details are forthcoming on the talk page. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 12:38, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
- @Hawkeye7: I was not going to ping you again, but since you've commented here, could you clarify your statement in the comments section of the Bugle' essay on the same topic. You wrote:
- An ideal of even-handedness, especially considering the article reached FA status here on English Wikipedia. MPS1992 (talk) 22:38, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
- People interested in this Op-ed may like to know that there's a related Request for arbitration here, filed by K.e.coffman, which currently looks like it'll be accepted by the Arbitration committee. Bishonen | talk 22:13, 26 April 2018 (UTC).
- Anyone considering expressing dissident opinions should think again. "most respected and experienced arbitrators" are ready for you. MPS1992 (talk) 22:26, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
- Interesting piece - military history tends to be a bit of a closed garden, in which people are either interested, or not. But could not similar criticisms be made of most of our milhist coverage? Articles on say the Napoleonic Wars, Hundred Years War etc rarely dwell much on the mass rapes, pillage and extortion inflicted on the civilian populations of the "theatre". It's perhaps only become a major element of coverage since WW2, for obvious reasons. Johnbod (talk) 11:20, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
- This issue also seems to occur in other forms of media. See here for example, where the co-founder of the studio says that members of the Wehrmacht were "doing their duty." Mr Ernie (talk) 14:09, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
- Mr Ernie: Yes. Our article on the Clean Wehrmacht goes into it a bit, but in the West this myth is common because a rearmed West Germany was needed by the Western Allies during the Cold War, so they promoted the myth. The academic consensus is that it is indeed a myth, but popular histories are often either outdated or out of the mainstream consensus, which makes the problem difficult to deal with on a project like Wikipedia. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:15, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
← Back to Op-ed