User talk:K.e.coffman

Really...

I always admired how you cut through bull-stuff in some contexts (re: your inspiring c/e of various Nazi-whitewashing, etc.). Which is why I am surprised we seem to disagree on the 'Jewish Paradise' issue. The 1606 poem was undeniably xenophoic (including being antisemitic). But the poem is fringe, it is forgotten, and all that remains is the proverb (and its shorter 'Jewish Paradise') section. I've cited plenty of sources, and the use of either is generally neutral, as in, non-malicious and referring to the Golden Age of Jews in Poland. Of course, we can find some instances of those terms being abused by antisemites, but 1) I cannot find any academic source discussing the use of those constructs by antisemites, so all we have are some primary refs to hate speech and 2) those constructs are reasonably often used by academics, who clearly use them in a neutral way (if not, in fact, a way that's positive towards the Jews, as in, referring to their Golden Age). There's the bit about the saying being an exaggeration/hyperbole, which the article notes as well, but I'd really appreciated it if you tell me what I am missing here? I explained this issue on talk in more detail, but IMHO the vast majority of reliable (academic) sources uses the proverb/two word construct neutrally. How such a construct can be considered antisemitic? (Again, I am sure it is abused in some hate speech, but so can be everything else, and hate speech is not a reliable source, not until it is analyzed by academics). A single minor scholar is grinding an ax because she has issues with a POLIN Museum and criticized the title of their exhibition; no other scholar seems to support her claim about those constructs (through some, rightly, agree re the original 1606 poem, as do I, and as the article clearly states). Seriously, one of the world's largest museums of Jewish history wouldn't use an anti-semitic phrase, without any explanation, on its pages/exhibitions: [1]. And it's not like POLIN is not aware of Janicka's criticism (or criticisms, she effectivelly called it an antisemitic museum, she really has an issue with that institution...); they have generated a few more academic papers, replies from POLIN director/staff, which essentially boils down to 'criticism of this phrase is incorrect and out of context', which is why the museum has retained this phrase, and nobody else has repeated this criticism (Polin won a prestigious Europen-wide museum award, the European Museum of the Year Award, since: [2]). Ditto for media, no media, Polish or international, have deemed this criticism to be justified. Just recently a Jewish-American newspaper ([3]) run a nice report on the museum, and guess what? They even explicitly refer to the Jewish Paradise construct in a positive way: "The 'Paradisus Iudaeorum' gallery, part of the core exhibition at Warsaw's POLIN Museum of the History of Polish Jews, examines a 'golden age' for Jews in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth in the 16th and 17th centuries." in the image caption, and they don't even bother to mention any criticism of that phrase. So, are you going to say that the AJP is using anti-semitic language now? PS. BBC used it a way back: [4], so did the Jewish Telegraphic Agency ([5]). Hardly anti-semitic venues (if it was really an anti-semitic slur, you'd think someone would point it out to them and they'd revise their articles...). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:02, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

"Paradise for the Jews" @ DYK

@Piotrus: You have asked for my opinion; I responded on my Talk page as well as at DYK. It's apparently not what you expected to hear, so let me be more direct in how I convey this. Accusations of "ranting" [6] in response to good-faith concerns are not appropriate. Likewise, continued advocacy [7] with the aim of getting an antisemitic-sounding saying onto the mainpage comes across as off. Other editors said as much, i.e. here: [8].

Re: your comment that "the academic debate about this topic, as well as whether this phrase is anti-semitic, or much more nuanced, is ongoing, and any attempt to simply it is not helpful" [9]. I agree with this point, but it also underlies the issue with the hook. The available word count does not offer sufficient space for nuance, which the topic requires. It also seems that the positive connotations apply to the two-word phrase. Attempts to "simplify" the article into a hook & use the entire saying evince responses such as: "Who the hell is responsible for this potential P.R. clusterfuck?". It would not be a good look for Wikipedia if more people come away with this impression.

Perhaps you are simply too invested in the article to be able to hear the feedback you are getting. That said, I grant that there's a chance that I'm wrong in how I perceived the hook. A discussion at NPOVN may be benefitial to get wider perspectives. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:38, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Would you mind point out which reliable source refer to the proverb as anti-semitic (anti-Jewish)? Not, I repeat, an anti-semitic source which uses the phrase, since this is a spurious relations (again, one might as well argue that the use of the word "Jew" in an antisemitic canard like "all Jews are [something bad]" means the very word "Jew" is antisemtic and controversial). Right now we have sources and a consensus that the original 1606 text was xenophobic and antisemitic, and a single source making a generalized claim that the two-word construct "Jewish Paradise" is anti-semitic (and I argue that it is a fringe claim, plus that the author refers to the original poem and just uses the two-word construct as a reference to it). I will also note that exaggeration =/= (always) antisemitism (unless you have a source that says otherwise); we already note the proverb is an exaggeration (but it doesn't make it antisemitic, at least, not without a source saying so). Again, I ask, which reliable source discusses the antisemitism of the proverb? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:23, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

@Piotrus: I invite you to read my comments above: #"Paradise for the Jews" @ DYK. You have not addressed any of my points or acknowledged the feedback you got so far, yet you want more information. Are you saying that all these other editors are wrong? --K.e.coffman (talk) 23:33, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

(EC):::@Piotrus: I would just like to amplify and clarify my original concerns with this DYK nomination. Before I begin, I must say that I have often agreed with your editing and have never had issues with you. For clarification, I edited until September with the user name 'Irondome' so, this is me. Her are some points;

• DYK is the place for new, 'immature' articles, which in my opinion should be non-controversial. The intense and detailed discussion regarding specialised and nuanced historical points which it has already generated at the DYK board would indicate that the article was not ripe for DYK, which I believe, is the place for non-contentious work. The placement of this subject matter in a DYK was premature, and not perhaps suited for the typical DYK audience. The article needed to be refined and improved by community discussion.
• The timing of the DYK was unfortunate, as it would have fallen just 24 hours before the 80th anniversary of Kristallnacht. I believe this would have been insensitive to the feelings of many readers, and more dangerously, would have created potential attention and focus on the project's failings, even if perceived. In my opinion, the timing was insensitive. WP has many enemies, on all spectra. We cannot afford adverse media attention, which was a probability, however remote.
• This year saw an unpleasant disagreement between Poland, Israel and other nations regarding the Polish Government's legislation on Polish historiography, which obviously focused on the ongoing Polish death camp controversy debates. Personally I think the Polish Government were and are correct to challenge such an inaccuracy, but mutual misapprehensions and subsequent Polish Government legislation created a poor atmosphere, which will take a time for the dust to settle on. This merely gave the perception of an ongoing Jewish-Polish animosity. I am obviously AGF here, but it is the perception and timings which I objected to, and which I felt would inflame in the extreme quarters of all POV's on either 'side'.

These were my main concerns, and I wished to clarify them here. Your colleague, Simon Adler (talk) 05:24, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Dear KEC, I am afraid we are talking past one another, as it is my distinct impression you have not addressed my points or acknowledged feedback. I am not sure which points of you I am ignoring. To be clear, I believe any article can have a neutral hook created for it, no matter how controversial the subject. I still believe that all hooks proposed are pretty neutral, but more could be considered, except nobody is really proposing them. Ex. we could consider a hook along the lines that ...'part of the proverb XYZ used in the Polin Museum exhibition has given raise to a heated debate'. I honestly don't see what's wrong with such hooks. A potential of any PR disaster is a totally ridiculous idea. Aside from NOTCENSORED, whose spirit means we don't give in to pressure not to write about potentially controversial subjects, this is hardly a controversial subject. A few academics exchanged some academic polemic, granted, reasonably heated for academia - but the general media never cared about it. Nobody has so far found a single international, not to mention, Polish news media piece that even discussed this. What kind of controversy could arise from using a neutrally worded hook is beyond me. Even if the hook was non-neutral and biased, such as saying that 'XYZ proverb illustrated that Jews were highly privileged in the PLC', I doubt anyone would notice this outside Wikipedia, but that's a straw man argument, since I and others have tried hard to ensure that both the article and the hook are neutral as much as possible, and not easily misinterpreted. Do let me know if there are any other points you made I somehow missed (if I didn't reply to that in more detail earlier it is TBH because I still consider it mostly ridiculous from the common sense perspective and a violation of the NOTCENSORED Wikipedia policy; once we seriously start removing main page content because 'it may offend someone', what's next? No articles on racial issues, on gender issues on the main page? Maybe we should delete them just to be safe? Anyone suggesting this article is beyond hope when it comes to DYK is threading a very dangerous path and need major WP:TROUTing, with all die respect - it's one thing to suggest rewording a hook for more neutrality, something that I have no problem with, it's another to say a topic is totally unsuited - I repeat, nothing can ever be totally unsuited, the only reason a hook can be failed for neutrality is if nobody cares to fix it and propose a better alternative). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:42, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi @Piotrus: You need to convince other editors, not just me. That's why I suggested a centralised location, such as NPOVN. Splintering discussions across multiple pages is unlikely to result in consensus. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:07, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Sure, but as I value your opinion a lot, I'd be quite happy if I could manage to convince you :) Anyway, feel free to check the recent version of the article and comment on whether it is neutral. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:35, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi @Piotrus: I've expressed my opinion that the article should be moved to Paradisus Judaeorum, for starters: [10]. The entire saying can be discussed in the "Background" section, as, well, background for the two-word phrase; the former generated coverage only in passing. There's really no point in having a DYK on a nn phrase, plus all the other baggage, as discussed earlier. Sorry, I'm not convinced, but I appreciate the effort :). --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:34, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Considering that the only two academic sources that discuss this topic in depth focus on the proverb and not just the Jewish Paradise construct, I think the current longer title is correct. The shorter phrase is used a bit more, but in passing. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:05, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

"Paradise for the Jews" @ AfD

Hi @Piotrus: what are the two academic sources that discuss this topic [the entire saying] in depth? K.e.coffman (talk) 05:02, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

One is a Polish dictionary style collection of sayings from 1960 (not read by anyone - available in snippet view) The other is a paper from 1937 by an antisemitic political leader of the Polish Peasent Party who was advocating the mass expulsion of Jews from Poland as they were a "foreign body" (as well as advocating other stuff on Polish Jews).Icewhiz (talk) 06:36, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

@Piotrus: is what Icewhiz saying true [that these are the two sources you have in mind]? --K.e.coffman (talk) 16:16, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Sigh. Bad faith a la reducto to antisemitum aside, yes. Except I'd describe the sources a bit more differently (I'd hope neutrally, but you can be the judge of that). The snippet view is sufficient to confirm that the proverb has a 2-3 page text analysis in the book on Polish proverbs by a Polish linguist and folklorist Julian Krzyżanowski. The book had its first edition in 1960 and the last in 1994, some editions where published by one of Poland's major publishing houses State Publishing Institute PIW, generally seen as one of Poland's top publishers (they publish encyclopedias, etc.). The second and likely better (longer) source is a monograph by another respected historian, Stanisław Kot. Despite Icehwiz assertion, he is not recognized as antisemite; I don't think I have to explain the relevant logical fallacies in trying to discredit sources by making and stressing such claims, but if you need a start, And you are lynching Negroes is a decent one ("my opponent is clearly wrong because his sources are connected to antisemitism, Nazism, whatever, so trust me, I am the good guy on the side of angels"). Not that antisemitism or one's attitude to Jews is relevant here, as we are not discussing it (through a certain editor is trying very hard to rephrase this discussion in those terms, since if successful, such re-framing allows him to gain support of audience for obvious reasons). Anyway, Kot is used as a source by several modern works cited, including those which are concerned with discussing antisemitism and which are clearly favorable to the pro-Jewish point of view. For example, he is cited by Tokar-Bakirska, a source Icehwiz champions (despite being published by a minor publisher with unclear peer view standards - see Talk:Koniuchy massacre for an interesting comparison of double standards - pl:Fundacja Pogranicze which published Tokarska-Bakir's essay is totally Icewhiz but pl:Instytut Wydawniczy „Pax” is unacceptable...). Not that I think TB is unreliable, she is a minor scholar and her article is published by a minor publisher, but there are no major red flags. Anyway, I am using her as an example of a source that Icehwiz considers reliable and relevant. But what is she saying? "Zatrzymam się chwilę przy znaczeniu tego przysłowia. Solidne studium źródłowe, publikowane w roku 1937, poświęcił mu Stanisław Koti, który przytacza następujący fragment utworu łacińskiego Paskwiliusze na królewskim weselu podrzucone (1606) ... W przekonaniu Stanisława Kota, paszkwil ten dowodzi nieszlacheckiego (od siebie dodajmy: na pewno też nieżydowskiego) poglądu na życie społeczne, moralne i obyczajowe [then follows a lengthy quotation from Kot]. I am not translating it (you can easily GT yourself), the point is that a source Icehwiz consider reliable and that is discussing antisemitism does not call Kot an antisemite, does not consider him underliable, instead it cites from his work on the proverb, and calls it a 'solid source review'. Janicka, another minor modern scholar (reliable, I am just saying she, like T-B, are junor scholars unlike Kot and Krzyzanowski, deceased professors with many awards/publications), the source of the anti-semitism angle (as she is the one source who explicitly refers to the "Jewish paradise" as antisemitic) quotes from TB: " “An authoritative source-based study of the subject was published by Stanisław Kot in 1937” (Tokarska-Bakir, 2004, p. 53)." So here Janicka, whose entire paper is about showing examples of antisemitism, is citing TB's reference to Kot as a reliable source - without, again, casting any doubt on him either as a scholar or as an antimsemite. So when two scholars who are some of Icewhiz main sources and whose papers focus on antisemitism seem to use Kot as a reliable source, well, I find it a bit, errr, OR/SYNTH/not good faith when Icehwiz tries to discredit Kot as unreliable antisemite. But, of course, it is all about whether a source supports one's argument or not... Now, as noted on article's talk, we don't have access to full version of either sources, but it seems quite clear (due to snippets for the book and references to scholars like TB to the monograph) that they are in-depth treatment of the proverb. And it also seems they are reliable. Two academic, in-depth sources suffice for GNG pass. So what's the problem here, except WP:IDONTLIKEIT? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:14, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

@Piotrus: On the 1960s source, if you are seeing a snippet view only, it appears that you don't know what it actually says and whether it's "academic", no? On Stanisław Kot, in addition to being a scholar, he was also a politician, who "joined the right wing of the People's Party". And why is there a need to cite a 1930s source? Related to the age of the source, if other sources are discussing Kot's approach to the topic, I would consider these sources to be secondary, while the source they are analysing (Kot) is primary. Resulting in much of the content about the entire saying being OR, in addition to what's cited to 19th century source. --K.e.coffman (talk) 04:03, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

The 1960 source quite possibly only contain primary quotes. As for Kot - the Nazi experiments on Hypothermia in Dachua are still considered to be definitive - Bogod - however no one woukd treat them as a secondary source. Kot is used by Tokar-Bakirska in an attributed manner (Janicka actually does not cite Kot - she cites Tokar-Bakirska and quotes Kot from there, noting the irony in the quote). Kot may have a decent source review (correct for 1937) - however that does not make him a secondary source nor a reliable one. In 1937 he was, I believe, a full time politician (with very ugly politics - as may he seen in a cursory BEFORE on his name - he is mainly covered in sources for his politics and WWII/post-war posts in the governemnt in exile) - having been dismissed his academic post a few years prior.Icewhiz (talk) 04:57, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

I've seen enough of the snippet (several sentences) to think I have a good feel for the source and I say it is an academic discussion. A 1930s scholarly work, still cited and obviously considered reliable, is, well, a proper secondary source. Kot's politics are irrelevant, People's Party was as a whole quite centrist and sympathetic to the Jews, not that it is relevant anywhere. All of this is simply irrelevant to the source. If it is good enough for modern scholars to reference, it is clearly good enough for us. Trying to discard it because one does not like some other aspects of the author or finds his life choices troublesome is pure WP:IDONTLIKEIT. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:12, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

There's absolutely no indication that Kot's writings are a RS (for anything but Kot's views). His wartime plans of "mass relocation" of Jews to Odessa (per Kot - to be taken from Russian) was contrasted to Hitler's plans by Leonard Stein - this Friedrich, Klaus-Peter. "Die polnische Regierungsdelegatur und ihr „jüdisches Problem “1940-1945." Jahrbücher für Geschichte Osteuropas (2009): 23-53. makes an interesting read. Icewhiz (talk) 16:07, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi @Piotrus: If you are confident that Kot would pass RS muster, I would suggest raising the issue at RSN. The way the AfD is trending, I don't think the editors there share your conviction. It just looks like WP:ILIKEIT, to be honest. For example, I would not use a 1930's source from Nazi Germany to discuss an antisemitic-sounding saying (or United States, or Russia, for that matter). It's just common sense.

I don't agree with the Reductio ad Hitlerum / ad Antisemitismum analogy either: [11]. You would be surprised at how many times I had to say: this is literally a neo-Nazi / Nazi-apologist source and would get "meh" responses from MILHIST. Some highlights from the ArbCom case here:

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/German war effort/Evidence#Questionable and fringe sources are accepted
• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/German war effort/Evidence#Auntieruth misinterpreted WP:IRS
• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/German war effort/Evidence#Hawkeye misinterpreted WP:IRS

In general, I would be very cautious about using dated sources in a contentitious area such as this. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:53, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

All I will say, is, simply, that if he is good enough for modern scholars of antisemitism (Tokarska-Bakir, Janicka) to cite, call solid, and omit any criticism, he is good enough for us. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:44, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Draft:The Hitman Blues Band

Thanks for the review. I'm confused - the rejection said:

This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia. Encyclopedia articles need to be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed. This is important so that the article can meet Wikipedia's verifiability policy and the notability of the subject can be established. If you still feel that this subject is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, please rewrite your submission to comply with these policies.

There WAS a range of independent, reliable, published sources. For example, they were on the front cover of Blues In Britain and had an accompanying article, had numerous reviews over the years in magazines and newspapers from all over the world, and toured all over the UK and Europe. I provided references. There are plenty of other reviews, but unfortunately many are not web accessible without a subscription. I don't understand how you can say what you did about it being "materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed" - I didn't write those articles!

Rather than being "an advertisement", which would have used superlatives to describe the band, I just stuck to their history and accomplishments. No, they aren't U2 or Led Zeppelin. But they are a recognized Modern Blues band that has gotten steady, significant airplay on blues stations all over the world and have a reasonably large following. If they don't meet the required level of success, despite the luminaries who have recorded the albums, that's one thing. But to say I didn't provide a neutral point of view, or didn't provide independent, reliable, published sources - I must be missing something in what's required.

I would appreciate help in getting this to pass muster. Thanks again for your time and voluntary work. Savearainbow (talk) 23:49, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

@Savearainbow: please see User_talk:Savearainbow#Managing_a_conflict_of_interest. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:05, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

So as a fan who knows the band, I can't submit the article? Thanks for the quick response. Savearainbow (talk) 00:21, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

@Savearainbow: It's still unclear whether you have a connection to the band or not (WP:COI), since you did not directly answer my question. In any case, you are welcome to ask for a second opinion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk. Please link this discussion if you do. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:14, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

No, I'm not directly connected to the band other than being a fan. Nowhere in your comments or responses did I see an actual question. Honestly, I feel like we're having two different conversations. You gave critiques that did not apply to my article. You're saying I didn't answer a non-existing question. I already submitted this article (a different editor reviewed it and gave very helpful suggestions) and this concept of COI never came up. I understand you're a volunteer editor and are doing the best you can, but this is quite frustrating.

Savearainbow (talk) 16:46, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

A week and no response. Ok, you'll be happy to know I'm giving up. I'm passing this over to another fan I know in the UK to submit. Perhaps he'll get a better response. I already told the band that I've run up against an editor who seems to be dead set against the article.

Savearainbow (talk) 18:12, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

@Savearainbow: "I already told the band that I've run up against..." suggests that you are in personal contact with the band, so not "just" a fan (?). In any case, I've responded earlier and suggested that you ask for a second opinion at the Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk. I do not plan to comment on this draft further. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:31, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

For your list of known right-wing publishers

Here is one for your list of known right-wing publishers that I came across while expanding the National Zeitung article: The Deutscher Buchdienst, founded by Gerhard Frey (politician), now run by the Adoria Verlag. Their Ritterkreuztraeger card game pretty much says it all, or what about the Germany in the borders of 1937 jigsaw? However, Frey's Ehrenbund Rudel might be defunct now, to late to join. Turismond (talk) 09:23, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Wow. I've been studying the Judaica section with... with... interest, I suppose. We have an article on the "MacDonald" who has written many of the books listed: Kevin MacDonald (evolutionary psychologist). Bishonen | talk 17:25, 18 November 2018 (UTC).

@Turismond: thank you; good find! --K.e.coffman (talk) 04:33, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

I have started a Draft:List of German far-right publications and publishers since 1945, hoping to compile a bit of a list of the major ones. Feel free to contribute if you got time. I will use your list as a reference as I progress. Turismond (talk) 06:12, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

For your wall of distortionist shame

Hey K.e.coffman, take a peek at - diff1, diff2, and diff on commons. A higher resolution of the same photo + comments by a museum can be seen - here. If you know a bit of Yiddish/German - it is verifiable by self reading - the first line is "דער טאג וואלן" or "Der Tag Wahlen" - election day. The museum's loose translation (won't dicker with them too much - but seems to me a bit loose) is "The Election of / Delegates / For the people's council / of Western Belarus", and they say this was taken in 1941 right after the German conquest. This was presented on Wikipedia "Banner in Yiddish welcoming the Soviet forces in 1939. In the background the Catholic Church of St. Roch in Białystok (Soviet photo)" - which seems like Żydokomuna/Jewish Bolshevism. The file was added to Commons (and I presume to Wikipedia on around the same date) in December 2015 - and remained on Wikipedia for nearly 3 years. Icewhiz (talk) 17:33, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Through it seems to be more of an honest mistake. The description is based on [12] which talks about an exhibition of photographs from 1939-1941 related to Soviet propaganda. Until we found a better description, the old one didn't seem wrong. Wall of shame seems more appropriate for purposeful misinformation rather than accidental. In either way, thank you Icehwiz for finding a better description and correcting the old misleading one. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:35, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

The TVP3(Bialystok regional) run by Telewizja Polska would seem to be an unlikely source for WWII information - the state broadcaster has hosted openly anti-semitic guests [13] as well as transmitting anti-semitic messages on-air- per themselves due to a "technical glitch".[14] However - the TVP source cited above does not support this was a "Jewish welcome message" or that it was taken in 1939. I will note that before searching for the specific photograph, the description itself was obviously wrong from the composition of the image itself (even if you are unable to make out Yiddish (and it is a tad blurry version of the photo) - the sign is quite obviously not a "welcome message" in its drab black and white glory and in Yiddish no less. A rudimentary understanding of Yiddish/German is sufficient to show that the text on the sign is not a "welcome message"). Icewhiz (talk) 10:03, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

@Piotrus: @Icewhiz: I've seen this image before, in the Białystok Ghetto article, and I recall that the caption did not make sense to me. If the Jews really wanted to welcome the Red Army, they would have written the banner in Russian. The "Jew-Bolshevik-Partisan" construct is something I've come across elsewhere; see samples at User:K.e.coffman#"Ah, partisanen!".

I've seen some creative captions, too; for example: [15], in Sonderaktion 1005. This belongs in User:K.e.coffman#Debasement of victims; as in: Look at these well-dressed Sonderkommandos, relaxed and casually standing about, posing for photographs, while the camp is in operation. Almost turning victims into perpetrators. Shameful. Please feel free to let me know about additional diff; my wall can always use more. K.e.coffman (talk) 16:46, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

@Icewhiz: By looking at the article history, I realised that I had edited the page and that the caption had been even worse: "Jewish welcoming banner for the Soviet forces invading Poland." (!) Towards the middle of the page here: [16]. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:54, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Aha - but in your same edit you removed "following mock elections conducted in the atmosphere of coercion and terror." - in wikivoice, which sort of made the caption make sense (as the image is actually an election notice for the People's Council..... However if we view the elections themselves (yes, sham elections as everywhere in the Soviet Union) as an instrumemt of terror - with a little bit of SYNTH and OR one could get to that caption).Icewhiz (talk) 04:14, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

@Icewhiz: The original caption was not related to the elections in any way: Jewish welcoming banner for the Soviet forces invading Poland. In the background the Catholic Church of St. Roch in Białystok (Soviet photo). It even got the source of the photo wrong, claiming that it was a "Soviet photo". In general, I suspect that 99.5% of Wikipedia's readers and editors would not know what the banner said. I changed the pejorative-sounding "Jewish banner" to "banner in Yiddish" based on my readings on the topic of Bialystock, from which I knew that the city's Jewish population was almost exclusively Yiddish-speaking, to the point that Zionist organisations there published their newspapers in Yiddish, not Hebrew. If you see any more creative captions, please let me know. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:08, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Aeris Naviter

• Anobium625 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Aeris Naviter (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Thank you for taking the time to review Draft:Aeris Naviter. It was not a puff piece for the company. I know none of the principals and the company is defunct. Why puff it? But I do agree that its notability was marginal, so I am concurring in its deletion. Anobium625 (talk) 00:15, 22 November 2018 (UTC) Anobium625 (talk) 00:15, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

@Anobium625: in general, if the article on the product already exists, the information on the (marginally notable) company can be merged into the article on its product. The same principle applies to authors. If they have written one notable book, you can create an article either on the book or on the author, but not both. --K.e.coffman (talk) 03:28, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Advice needed on Draft:Bram van Sambeek

Thank you for your review, but in all honesty I am a bit frustrated that you give different feedback than your colleague reviewer: "This topic is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia." You also state that it is still extremely promotional. I find that feedback extremely vague. Your colleague mentioned the "award winning", which is a fact of life, as we are talking about one of the world´s best bassoon players. But I removed that.

Please explain to me why this is extremely promotional? Give me three examples where the text is still extremely promotional? From that I can learn (I am a fast learner) and adapt the submission. Thank you in advance for your advice. --Sobatipep (talk) 06:16, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

@Sobatipep: Please see Wikipedia:Spam. --K.e.coffman (talk) 03:25, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

@K.e.coffman: Thank you, but that is quite general feedback, which I find hard to work with. Your perception of sales language or written as an advertisement is quite different from mine it seems, so it is hard to improve if the feedback is not specific enough. But I will give it a try, although I think, more specific feedback would save everyone time. --Sobatipep (talk) 09:34, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

@K.e.coffman: I think I did a good attempt to make it more neutral by taking out all adjectives and opinions. I took out the reference to a future album release and I also took out quotes and changed the use of first name to either the complete name or just the last name. I reordered some of the text and made special projects and experiments a part of Career as to not make it stand out that much. I think it is quite neutral now. I am not quite sure how to submit the article for review now, though. I asked for Advice through the button that you added in your review. Could you inform me how to submit or how the process works differently from the previous time? The way Wikipedia works is not intuitive for me, so I need some guidance. Thank you. --Sobatipep (talk) 10:57, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

@Sobatipep: I see that you've asked for a second opinion at the Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk. I do not plan to comment on this draft further. --K.e.coffman (talk) 05:33, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

@K.e.coffman: Thank you! --Sobatipep (talk) 08:32, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Suicide of Katelyn Nicole Davis

Thank you for reviewing Draft:Suicide of Katelyn Nicole Davis. This was rejected due to "this topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia", however I do not believe that is the correct consensus. This event was covered in various local, national, and international reliable secondary sources, so should meet WP:GNG. It also resulted in continued coverage and has had long term effects beyond the event itself, so WP:NOTNEWS shouldn't apply.

This page follows WP:SINGLEEVENT which says that "The general rule is to cover the event, not the person." The most recent version of this draft isn't targeting the individual person (who wouldn't otherwise be notable) but rather the event, which is clearly significant. Please compare this page to the various other pages in Category:Bullying_and_suicide which are also titled "Suicide of X" instead of just "X", and use {infobox event} instead of {infobox person}. Also compare to another filmed suicide page, Suicide of Kevin Whitrick, which has been deemed notable enough to easily survive deletion proposal. Katelyn Davis' case should be considered at least as notable as all these other pages, in that it had much more national and international coverage, her death was actually recorded on video and was seen by literally millions of people (often unwittingly) during its weeks on Facebook, and in the case's later ramifications on modifying policy on Facebook and other social media platforms. Thanks, Cruiser1 (talk) 04:07, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

@Cruiser1: you are welcome to ask for a second opinion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk. Please link this discussion if you do. --K.e.coffman (talk) 05:34, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Supernova-Group

Hi, K.e.coffman! Thank you for reviewing my article. What do I have to do, to get the topic [17] sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Is it the topic itself or is it the company, which is not famous enough? Greetings, --Naitsabes117 (talk) 21:18, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

@Naitsabes117: It's not about what you need to do; it's about whether sufficient sources to establish notability exist. Please also see: User_talk:Naitsabes117#Managing a conflict of interest. --K.e.coffman (talk) 06:22, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Patxi Xabier Lezama Perier

The sculptor artist and writer is found in the Basque Encyclopedia of Sculptors, as well as in wikipedia in Spanish and in wikipedia in Basque, his Basque mythology books are found as references in innumerable bibliographies of articles and wikipedia pages in English and Spanish: Basque Mythology, Basajaun, Mari, Tartalo, Aatxe, etc. Patxi Xabier Lezama Perier, sculptor and writer of the Basque mythological is a reference source in Basque mythology as: Andrés Ortiz-Osés or José Migel Barandiaran and the author has sufficient references for the creation of his page in the Basque encyclopedy and in numerous international art magazines, you should create the author page in the wikipedia in English and a redirection to the wikipedia of the author in Spanish. Best regards and I hope you consider the creation of the author page and / or its redirection to your wikipedia in Spanish.85.84.33.126 (talk) 17:25, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Choi Nakyoon

Hi, I made my first wikipedia posting few months ago and wish to clarify one factual issue related to its rejection. I don't care anymore at this point whether the draft gets rejected or not, but I wish to resolve one misunderstanding which was stated about the reason of rejection. I cannot accept your argument until this issue is clearly understood and accepted by the reviewer. A clarification is needed on the misunderstanding which you had on me as a writer. How do I prove that I have zero affiliation with the person I wrote about? Do I need to create a sandbox page about my identity? Why did you assume that I must have prepared the article for the sake of commercial interest or promotional activities?

I have no idea how you could pre-assume (without even asking the writer) that I may have personal relations with the person I wrote about. This can even sound like a personal insult to a writer who just wanted to make attempt on writing the article for the first time. I apologize if my citations were not good enough, but you cannot assume that I may have a personal relation with the person I wrote about. I don't even personally know him. Of course I don't work for the media company and there is no way he can pay me when he doesn't even know me. Besides, I am an outsider who once took a course and studied Hallyu industry and someone who was curious about writing wikipedia article drafts and just wanted to give it a try through trials and errors. My personal goal was to increase English wikipedia pages for the existing Korean wikipedia pages. In that way, more English readers can have access to Asian wikipedia pages (perhaps if the English draft is available, then the English writers can also find ways together to fix the reference issue which Korean wikipedia articles hold).

All I tried to do was create an English version of his already-existing Korean wikipedia page. I do not get paid by anyone for this matter, and this is almost a personal insult to me when I have pure interest to contribute as a writer as well, but all I get is a pre-assumed comments filled with injustice.

I am not asking the reviewer to accept the draft because the draft already has a reference issue. I also accept that the submission can be rejected only if it's because of citation issues or because you consider that the person is "not notable", but I can never accept the reviewer's assumption about my purpose and intent of preparing the draft. I have no relation with a person I wrote about. I cannot emphasize enough that I want to know why the reviewer would pre-assume about something that isn't even true at all. What made you think that I must have written about someone I know or for commercial interest?

Please reconsider this issue; I want you to take back what you said about my intent of draft and I hope to cooperate in the most peaceful way and resolve this matter together. Thanks for reviewing and considering this message in advance. Uideyield (talk) 15:41, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

@Uideyield: I don't believe that the subject meets WP:NACTOR. But you are welcome to ask for a second opinion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk. --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:36, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Thank you ...

... for improving article quality in November! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:49, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

On Kluge (again!)

In the next week, when I have more free time to re-read books and research, I will finish my part on Kluge. Once we are content with the article’s quality, it will be your turn to pick a subject :) We can discuss that and some books you recommend for me to prepare researching.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 20:20, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

@TheGracefulSlick: it's good to see you back. I need to dust off my Barbarossa books; I believe I've already moved the content pertaining to the Battle of Moscow to Kluge's article. Regarding WWII books in general, my library is here: User:K.e.coffman/Library. I can recommend all of these books; it just depends on what topic areas interest you. I got many of these books after watching the authors' talks on Youtube. If you'd like, I can link some of my favourite ones. --K.e.coffman (talk) 03:07, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

If it is not too much trouble, I would like those links. I think I want to contribute to articles on the Einsatzgruppen and the Holocaust on the Eastern Front, if there is room for improvement in those areas of course. I am also open to other suggestions.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 04:55, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Recommended WWII lectures

The Wehrmacht myth (both are must see)

• Jonathan House: "The Three Wehrmacht Alibis"
• Sönke Neitzel: Mindset of WWII German Soldiers

WWII strategy / operational history / Wehrmacht criminality

• Geoffrey P. Megargee: "Not the Stuff of Legend: The German High Command in World War II"
• David Stahel: The Battle for Moscow
• Robert Citino: Why Did the German Army Fight to the End?

Holocaust in Eastern Europe

• Evgeny Finkel: Ordinary Jews: Choice and Survival during the Holocaust
• Waitman Wade Beorn: The Janowska Camp: At the Center of the Holocaust

@TheGracefulSlick: This would be a good start. I own books by all of these historians and can recommend them all. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:19, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! Skjoldbro (talk) 01:34, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

@Skjoldbro: a WP:RFC may be a better approach to resolving the dispute about Jodl's signature. --K.e.coffman (talk) 03:02, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

OMG coffman are you ever going to stay out of trouble? Can't you just drink a shot of bourbon and celebrate the Alabama victory like the rest of us normal people? *lesight* Drmies (talk) 03:03, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

@Drmies: I don't think I'm in trouble :). I made a single, brief comment on the article's Talk page: [18]. That's been the extent of my involvement. Although I did feature Jodl on my user page, in this section:

• Investigative Sub-committee on Abuses of Victor's Justice.

Maybe I'll give the topic more attention in the future. --K.e.coffman (talk) 03:13, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Hmm K.e.coffman with a bit of bad luck I'm getting on ArbCom. Are you sure you don't want to declare your hatred of Auburn and your love of Jalen Hurts AND Tua Tagovailoa here? I know, it's a sportsy thing to do, but we all have to make sacrifices... Drmies (talk) 03:31, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Ruth Bettina Birn

Hello! Your submission of Ruth Bettina Birn at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 22:26, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

@TheGracefulSlick: You've helped me with DYK hooks before, so I wonder if you may be able to come up with something punchier? The nom is here: [[Template:Did you know nominations/Ruth Bettina Birn and the article is Ruth Bettina Birn. This is a deserving subject, but the best I could come up is was rather bland... I would really appreciate any suggestions. --K.e.coffman (talk) 23:32, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

I have not pieced it into a working hook as of yet, but the threat of libel would be interesting to readers, especially since a reputable historian—Segev—believes her criticisms are well-argued.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 23:57, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

How about this: “Did you know... that Ruth Bettina Birn was threatened with legal action by Daniel Goldhagen for her critique of his work Hitler's Willing Executioners?” You could probably form a better sentence, but I think the reviewer will see this as a bit more “hooky”.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 02:50, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

It cuts more than one way

Some remarks after having skimmed, occasionally raising a quizzical eyebrow, through the extensive (though doubtless and therefore unfortunately not comprehensive) examples on your Main Page. It isn't only Wehrmacht fans and Nazi apologists. Lots of people prefer rattling good stories and sanitised descriptions over hard facts.

(1) I've just watched an American documentary (date uncertain, but narrated by Charlton Heston), according to which "Rommel [in North Africa] had taken a high-velocity 88 anti-aircraft gun and adapted it to anti-tank service, where it was a deadly destructive surprise". It was clearly part of Rommel's genius to realise, as no-one had done before, that 88 AA shells would work equally well as if not better as AP rounds </sarcasm>.

Rommel is an interesting example. He is bigged up, perhaps uniquely, by people with several different agendas to push. The Desert Fox, only defeated in North Africa by Monty's superior generalship. Far-sighted defender of the Atlantic Wall, who would have thrown the Allies back into the sea if only he'd been listened to. Opponent of Hitler, a simple soldier, quiet supporter (or perhaps unaware) of the 20 July plot, forced to commit suicide by Nazi grandees. (Oh, and one-time commander of Hitler's bodyguard.)

(2) Robert Henry Cain, VC citation: "On 20th September [1944] a Tiger tank approached the area held by his company and Major Cain went out alone to deal with it armed with a Piat. Taking up a position he held his fire until the tank was only 20 yards away when he opened up. The tank immediately halted and turned its guns on him, shooting away a corner of the house near where this officer was lying. Although wounded by machine gun bullets and falling masonry, Major Cain continued firing until he had scored several direct hits, immobilised the tank and supervised the bringing up of a 75 mm. howitzer which completely destroyed it".

One of the very best VCs, but that citation lies like a bulletin. (1) He didn't start out alone (the PIAT needed two men to work it; his second had been killed early in the action), (2) not every Nazi vehicle with tracks on it in 1944 was a Tiger or even a tank (it was actually a StuG III), and (3) direct hits from a PIAT, a misbegotten idea of a weapon, usually just bounced off (what Cain managed to do was to shoot off a track).

(3) The death of Giovanni Fornasini.

Source 1 (translated from the Italian): "While giving burial (forbidden by the Nazis), to the dead of Casaglia di Caprara, Don Fornasini faced a German officer, openly accusing him of the crimes committed in the area of Marzabotto; the priest was immediately shot down."

Source 2 (translated from the Italian): "For this massacre, he confronted the responsible officer, scolding him bitterly. The German replied: 'Those are lies. Come with me, let us go for an inspection'. Then, having arrived at the place, in the presence of all those corpses, he killed him with a revolver shot to the head."

Source 3 (in English): "The German soldiers grabbed another priest, Father Giovanni Fornasini, and cut off his head."

Source 4 (in English): "When it seemed that the bloody fury of the Germans was placated, the pastor of Sperticano, Don Giovanni Fornasini, went to the San Martino Cemetery on October 13th to give Christian burial to the corpses that has been burned. The stench of decomposing bodies that had been covered with gasoline and set on fire filled the air. At the sight of the terrible spectacle, unaware that he was being observed by an SS captain, Don Fornasini commented 'These were not partisans; only the elderly, women, and children'. The Captain responded, 'Pastor kaput'. The blast of a machine gun ended his life."

Sources 5, 6, and 7 (all in Italian, and clearly independent of each other): "The circumstances of his death are shrouded in mystery."

I prefer even one source, let alone three, saying "no-one knows" over four irreconcilable pieces of fiction. (As if Waffen-SS officers were accustomed to record, or afterwards to regale people with, details of incidents like the Marzabotto massacre.)

There's a perennial tendency to make events look more heroic/splendid/spectacular/pitiable/etc. than they were. Sticking to the facts isn't easy. Yrs, Narky Blert (talk) 00:01, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

"Military historian of the year"

Nominations for our annual Military historian of the year and Military history newcomer of the year awards are open until 23:59 (GMT) on 15 December 2018. Why don't you nominate the editors who you believe have made a real difference to the project in 2018? MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:26, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

On-going discussion here:

• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#Name of "Military historian of the year" award.

--K.e.coffman (talk) 23:34, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Saeed Jafarian

Hello Dear,

My topic https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Saeed_Jafarian rejected by you because of notability I think. But he is a Palme D'ore nominee at Festival de Cannes and many other grade-A festivals like TIFF and AFI Fest, aren't these reasons enough? Losthighway1990 (talk) 16:17, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

@Losthighway1990: Notability for creative professionals is demonstrated by wins at competitions, not just nominations. I thus do not consider the subject to be notable under WP:CREATIVE. You are welcome to ask for a second opinion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk, but first please provide disclosures, if needed, of any conflict of interest or paid editing. Please see User talk:Losthighway1990#Managing a conflict of interest. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:49, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Draft:2018 Men's World Floorball Championships

I don't understand, why are you think that article about Draft:2018 Men's World Floorball Championships appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia. There are some more articles like this, for example, 2016 Men's World Floorball Championships or 2014 Men's World Floorball Championships. --Treisijs (talk) 19:37, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

@Treisijs: My comment also was: "This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of organizations and companies)." I do not consider the topic to be notable. You are welcome to ask for a second opinion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:45, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

At this moment, this championship is ongoing, so it would be particularly desirable to return this article as soon as possible. At this moment this article is similar like 2016 Men's World Floorball Championships. -Treisijs (talk) 15:41, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

HBUS

I see that the Draft:HBUS has been deleted. Is there a way to get a copy of the source? The instructions on the page were to add better and/or newsworthy references which I was accumulating. The outright deletion of the page without notice is extremely off-putting. I am dismayed at the editors here. I was threatened to be blocked permanently for adjusting the description the leaves of an orchid that I have been cultivating for 20 years.. Geesh. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seedan (talk • contribs) 19:07, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

@Seedan: It looks like User talk:Jacobmay636 has been notified; you can see more info here: User talk:Jacobmay636#Speedy deletion nomination of Draft:HBUS. Separately, I've responded to you here: User talk:K.e.coffman/Archive/2018/November#Draft:HBUS. I do not plan to comment on this draft further. --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:25, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Draft:FxPro

Hello! Thank you for taking your time to check the draft. After your review I tried to make that article more neutral. It also shortened. Could you look again? Thank you! --Rukkostan (talk) 21:59, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

@Rukkostan: The draft is back in the queue. Please also see the message I left on your Talk page: User talk:Rukkostan#Managing a conflict of interest. --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:29, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Christine Mitchell

How do you feel about the current state or condition of Draft:Christine Mitchell? There's more to be found, but I think that the set of issues to be explored here includes:

• women's firsts at Harvard
• role modeling how to move from one profession (nursing) to another (bioethics) via academic divinity school education
• aggressive building of nursing ethics resources supporting the nursing and hospitalist professions.

What would you think ought to be improved about its current state? MaynardClark (talk) 05:35, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Draft deletion: Alternative Business Funding

Below are the comments I put forward to DGG, who was responsible for the Speedy Deletion of this draft. The deletion was so speedy that I was unable to lodge an appeal. I am therefore requesting re-consideration of this decision as being inconsistent with existing Wikipedia entries and also in demonstrating an apparent lack of understanding of the sector and the historical and legislative significance of this particular organisation/product.

"The entry was justifiable as an organisation which pioneered a product/service that led to a direct change in UK Primary Legislation. The entry itself was significantly amended following comments from the original reviewer to enhance the balance. The historical context and generic explanation of how a funding portal works was also amended to provide an even stronger encyclopedic element to this content. I ensured these elements were educational and balanced. The citations were all from independent, national publications or directly from UK Government sources. The G11 decision states: "because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, group, product, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic" and yet there are numerous live Wikipedia entries in this specific sector to which this ruling would apply - not least Funding Options, the second of the three UK Government designated portals (NOTE: it is absolutely not my intention to see this page removed). The same could be said for the Wiki entries of products and services such as Funding Circle, CrowdCube, Zopa, and MarketInvoice (which has been flagged as having significant issues but remains live). Also, every UK bank listed in Wikipedia. Again, my intention here is not to have these pages removed but to demonstrate the inconsistency in this deletion decision. I would be grateful for your comments and an opportunity to review your decision and reinstate the page."

KEC, I would be equally grateful for your comments on the above and request that you discuss this appeal with DGG with a view to reinstating the page.

Many thanks.