User talk:Elinruby

Archives (Index)

2020/April 2020/June 2020/July 2020/August 2020/September 2020/October 2020/November 2020/December 2021/January 2021/February 2021/March 2021/April 2021/May 2021/June 2021/August 2021/September 2021/October 2021/November 2021/December 2022/February 2022/March 2022/April 2022/May 2022/June 2022/July 2022/August 2022/November 2022/December 2023/January 2023/February 2023/March 2023/April 2023/May 2023/June 2023/July

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

French legal terms

Lack of proper translations for French legal terms was getting in the way of a lot of different articles we've been working on in the French criminal law area, and so I've created Draft:Glossary of French criminal law. It's only about 20% done, but it may be useful to you already, especially if your term starts with A, B, or C (and some E's and P's, and scattered others). I finally understand terms like élément matériel and élément moral, which I never did before. As a fringe benefit, I've learned English terms like actus reus and mens rea as well. (Well, Latin terms in these examples, but used in English legal texts in common law countries.) Feel free to add words from French criminal law to the list, even if you don't have the definition for it yet. Cheers, Mathglot (talk) 09:25, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, we really need one. I will work on this a bit later today Elinruby (talk) 20:38, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Was looking around for more good glossaries (not being satisfied with the ones I just added to the "External links" section) and I think I hit the mother lode, with this lexicon from the Ministere de la Justice: http://www.justice.gouv.fr/les-mots-cles-de-la-justice-lexique-11199/#alpha . It's completely authoritative, and fairly comprehensive. It's monolingual French, so it still doesn't cover how to translate a term into English, but at least it's a one-stop shop for finding a reliable definition for something, since the articles at fr-wiki are often poor and unsourced, and I don't trust them. I will start back-filling some of the existing definitions with {{sfn}}s using this source. My plan is to add most of the terms from Catherine Elliott's glossary appendix; I've done pages 231-233; so pp. 234-239 still remain to be added. Mathglot (talk) 02:36, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Well for sure a lot of articles from fr.wikipefia are insufficiently referenced. Which is reason enough how to not trust them. Could we put anchors on individual terms? Elinruby (talk) 04:11, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Every term is individually anchored. The canonical anchor is the French term, as it would appear in running text, so normally lower case, unless always capitalized. Convenience anchors are included, so you can link without diacritics, or capitalized; e.g., Draft:Glossary of French criminal law#élément moral links to the same place as Draft:Glossary of French criminal law#element moral, or Draft:Glossary of French criminal law#Élément moral. Mathglot (talk) 11:15, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Excellent work. I was just looking around in it for the redlinks at Natural person in French law. The definitions for Personne x look at least broadly correct. I will do a comparison later for the terms relating to legal death, which was a brand-new concept to me and probably is to most people. And then there is "peine affamante". The French article keeps talking about "concubine". I am translating this as "common law-spouse", but that's confusing in this context. What do you think? Elinruby (talk) 04:34, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Also, this is not specific to French law, but I had to nail down positive law vs natural law, that's another suggestion. I'll add these when I break out the laptop later if you haven't already. Elinruby (talk) 16:29, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

I took a little side track into template land, because I was relying heavily on Légifrance for references to the text of a lot of laws, and it was getting too tedious. One template existed already, named {{Legifrance}}, but it helped only minimally. So there are now two more templates added to the pot: {{Cite Legifrance}}, and {{Sfn Legifrance}}. You can see some examples of their use in the wild, in French criminal law. Please have a look at them, and note any problems with the template or the documentation on their talk pages. Mathglot (talk)!

So would your template take as input the citations in the jurisprudence section ? Or is it just for laws? Elinruby (talk) 23:13, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

rephrasing for clarity:is it just for legislation or does it include jurisprudence also?

Elinruby (talk) 23:16, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Looks like I never replied, and the answer is: with one small exception (which I believe is written deliberation among jurists on a case, but I'll have to check to make sure) it has every loi, arreté, decrét, réglement, and other legal text going back to 1529, and in particular, everything ever printed in the Journal Officiel, so it's *very* comprehensive. Since I last wrote, I've completely rewritten the {{Legifrance}} template, which includes a more robust design internally that produces the same output as before, but which is much more easily extensible, now. For example, the French template (and our original one) didn't handle all codes written after the "modernization" of the Légifrance system in 2008, so that for example, the Code du travail and the Code penitentiaire are not covered in the French template, but our template handles them correctly. As far as jurisprudence generally, it can handle it the brute force way, using param |url=, for example, this link:

• {{legifrance|text=affaire 21-87.140 of 22 fev. 2023|url=https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/juri/id/JURITEXT000047233670}} → affaire 21-87.140 of 22 fev. 2023

However, with the new robust design, it would be easy to upgrade the template so you just provide the JURITEXT id (i.e., 000047233670 and it would do the rest. Unfortunately, there's no "shortcut" as there is for laws, as you can't map directly from the jurisprudence affair number (21-87.140 in this case)) to the url. Mathglot (talk) 02:57, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Admin law glossary

Happy Wednesday; here's a skeleton of Draft:Glossary of French administrative law, it's all yours. Happy hunting! Mathglot (talk) 08:17, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. I think we'll find the lines are blurry but I had some stuff for n my sandbox for it. Elinruby (talk) 08:28, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

In some cases they are a little blurry, and certain terms should live in both glossaries. I've been looking into selective transclusion for that, so we only have to actually include the definition in one place, and the other glossary can just transclude it. That will solve the problem of fragmentation of similar content, and keep the maintenance to just one copy of it, instead of having to sync it in two places all the time. Mathglot (talk) 06:26, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Found another really good glossary; it's bilingual, with all the dictionary entries in French, and all the definitions and explanations in English. It's called the Council of Europe French-English Legal Dictionary, and it's in Google books, so you know how Google skips pages here and there, so it's not complete, but there are a *lot* of pages available. Almost everything from A to J is available (with several short gaps with missing pages) but there's nothing past 'J'. But it's really worth trying it for any French legal terms in the A to J range. Mathglot (talk) 07:14, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Awesome. I just found out that the river in Quebec was declared a person under Innu law, or at least by Innu entities. Elinruby (talk) 07:22, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

I was just looking at that glossary. It looks partially populated, is that the transcluding you were talking about? Elinruby (talk) 03:19, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

The transcluding, is where it slurps content from the other glossary; see for example, bon père de famille or ordre public, and look at the wikicode. Mathglot (talk) 10:51, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Btw, the Draft:Glossary of French criminal law is about 75% releasable (not 75% done, because it could be vastly expanded, but close to releasable). Please add any words you need and don't see there, to the Talk page, and I'll get to it eventually. Mathglot (talk) 10:55, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Dominican monastery, La Guardia de Jaén

Dominicans are not monks so don't have monasteries. Modern English does use "Convent", but for an older establishment "Priory" would be the more usual word. ("Friary" would be technically correct as well, although it's not often used for Dominicans). Ingratis (talk) 12:12, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Alright, thanks Elinruby (talk) 12:14, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hello, Elinruby. Thank you for your work on Assemblée primaire. User:SunDawn, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Good day! Thank you for creating this article. Hopefully you will write more in the future!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|SunDawn}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 03:12, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 2

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Military of the Qing dynasty

added links pointing to Shaolin and Zhang Yong

2021 Kazakh legislative election

added a link pointing to Amanat

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:02, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Cool tools

Check this out.

There's also this other tool: try Vichy France, or Impeachment of Dilma Rousseff Mathglot (talk) 09:05, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Could you merge French material at Collaboration with the Axis Powers?

Hi, I was looking over Collaboration with the Axis Powers#Political collaboration and saw a brief résumé of Vichy politics that covers more briefly the ground previously treated at Collaboration with the Axis Powers#France.

If I had the patience and expertise, I could try merging the material myself, but I'm sure that you, being far more knowledgeable than I about Vichy, could do a far better job. (Also I'm lazy.)

Nothing stops you, of course, from merging the other two paragraphs covering Denmark and Greece. See the article's talk section.

Regards—— Shakescene (talk) 19:42, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

@Shakescene: Answered you there. Will let it sit a day or so in case somebody objects, but I don't see why they would Elinruby (talk) 21:08, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. I just reworked the beginning of a paragraph about the post-war consequences, beginning:

Some few collaborators (such as Paul Touvier) were tried in the 1980s for crimes against humanity. René Bousquet (who was rehabilitated after the war and later regained some influence in French politics, finance and journalism) was prosecuted in 1991 for deporting Jews, but was assassinated in 1993 just before his trial would have begun....

Does this look accurate to you?

—— Shakescene (talk) 21:28, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Also re-looked at the immediately-following sentence, a little mystifying in English, although it no doubt makes sense in French or the writer's own language:

Maurice Papon, who had become after the war prefect of police of Paris (a function in which he illustrated himself during the Paris massacre of 1961) was convicted in 1998 for crimes against humanity.

How does one illustrate oneself in a function? (There was a 1960's novel called The Illustrated Man in English). Was the sought word perhaps distinguished ?

Perpexèdly yours —— Shakescene (talk) 21:36, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

@Shakescene: "Distinguished" sounds right. On the French side I just saw the word "retentissant", resounding as in a bell or clarion, applied to his trial. The other questions will take some clicking around to answer Elinruby (talk) 23:37, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

(more about this section as a whole)

After editing the France section yet again, I see some balance problems (inevitable as specialists in different fields contribute to a page). There's a long paragraph about ship-builders, and others about the Holocaust, the LVF, and the colonies. But nothing about the STO (Service du Travail Obligatoire), which is a classic case of the effects of Vichy's rarely-successful attempts to placate and appease the occupiers, in often-vain hopes of winning some crumbs (in this case, for a relative handful of French POW’s).

There are, as you can perceive, similar gaps about political, corporate, intellectual and artistic collaboration.

We don't want to rewrite the whole Vichy article (q.v. it to readers), but if you can fill in some of the gaps, it might help.

Happy Valentine's Day

—— Shakescene (talk) 04:59, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

@Shakescene: Yeah, I was thinking there is too much about the shipyards, but saw nothing obvious to cut. And yeah, I know STO, can do that at least. Would also suggest the Milice, much more interesting. Also SNCF strike, but that's the opposite of collaboration Elinruby (talk) 05:06, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Currently referencing going down the page, am at Czechoslovakia. Will add Milice and STO when I get to France. Elinruby (talk) 05:09, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

also maybe a sentence about the constitutional crisis that put Pétain in power, what do you think? Elinruby (talk) 05:14, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Since you ask — and while I don't immediately recall the details of Reynaud's fall (although chapter 10 of Churchill's Their Finest Hour covers it from the British end, including the abortive Anglo-French Union) — I think that question hinges on what was the last gasp of resistance, what was internal French collapse and whether seeking an armistice is the same as beginning collaboration.

On the other hand, you might need such a sentence or two about the fall of the Third Republic and the birth of The French State to make the subsequent collaboration clearer.

Admiration and regards as ever —— Shakescene (talk) 05:34, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

And yes, something about the Milice (and Cagoulards, Police Nationale, etc.) would, apart from balancing this section, clarify for the unfamiliar reader the nature of Vichy as half-willing surrogate of the Reich and make my sentences about post-war reprisals more understandable. —— Shakescene (talk) 05:42, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Blush. Will need to look up the details but basically the Third Republic resigned rather than sign the armistice. Not foreseen in the constitution, thus crisis. Legislature (?) appoints Pétain,a WW1 hero for having saved French lives. He is supposed to appoint a Constituent Assembly but does not. No provision in the law that appointed him to make him do that. Perhaps senile? Constitution crisis redux. Will work on summarizing this. Elinruby (talk) 05:48, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

“Nous, Philippe Pétain, ...” —— Shakescene (talk) 12:40, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Pardonnez-moi, mon Maréchal: "Nous, Philippe-Marie Pétain" —— Shakescene (talk) 15:09, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Fell asleep before I got to this but I did find quite a good reference for one of themore general statements and even included a quote (which I don't usually do) about how in Laval's mind this was a trade-off between French POW lives vs otherized lives. I have lunch plans but can come back to this late-afternoonish (Pacific). Elinruby (talk) 18:16, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

@Shakescene: yanno... Really, we don't need Battle of Madagascar (not collaboration) or DeGaulle's trip to Africa (there is a moral decision there but shouldn't it be under the country in question?)... Except barely possibly as background, no? And is forced labor collaboration? Elinruby (talk) 23:51, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

@Elinruby: After a brief once-over, I tend to agree with you on both points:

1. The shipbuilders' paragraph is so confusing at first or on tenth reading — so many dates, so many details — that it's hard to pluck out nuggets about either collaborationist shipyards or collabo shipbuilders. And in a section where many important elements of collaboration are either omitted or reduced to a single sentence or two, I doubt that this particular subject (important though it might have been to the U-Boat campaign) needs much more than a mention or statement. (Even in the fields of military-industrial collaboration, there's no mention of the French involvement in the U-Boat pens, the Atlantic Wall, or the V-1 & V-2 launching-pads.) If there's no article now (on anglophone Wikipedia or perhaps even in Wikipédie) on military-industrial, commercial and financial collaborationism, in either France, Occupied Europe or whole empires, perhaps someone well-versed in the subject (not me! and I'm not volunteering you) should start one, perhaps with a subsection on managing the labor supply and workers' reactions to industrial mobilisation.
2. As for the colonial Empire, a mention should be made in relations to the metropolitan Vichy governnment, with a general list of areas affected (Africa, Caribbean, etc.), but the missing work should be in the relevant continental sections of the article outside Europe. Collaboration in Indochina can probably be slightly expanded. Syria and Lebanon, (and for Britain) Egypt and Palestine (the Grand Mufti) are not mentioned. The place for African collaborationism should go into new subsections of the Africa section (North Africa, AOF-AEF & while it lasted, Madagascar). And so forth.

Don't take any of this as a plea (let alone a demand) for you to do more original work than the vast amount you've already undertaken (they should triple our wages in Occupation francs). My own chiefly-editorial contributions pale in comparison. And now I, in the Eastern Time Zone, need to get some sleep. Cordially, —— Shakescene (talk) 03:00, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Cham Albanians in Greece and Balli Kombëtar

¶ Another head-scratcher as I was lazily skimming the Greek section: the original text said the Cham Albanians worked under the "Resistance Balli Kombëtar". But digging back through the Wikilinks, I see that the Balli were apparently more often (but not always) allied with the Germans and Italians. So I deleted "Resistance" but couldn't think of an appropriate substitute descriptor. Did the OP (or translator) mean something like "guerrilla"? —— Shakescene (talk) 01:23, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Hmmm I may not be able to tell, depending on what language it is translated from, but I was just now trying to reference the Belgium section of that article, let me take a look Elinruby (talk) 01:28, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

side comment: pronouns are among the most frequent machine translation errors. so I suspect you may be right. Elinruby (talk) 01:29, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

looking at the Kombëtar page, it looks like they were nationalists who wanted to be independent and chose the devil they didn't know once that option was no longer on the table (?) Note that this is based on a wikipage not RS, and is thus tentative Elinruby (talk) 01:36, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

(after more clicking) so...I think you were right to delete "Resistance". I am completely devoid of topic knowledge, mind you, but it looks like "resistance" is true in the sense of fighting a previous dictator, making this one of several countries that greeted the Nazis as liberators from a dictator. (4th of August Regime in this case) LMK if you find out otherwise? Elinruby (talk) 01:49, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

since I don't seem to have finished my thought above, I am thinking that they were "resistance" to the Greek occupation, not the Nazis, the usual scope of the word in modern English. Likely a translation from Albanian or Greek or Macedonian (?) Elinruby (talk) 02:53, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

List of scandals in Brazil

I started Draft:List of scandals in Brazil because we have similar articles for Argentina, Chile, UK, Germany—you name it, but not for Brazil, which seems like a big oversight. But I won't be able to develop it and get it ready for launch. Can I hand it off to you? I don't think it's too far off, just a few more references, maybe a few more scandals, especially if you know of any from the 50s, 60s, and 70s, and then it's ready for main space. If you're too busy, no worries, just lmk and I'll mention it at the Brazil WikiProject, and hopefully someone will pick it up there. Maybe Paulo S would be willing to help; he may know of some scandals that we don't, because they're not as well publicized in the Anglosphere. Mathglot (talk) 07:36, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

juicy morsel I though you might appreciate from Paulo Maluf: "So notorious is Maluf's reputation that in Brazil the verb malufar was created, meaning "to steal public money". This verb is also sometimes used outside Brazil, with one example being the French newspaper "Le Monde". [1]" Elinruby (talk) 02:37, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Malufar, that truly is a juicy tidbit, thanks for that! Do you want to take it on, or should I advertise it at the project? Mathglot (talk) 02:40, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Oh, I see you've started on it already; that was fast! Thanks! Mathglot (talk) 02:42, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

I am having fun but if a Brazilian is interested, they will clearly be more qualified. OTOH they may want to just review for accuracy and omissions, for which we clearly aren't ready. Scandals seem to be very thick on the ground, dating back to early colonial times, if one is to believe Corruption in Brazil. I guess advertise, but emphasize that we know it's very incomplete. Elinruby (talk) 02:48, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi PauloMSimoes, is this something that you would be interested in helping out with? We need additional references (in any language) for the existing list items, and also, anything we might have missed in the 1950s, 60s, and 70s which maybe isn't as well-known or reported in English media, as it would have been in Brazilian media. This is a draft of a list article; I'm not sure if you are familiar with the "List article" concept at en-wiki; you can read about it here. Each bullet item can be very brief—a single sentence or two is enough—and if possible, it should contain a link to some other article that discusses it more in detail, preferabley in English, otherwise linking to a Portuguese article via template {{ill}}. If you are interested, please see Draft:List of scandals in Brazil. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 03:38, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi, Mathglot. Is a very hard work, and I can help as possible. I had made some improvents in Elinruby draft. As ever, my apologies for my poor English. The categories Escândalos de corrupção no Brasil and Escândalos políticos no Brasil also can be useful (are more complete that respective en interwikis). As possible I will try to get the references. Thanks !--PauloMSimoes (talk) 13:35, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

@PauloSimoes: thank you very much. And please, there is no need to apologize for your English; my Portuguese is much worse. I will take care of the English, no worries. Free to ping me. Elinruby (talk) 18:10, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

@PauloMSimoes:}

Fresh scandal (Jan 2023), corporate page not updated yet: Lojas Americanas Elinruby (talk) 03:52, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Also this doesn't seem to have a catchy name yet, but would have been enabled by Bolsonaro...pretty sure some kickbacks would have been involved. Also boatloads of stuff about illegal logging and slash and burn. Belo Monte, Funai good search terms. Going to go look for better sources for that than mongobay, also Maluf as mayor of São Paulo. Also, there was an Operation something or other on the spinoffs of OCW that had something to do with mining and indigenous people Elinruby (talk) 04:02, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, sometimes there's no accepted name in English, and we have to pick a WP:NDESC title.

Btw, I dropped two "historiabrasileira" references from the draft; they were WP:CIRCULAR references from online sources that were copied from Portuguese Wikipedia, and therefore unreliable. Whatever source they were copied from, they should also be dropped from that article .Mathglot (talk) 04:46, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

That's recent enough that I should be able to figure that out. Good catch. Elinruby (talk) 04:52, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

I only saw one. There were two urls because it was archived. Just mentioning that in case I missed something, which is of course always possible. The one I saw was from the history section of Corruption in Brazil, and I did replace that one with a cn tag Elinruby (talk) 05:07, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

You're right, just one plus the archive. I was trying to keep up and help out a bit, but it's just delaying the glossary, which is delaying the criminal law stuff, so I'll leave it in your hands! (But I probably won't be able to resist popping back in from time to time; can't wait to see it launched.) Not that far from it now, I'd say, although if Chile had all those scandals in the 19ths century, surely Brazil did, too? Mathglot (talk)

A lot to unpack there. 1) it was a good catch; I was just making sure. 2) I am nerding out on this for the moment, as it's fast amusing work, mostly cut & paste, but I will be back to Admin law, Jublains, Ladakh, Vichy, legality, etc 3) that was my thinking in trolling History of Roraima. I am going to do other states next. 4) I ignored some stuff about slave-catching, on the theory that it probably wasn't a scandal at the time. But soldiers killed by indigenous people probably counted, hmm? Elinruby (talk)

I did see some stuff about 18th-century scandals involving the Catholic Church that I wasn't willing to parse just then; downloaded a couple JStor articles. Also something about the emperor Elinruby (talk) 08:51, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Actually, your comment is very apt, and good timing, too; because in thinking about some of the incident, it occurred to me we should think about what actually counts as a scandal. Some things can be pretty awful (war crimes, slavery, repression of women or minorities; one could go on...) and yet they aren't called "scandals", usually; so what counts as one? At first, I thought we might need a definition statement, but actually, I think we don't: I think we should simply rely on what the secondary sources say; if sources call it a scandal, then it is, and if they don't (or only a tiny minority) then we shouldn't either. So in the end, we don't even have to define it. Mathglot (talk) 08:59, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

taking a break, eyestrain kicking in. Probably back later, unsure, but if you want to reformat/edit something now is a good time. Or not. There is no deadline, etc. Still have a million windows open, but what else is new? Going to rest eyes and talk to the cat. Elinruby (talk) 10:31, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

There's an awful lot of scandal in Brazil ! —— Shakescene (talk) 04:33, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

very thick on the ground, which is why it's ironic that this list does not exist yet. Feel free to Google around if bored. Lots and lots of English-language sources....you know you want to <g> Elinruby (talk) 04:40, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Shakescene Not really; check out List of political scandals in Chile; and that's limited to political ones. Mathglot (talk) 04:46, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

but MG, I don't think anyone sung that "There's an Awful Lot of Coffee in Chile" ;-) —— Shakescene (talk) 11:02, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

@Elinruby: Enjoy the cat. Btw, turns out there is a name developing for the Amazon miner issue, and it's in the url you linked: "Yanomami Shield". Well, actually, maybe not; that seems to just be the name for the protection operation by the government, to stop the humanitarian scandal caused by the miners, so maybe it doesn't actually have a name, yet. But if you search for Yanomami Shield, you'll find lots of stuff about it in English, or Operação Escudo Yanomami to get Portuguese results; this is the operation to restore order, not sure the scandal has a name. Now I'm on break for a while. Mathglot (talk) 11:25, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Manoel Beckman,Ragamuffin War, Acre -- Brazil breaking treaty by 1000 km? mi? Elinruby (talk) 14:03, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Stumbleupon

Doesn't work for collaboration article, consider for disinformation articles

From Southern Rhodesia in WW2 "A widespread belief developed among Japanese troops in Burma that the British Army's African soldiers were cannibals, partly because of deliberate disinformation spread by the black troops themselves as they travelled around the country. While entirely unfounded, the notion "that we Africans eat people", as one RAR soldier put it, had a fearsome psychological effect; men of 1RAR reported Japanese soldiers picking up their comrades' bodies in the midst of battle and running away." Elinruby (talk) 06:42, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

References

Technical note

Re: [2]. I think you misunderstand the concept of "failed verifiction". {{failed verification}} says that it is to be used when "the source does not support what is contained in the article", not that "I have tried to follow a link but it's broken" (as you wrote in your edit summary, "page 15 is not accessible at the url provided"). Unless you can see the page in question and can confirm said page does not support a claim it is referencing, it is not a failed verifiction, it is a failure to access the source to do a verification. Google and other URLs rot and expire, or are not available in all countries, or require "tricks" to deal with (ex. I've had the page not available error in GBooks, but changing the url to the previous page and scrolling down for example can help sometimes, etc.). If you were unable to see the page, but would like someone else to verify it, you should use {{request quotation}} or {{verify source}}. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:15, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

nod:: what would you suggest using instead? Actually, I would normally ignore that, but six in a row (bad anyway in a lede) was sort of a flag. I really need a short break. I have no problem restoring the sentence myself so it's clear we agree. All we are saying is that there is no Pétain, right? I won't be long, and I will be happy to listen to you about anything on the page Elinruby (talk) 08:32, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Pretty much. In case you want to read more, this is a decent section, although sourcing can be improved (I just replaced a 1940(!) source with something more verifiable and reliable). One down, zillion more to go. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:35, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

18th century sources are common in French history. while I have your attention could you look at my RSN post about the Blue Police? Elinruby (talk) 08:51, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

If it's from a CS1 citation template, then just add |url-status=dead (and preferably also, |archive-url= and |archive-date=). If it's a plain-text citation embedded in <ref>...</ref> tags, then add {{dead url}} after the closing </ref> tag. Mathglot (talk) 21:59, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Popping in to add that WP:IABOT is often able to find archived versions of dead links automatically. I'd suggest running it with "Add archives to all non-dead references" before giving up on being able to verify things. -- asilvering (talk) 22:15, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

@Asilvering and Piotrus: I believe that all the dead link tags currently on the page are mine. If so they are recent and fairly careful. But feel free to try them yourself if you like. In fact I would appreciate it if somebody could verify that I fixed the massacre sourced to a travel guide. I think it was in Yugoslavia or maybe Croatia. If you are able to find some archive links that I couldn't, then yay. I have had my hands full just verifying that the references that can't be verified do actually exist and therefore might possibly be fixable. With respect, I have put hundreds of edits into improving the referencing of this article and my hands are currently sort of full. But you are of course completely right on the principle. I say this in the English-language meaning of the phrase, to be sure, as Nous sommes d'accord sur le principe actually means that we are miles apart on the details, and since some of my talk page stalkers know this, I should probably make that completely clear. The irony is intended but not the double meaning.

I assume though that this comment was intended as a suggestion, not a criticism, and it's actually a pretty good idea. But I'll have to consult the documentation sources to even get started Elinruby (talk) 02:37, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

18th century can be occasionally ok, but citing a 1940 source for a controversial WWII topic is generally a red flag :) I think I commented there already half an hour ago? I can look again a bit later, going AFK now my myself for a few hours. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:54, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Ah ok, hadn't seen it yet. Will look shortly Elinruby (talk) 09:00, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Verification is one of the hardest things to do on Wikipedia, IMHO. Thank you for trying to tackle this issue! I hope this kitten will help you destress from the hard work. Keep up the good job!

_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:32, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Your article Draft:Rubricaire

Welcome, and thank you for contributing the page Draft:Rubricaire to Wikipedia. While you have added the page to the English version of Wikipedia, the article is not in English. We invite you to translate it into English. Pages in foreign languages will not be kept here, and may be deleted if they are not translated into English. Thank you. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 20:26, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

@Rsjaffe: re Draft:Rubricaire approximately 20% of this very technical translation, towards the end, is still in French, that is true. Please point me to a policy that says that a draft must be 100% in English or alternately feel free to comment out the French if you feel strongly about this. This is not a stale draft: I have worked on it quite recently, but I need to look up some of the archaeology terms with respect to the plumbing of the Roman baths. I am however currently preoccupied with trying remediate some of the egregious sourcing and balance issues in Collaboration with the Axis powers, where your assistance would btw be welcome, particularly in the section on Jewish collaboration. Elinruby (talk) 22:03, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, I was just tagging it because I didn't know if you had forgotten about it. I hadn't seen many partly-done translations before and thought that something interrupted your work, but obviously I was wrong about what happened. My apologies.

What issues are you talking about in Collaboration with the Axis powers#Jewish collaboration? Are you talking about the currently tagged sources (unreliable/failed verification) or are more suspect? — rsjaffe 🗣️ 00:29, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

I may have been a bit stiff in my answer. Quite a few people think translations are suspect in and of themselves and it may be making me defensive. I primarily work on mobile and and have ADD, so it is very hard for me to do a translation that isn't on a single screen. I often do comment out the French, but this draft was created for someone else that expressed interest in translating it but did not have CTX rights. They never did do it, so I tried knock it out a little while back, but got stuck on the correct translation of what sounds like a water heater but is probably called something else when it comes to Roman plumbing. Anyway, thanks for getting back to me; it decreases the angst.

The tagging is mine. Some if it is along the lines of the source itself being fine but not really supporting an accusation of collaboration in wikivoice. I haven't really gotten past the first paragraph. For context, I initially removed the entire section as undue because the scope of the article is world-wide, and the section discusses individuals in Poland and doesn't really substantiate what it says about them. Someone who's never edited the article reverted and I'm unsure what I'm supposed to do about that, since she's skipping over the Discuss part of BRD and won't reverse herself. Meanwhile I'm double-checking myself and have started a BLP and a RS noticeboard discussion about the Times of Israel source.Elinruby (talk) 01:06, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Anticipating a followup question: what help am I asking for? Whatever you feel able to help with. The rest of the refences in that section need to be verified. I added quite a few references elsewhere in the article but given that this is one of the ones Jan Grabowski took issue with, on reflection the should probably have quotes also. The whole Asian theatre needs a LOT of help and I have unanswered questions all over the talk page. I was asked in here to help with France, where I know a little, and have recently been told that I am neglecting that, which is true, and also that the article has too much military history, which is also true. Any input is welcome Elinruby (talk) 01:35, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

@Rsjaffe: I apologized for barking at you; you're entitled to know that. Shoulda pinged, sorry Elinruby (talk) 15:17, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

French section of Collab with Axis

Hi, ER,

(1) No doubt to a cascade of succeeding edits and re-edits, the second paragraph's subjects get confused:

Pierre Laval actively collaborated in the extermination of Jews. It also participated in Porajmos, the extermination of Roma people, and the extermination of other "undesirables." Vichy opened a series of internment camps in France where Jews, Gypsies, homosexuals, and political opponents were interned.

(2) The first paragraph obviously tried to summarize a vast amount of material into a few sentences. But the result seems to be a series of judgements and conclusions without specific citations.

Because he was a hero for saving lives at Verdun in World War I, France's most notorious collaborator, Maréchal Philippe Pétain, became the head of the French State after a catastrophic French loss at the Battle of France. The government of the French Third Republic collapsed because its executive could not agree to either sign the armistice or continue to fight, and the Assemblée Nationale voted to put Pétain in charge of convoking a constituent assembly, which he did not do. The resulting authoritarian government operated outside the bounds of the French constitution and was largely run by its ministers, who initially prioritized the saving of French lives but proved willing to sacrifice foreign Jews in exchange for French prisoners of war.

(3) I don't think that it constitute Own Conclusions or Undue Weight to let the uninitiated know that Léon Blum was Jewish, so long as that reader doesn't get the impression that his premiership and identity were the principal moving cause behind French anti-semitism (which would still have been rife had the Popular Front been led by a devout Roman Catholic war hero of impeccable Gallic ancestry going back to Joan of Arc.) Similarly, I think it probably best to translate Assemblée Nationale into "National Assembly" as the wikilinked article does, or even to call it (as many writers in English do) something like "French parliament".

(4) My last comment at Talk:Collaboration was not about the oft-noted length of the article itself (as suggested by your last comment at my Talk Page), but about its Talk Page, (current length pushing 100k).

I'm just mentioning these as pointers. Hope this helps. —— Shakescene (talk) 20:49, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

On Blum, what I am having trouble conveying is that he got blamed and yeah this was a symptom not a cause. Camelots deserve a mention. I took Pétain out because he was already mentioned and seems in fact to have been content to mostly be a figurehead; not that I excuse him. Senile or not he was the face of evil in France. In an attempt to summarize however I seem to have gone too far into my own head though; I know that this portrayal is a result of recent reading but I am having trouble sourcing these exact sentences. Which is a problem. I will try again later today.

I copied the section about volunteers off to my sandbox and it's extremely unsourced, as are the pages about individual units.Elinruby (talk) 21:04, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Actually it looks like for the pronouns I can just switch Vichy and it, I'll do that now before I go afk, because ick Elinruby (talk) 21:16, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

OK I got the pronouns, and while I was there decided that only mentioning Laval could be read as minimizing, and addressed that too. Don't really like the result but too fried on this article to worry about style. Elinruby (talk) 21:40, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

getting back to this: are you questioning that they were only willing to sacrifice foreign Jews? Or that they eventually deported French Jews as well? I am sure this is true but yeah it needs to be sourced....Just LMK Elinruby (talk) 05:49, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

@Shakescene: did this ever get completely resolved? I suspect it's sourceable if not. I think i took out some normative language but that might be all. I'll check on it. Elinruby (talk) 20:55, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Repatriation to Vichy from the UK

You might have some interest in this RefDesk query:

Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities#Repatriation to Vichy from the UK

`````` —— Shakescene (talk) 20:07, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. Interesting question. I answered it, or more precisely was confused in a different vocabulary. Will take another look later Elinruby (talk) 01:25, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

You might also be interested in the RefDesk query above this one:

Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities#General de Mauduit at St Helena, and the Comte de Mauduit, Chief of Staff

I think the OP/enquirer has just been reading de Mauduit's 1940 book

—— Shakescene (talk) 01:34, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Yeah but it's a very unusual name (I take it you read what I said?) I didn't try Mérimée or anything; I was very tired and had just gotten home. But it's weird he didn't come up at all on a Google search. At all. Possibly just a matter of browser language? But if medieval title transfers come up? And we have a Resistance fighter, with the French Foreign Legion no less, in the same time period as a Lord HeeHaw? Hmmm. Fascinating my dear Watson, fascinating. French Wikipedia doesn't know about the cookbooks, either Elinruby (talk) 05:44, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Gap article in archaeology

You know my predilection for finding important gaps in our coverage, and I think I found one that is up your alley, kind of like "Jublains" although potentially much more important in the grand scheme of things. Still can't understand why we don't have it. Has to do with a very ancient site in the Americas, possibly older than any other in important respects. Interested? Mathglot (talk) 03:35, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

oooh. You know I want to hear some more ;) Elinruby (talk) 05:57, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

It was this article that turned me on to the Montegrande pyramid. (Did some brief searching, that seems to be the most common name in English, with a couple of likely alternate titles that should redirect to it, including 'Huaca Montegrande'.) Other search terms to find more: 'peru spiral pyramid', 'templo de montegrande de Jaén', 'templo arqueológico montegrande' and so on. I later found out that es-wiki has this article about it. The Santa Ana-La Florida site in Ecuador is possibly even older. Too snowed under with Fr law to deal with this, but I know you'll enjoy it and do a great job. If you hit translation problems with Spanish sources, ping me; I can help with that, at least. Looking forward to seeing the article(s)! P.S., There's also a "Nova" tv documentary episode about it; I'll try to find the name again, if you can't locate it. Cheers, Mathglot (talk) 21:55, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Merry Christmas. Do you know, Andean culture is a dab page? Elinruby (talk) 14:23, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

it needs more work but it's a decent little article now, a good start. Elinruby (talk) 14:24, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Great! Thanks; I added a couple of redirects to it. There are also a couple of discussions at WT:Manual of Style/Disambiguation pages that touch on that aticle; you might want to monitor them. Mathglot (talk) 00:48, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

👍 Elinruby (talk) 00:54, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Will be fun to watch this one over time; I think interest in it will grow, and it could well become the primary topic at some point, if it's as important as early indications seem to point to. This is one of those times when I wish we had a WP:CRYSTAL BALL. Mathglot (talk) 20:18, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

List of World War II puppet states

This could be very useful; but unfortunately its tabular form with long essays in a tiny right-hand column makes it impractical and unattractive for the average reader. (It also means that individual states such as Slovakia can’t be accessed directly from the Table of Contents.)

I have too much of a backlog (and too little patience) to tackle re-formatting this, which looks like a full-time job that would pre-empt any other editing that I might (and should) be doing, e.g. planting outside tags for Collaboration with Imperial Japan or summarising Radio Berlin.

Do you have any experience or skill in manipulating large tables like this; or do you know someone who does?

Have a nice weekend, —— Shakescene (talk) 18:49, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Mathglot is good at stuff like this but has been preoccupied lately with another big project. (Not tagging because they follow my talk page and will see this and presumably speak up if they already have or know of a tool.) It's the kind of nerdy mindless stuff I could do between Brazilian and collaborator cognitive overloads but I am on a mobile and based on your description I probably can't even read it outside of code view. I'll keep this in mind but I just did a ce from top to bottom of the Europe section to make sure I didn't break too much when I copied off some of the volunteer material. I still need to find an organization scheme for the stuff in my sandbox. It's telling that I can't make a draft because there aren't even enough references for that. That's the goal though. Except that would mean OWNing this stupid disorganized mess that was scattered all through the sections. Some of these units were definitely mostly POWs how signed up not exactly as "volunteers" to put it mildly. Anyway, I hear you. Maybe. If nobody else takes it on. Elinruby (talk) 20:27, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

@Shakescene:, not sure if you're a WP:Visual editor user or not (I'm not), but certain table operations are about the one area where VE is superior to the wikicode editor: namely, if you're adding or deleting columns. If it's something else having to do with tables, I'd stick to the wikicode editor. What exactly do you want to do with the table, reformat it in some way? If it's about reassigning the column widths, see Help:Table#Width; there might be additional useful info at User:Dcljr/Tables. If you want to tag every row (or some rows) so they're individually addressable from a wikilink, see Help:Table#Section link or map link to a row anchor. If you still have questions after you've tried that, ping me. Mathglot (talk) 21:51, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi, ER, Thanks for all your work on the puppet-state table. I added flags for the Soviet section. Just in case you want to add other flags as you reformat other sections, here are the codes (I reduced my own copies to 120 px from 150px.)

|[[File:Flag of Iraq (1921–1959).svg|150px]] |[[File:Flag of Manchukuo.svg|150px]] [[File:Flag of the Republic of China (1912-1928).svg|150px]] [[File:Flag of Reformed Government of the Republic of China.svg|150x150px]] |[[File:Flag of the Republic of China-Nanjing (Peace, Anti-Communism, National Construction).svg|150px]] |[[File:Flag of the State of Burma (1943-45).svg|150px]] |[[File:Flag of the Philippines (1943-1945).svg|150px]] |[[File:1931 Flag of India.svg|150px]] |[[File:Flag of the Empire of Vietnam (1945).svg|150px]] |[[File:Flag of Cambodia under French protection.svg|150px]] [[File:Flag of First Slovak Republic 1939-1945.svg|150px]] |[[File:Flag of Bohmen und Mahren.svg|150px]] |[[File:Flag of France (1794-1958).svg|150px]] |[[File:Flag of Independent State of Croatia.svg|150px]] |[[File:Flag of Greece (1822-1978).svg|150px]] |[[File:Flag of the Government of National Salvation (occupied Yugoslavia).svg|150px]] |[[File:Flag of Nasjonal Samling.svg|150x150px]] |[[File:Flag of Russian Liberation People's Army.svg|150px]] |[[File:Flag of Albania (1943-1944).svg|150px]] |[[File:War flag of the Italian Social Republic.svg|150px]] |[[File:Flag of Belarus (1918, 1991-1995).svg|150px]] |[[File:Flag of Hungary (1920–1946).svg|150px]] |[[File:Flag of Albania (1939-1943).svg|150px]] |[[File:Flag of Greece (1822-1978).svg|150px]]

Hope you're having a nice weekend —— Shakescene (talk) 16:06, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Baltic madness

I'm too sleepy, and right now don't have to patience, to dig sufficiently deeply for all the correct details about the transitional (or "puppet") governments that voted in August 1940 to become constituent SSR's of the U.S.S.R. But, they weren't yet SSR's, so they should have other titles (and probably pre-war national flags, unless they had some other flag between Republic and SSR). If we can legitimately use the 1918-1940 flags, that would also make my 180px blow-ups less necessary (since they don't have small letters above a hammer-&-sickle); perhaps we can then compromise at some size like 120px. [Wiki know-it-alls will say that readers can always open the thumbnail, but I was on Wikipedia for years before I understood what that little icon meant. The same know-it-alls say that details need no textual explication, because a blue-link suffices, forgetting that pop-ups can only be seen by registered editors, a tiny fraction of Wikipedia's readers.]

Anyway, the transitions as the Baltic states moved from independence to Soviet puppets to SSR's to German military government (¿to German civil government?) to Reichskommissariat Ostland to transitory autonomous governments between German and Soviet rule, to returning as SSR's to the USSR [to independence in 1989-91], is incredibly hard for me, with my limited knowledge and resources, to untangle and verify. And then, we have to figure what qualifies as a puppet government. Wikipedia, as usual, is not entirely helpful here.

Yours in confusion —— Shakescene (talk) 03:06, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, that was one of the things I was thinking of when I specified I hadn't done fact checking. Apparently there's a strict definition somewhere based on the talk page discussion. Btw, I can find an answer on that Arabic vs Farsi question; just not up for hunting down the page about how to distinguish them at the moment. But anything over 90 will show as centered over here, which might not be that important even if I personally dislike it. It feels a bit in your face for the really simple flags like Estonia's though... Meh. Eyestrain starting to kick in; have a good night. Elinruby (talk) 03:21, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Himetataraisuzu-hime

I'll plug away at Himetataraisuzu-hime. So far, the translation isn't bad, just clunky. So i'm trying to consolidate by removing some of the fillers but keep the original meaning. EvergreenFir (talk) 06:47, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

@EvergreenFir: Thank you very much. However, I am also concerned about the sheer mass of material created (see user talk page). But I guess the question is whether the material is really that bad. I don't see how it statistically could not be, if the user does truly not read Japanese at all, but I will bow to your opinion. Maybe let us know what you think? I appreciate the brainpower you are applying to this. Bottom line, if the user merely produces ugly English, PNT as it is can deal with that even with our current lack of any Japanese-speaking regulars, but if actual errors of fact are being introduced, it's a big problem. I don't know if you recall the CTX kerfuffle? Elinruby (talk) 06:54, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Cross-article reusable citations

You know how we can use named references in an article, so you don't have to code the same citation umpteen times, just the name part? Ditto {{sfn}}'s, which do something like that, with the sfn's inline, and the full citation living just once in the "Works cited" at the bottom. Well, have you ever been in the situation, maybe at Vichy, or Operation Car Wash, or your current work, where there's a bunch of related articles about the same general topic, that tend to re-use some of the same citations from one article to the next, but you have to go around hunting down some citation you already wrote for one of the other articles, and try to remember which article had it, and then you have to copy the whole thing and paste it into the other article? Well, this is exactly the situation I find myself in with all the related articles about French criminal law, more or less the ones linked from the Nav template {{French criminal law}}. So I got sick of it, and came up with a better way to do it. I've extracted many of the citations for French criminal law-related articles into this reference library, and with the help of new template {{Reflib}}, I can import the references en masse from there into any of the related articles that use {{sfn}}'s and need it. It's very economical, and reusable, and all the citations are in one place for all of the related articles; you just slurp them in to whatever article that need them.

See for example, this edit at Public action in French law; it drops 1,687 wikicode bytes worth of full citations, replacing it with one call to {{Reflib}}; the page renders exactly the same after this edit as before (i.e, the viewer sees no change at all, but editors do). The real win, though, is that all the citations are in one place, and now I can use them from French criminal law, or from any related article (like Public action), and from all the new articles I'm about to create from the red links at nav template {{French criminal law}}.

So, now I have a question for you: I need to expand the reach, by picking up some other domain, besides "French criminal law", which has that citations library page, and "Vichy France", which is the other one. Do you have some area where you've been working recently with several articles, all on related topics so they tend to overlap on the citations they use? It works especially well, when building out a poorly covered topic area that has multiple, related articles that need to be written (just like French criminal law). Are you aware of a topic are like that, where you are working, or might like to, but where the citations issue is a headache? I'm looking for something like that, not to create the articles, but just to create the common citations library, which should then make it really easy to grab the citations from one place, instead of copying them every time. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 10:03, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Mmmwell...remember when I had all those units of the French Foreign Legion? I currently have something like that with volunteer units of the German/Japanese and maybe Italian armed forces. The reason I'm in this is that not all the volunteers units were really volunteer, and there's a lot of overlapping nomenclature.... If you'd rather start with something that isn't constantly on the noticeboards, I think all those French Foreign Legion units are still sitting around and we're poorly sourced as I recall. Alternately, I have some villages in Ladakh. I guess I could compile a list of references for any of the above if one of those choices speaks to you. Elinruby (talk) 10:36, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

There will be admin law eventually also ... Elinruby (talk) 10:37, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

alternately...there's a series of AfD going on about place names in Arizona, but I don't think the references overlap that much. And some of them really are, like, parking lots at the end of a mountain road Elinruby (talk) 10:44, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Normally French foreign legion articles would be a good choice, but as I started out with French law and Vichy, adding FFL would make it seem like a "French lake", so it would be good to branch out with a couple of non-French topics. The key feature to look for, is a group of articles that might share some citations; if they all have unique citations with little or no overlap among them, then it's not a good candidate for tihs. What about the Ladakh villages thing: how many articles are we talking about, and is there a significant overlap in citations among them? Mathglot (talk) 19:38, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Well, there's a subset in Ladakh and Baltistan that all have Tibetan invasions and Buddhist monasteries in common, is what I was thinking, but this requires some thought. Maybe neither of us should automate our ignorance on the topic, say I, thinking of the MT from Japanese ANI case. Wildfires in California might be a better test case since we both have some familiarity with the geography, but I've worked on them before and some of them are quite well-referenced. But my experience there was that *recent* fires were good, but older ones were spotty and could benefit from systematic review.

Place names might be a better category. Still brainstorming: something like communities affected by the Lytton fire would have certain litigation and climate change in common. But I suspect that isn't an existing category, however maybe it's food for thought. Catalan municipalities probably is a category and might be easier. Quebec, especially northern Quebec, is a sinkhole of nobody working on it. Oh! There is a *whole* bunch of battles in various wars of independence in South America. A lot of the involve Simon Bolivar?

Basically what we need is a set, preferably an existing category so we don't have to compile, that tends to be poorly referenced yet has one or more strong commonalities, right? And for test cases at least we should definitely be able to evaluate output. Forts of France is too French probably. Let me mumble a bit to myself here. National Heritage sites in Britain are probably meticulously maintained already by people who know more. Battles of Genghis Khan? Crusades? National register sites in the US may not have enough commonalities. Native American treaties? Central Valley communities affected by groundwater pollution would be technical but would have a common set of state environmental reports and laws in common. Police departments and consent decrees probably would involve paid editors. Campaigns of Charlemagne is too French? And I just ODed on the French Dark ages with Rubricaire. Roman roads seem to be a recent archaeological topic not addressed by the settlement stubs. You're probably also fried on Brazil. Mines in the Congo -> paid editors. Slave trade? Hey, human rights treaties and various wars? Gold rushes? Northern Ireland? I got zero grief for referencing History of Belfast. Spanish Civil War? Deforestation in British Columbia would have a certain few corporations in common, also pipelines, but again I smell paid editors. There's probably something in privateers.... I need coffee. Hope some of that helps. Elinruby (talk) 21:44, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Water litigation along the Colorado river? Voting rights law? Sudan needs help badly but is probably too unfamiliar. Let's stick to our languages for first test cases at least. Settlements on the Navajo nation. Internment camps in World War 2 - BC, California. Might not be a large enough set. Métis rebellion? References would be in English. Cossacks, they won't and might be political. Some subset of the Silk Road? Avoid Azerbaijan though. Robert the Bruce? Temples in India tend to be poorly referenced but hidden minefields are possible. Conquistadors? Baltic history can be fraught. Portuguese colonies in Asia? Elinruby (talk) 22:08, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks; plenty here for me to mull over. Mathglot (talk) 10:30, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Venezuelan civil war of 1848–1849 <-- a place to start on one of the suggestions above Elinruby (talk) 01:58, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Would need to know the other related articles in the group, or have a nav template or something; for an article by itself, it's hard to know if it would benefit from a reference library or not. Mathglot (talk) 07:41, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

It would take me a while to untangle it. I guess I could start a list somewhere for a navbar. Is the California idea panning out? Elinruby (talk) 07:59, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Haven't looked at that yet. I got sidetracked in a discussion at WT:CITE where I discovered a really cool module called {{Reflib}} by Trappist the Monk which dumps a table of statistics about article citation use, and ended up wrapping it in a new template called {{Ref lib banner}} suitable for article Talk pages. Here's what it looks like for OCW:

Pretty cool, huh? Trappist's template has been sitting around since at least 2016, and I only just found out about it. (It does slow down the page somewhat, so if you're finding this page too slow now, just comment it out.) Mathglot (talk) 08:17, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Collaboration with the Axis powers

I like what you're doing on Collaboration with the Axis powers and its TP. Keep up the good work! François Robere (talk) 16:32, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi, (1) you might be interested in this paragraph from Pierre Laval

More and more, the insoluble dilemma of collaboration faced Laval and his chief of staff, Jean Jardin. Laval had to maintain Vichy's authority to prevent Germany from installing a puppet government, which would be made up of French Nazis such as Jacques Doriot.[58]

since that differs from including Vichy (at least for most of its existence) as a puppet state.

(2) Sorry to rewrite much of your work on Collabo#France, but I was trying to emphasize the Collaboration elements of Vichy within a small but sufficient amount of political and military context. I'm sure you could fix some of my omissions or inconsistencies. (Perhaps, for example, you could restore a line or two about French complicity in the Holocaust to the Rafles subsection, which might itself need a more-comprehensive subtitle.)

Happy International Women's Day —— Shakescene (talk) 14:45, 8 March 2023 (UTC) (he/him/his)

I'll look but am not mad; my problem is always too much detail. Did you get the writers in? You know what they say: don't edit Wikipedia if you don:t want to be rewritten. As for whether Vichy was a puppet -- sigh. Denmark and Belgium thought much the same thing, so if Vichy was a puppet government so were they. I don't think I want to take anyone's moral inventory. I am not suggesting we use the nomenclature at collaboration. As for the puppet government page, I noticed last night that I had work still to do an NOW it's done. I am not certain I want to attempt substantive change over there, as my hands are currently full. I did take another look at what peacemaker had to say, and it had to do with dates and Yugoslavia, so something we haven't addressed yet. Not pertinent to current discussion. Elinruby (talk) 21:47, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

@Shakescene:, my recollection is that while once the term "puppet state" was used to describe Vichy, most historians consider this inaccurate, and a better term is "client state". This was amply documented somewhere, but I'd have to go find it, if it's not in the article now. Mathglot (talk) 09:54, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

the context here is List of World War II puppet states, which does include Vichy on its list, and I believe that puppet state uses Vichy as an example. The main thing he and I are working on is Collaboration with the Axis Powers, but he got involved with thet puppet state article after he spun off collaboration with Japan. This led to a discussion of what is a puppet state. Sounds like there is a inconsistency between pages, but I merely report. The German were apparently really good at holding out false hope, in Vichy's case, of saving French POWs. And French Jews still went to extermination camps anyway. But like I've said before, I am glad I never had to make some of these choices and I am trying to write this with the nuances included, neither blaming nor excusing. Elinruby (talk) 10:11, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Y Mathglot (talk) 12:00, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

/* Collaboration with the Axis powers */ So, not to be that one editor, should Vichy be listed at puppet state? I think we have. consensus that it is so collaborationist that it's who the coined the term to describe, right? Elinruby (talk) 07:55, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Page needed for digital books on GBooks without page numbers

I've noticed [3]. If we follow the link to [4], Google Book (digital?) version doesn't have page numbers, BUT the url does have "pg=PT114". In my experience, that tends to correspond to the page number (here, probably p. 114). To be 100% sure, we would need to access a physical copy, however. <sub>Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here</sub> 07:15, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

So, Piotrus item one, indeed when you click the link it does go to a page. I have done it several times now and am not sure why I got the cover page, except (speculation) maybe I triple-clicked the link or something and interrupted it as it was loaded. So my bad on that, however however however the page that loads is about requiring Czech brides to submit a picture of themselves.

As I recall we had this problem with this same book in the Poland section of Collaboration with the Axis Powers, and it was p.117 over there, but I don't think it was for the same statement. A pity, because nobody is going to say this book is not a good source, so it would be good to identify the edition problem that is causing this. Nonetheless, according to the sourcing in the business section of Collaboration with the Axis Powers for IBM, *they* did a lot of the compiling. Or maybe this is talking about the data submitted to IBM? That's all I can tell you right now. Elinruby (talk) 11:34, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Didn't realize which book you were talking about because of the numerical "[5]" anchor (you know how to add the display text, e.g., Eichmann in Jerusalem, right?), but anyway, I happen to have a copy, although not the Penguin but the Viking Press 1963 version. Checking the gbooks page image in your [5] link (which is annoying, because in Preview mode it changes to '[2]', because it's only the second ref in the section I'm editing), the sentence which begins "Dr. Globke, as he explained at Nuremberg,..." is the first sentence on page 129 of the Viking edition (OCLC 898973275). The Penguin 2006 print book that you linked to is OCLC 65198074, which has an eBook version as OCLC 1009092626 which is available at my local library; closest to you is NYU Shanghai, but as it's an eBook, physical location doesn't matter, so try any library you're a member of. If all else fails, I can get it from my local library as an eBook for you. Or, if you have a specific content question that isn't about the page numbers, the Viking copy I have should be able to provide the content. Otherwise, try WP:RX. Mathglot (talk) 10:56, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

he may be preoccupied with the class he is teaching and/or the Signpost. I am stupid tired right now but I would love to repair the references to Arendt at least, and track down why this happened. I'll get with you about that those page number sometime tomorrow. I should probably also look up that documentation I was quoting from your link, and investigate that because I have been gotten this tired by adding Google books urls, gah. Elinruby (talk) 11:16, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

I'll take another look. Google assigns page numbers that don't always correspond to the physical copy. I don't remember what happened when I clicked the link. But if the url contains a page number, you'd expect it to go to that page. Elinruby (talk) 07:35, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Piotrus, not always the case, especially for digital copies, where the "page" number depends on how large your font is, your reader is, your margins are, and so on. The "PT" numbers are, as near as I can make out, an internal Google numbering system that conforms to their fixed format display of the book on their google books page, and may or may not correspond to a printed copy. Interestingly, our Template:Google Books URL lists some of the other, non-PA values for their |pg= param, but strangely, |pg=PT is not one of them. If you discover more about this, it would be great to add some concrete information about this to one of the Google technical pages, maybe that one. Mathglot (talk) 10:03, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

@Mathglot Fair point. Wonder if we should call it Google Page or such? How to deal with books like that that GBooks claims have ISBNs etc. and correspond to paper edition but are stripped of page numbers? We should report "something" to help with verification process. <sub>Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here</sub> 11:26, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, t would be really nice to figure this out. Who wrote the bibliographic item that the named reference goes to? Is it possible that they were looking at a hard copy? My best suggestion at the moment. Elinruby (talk) 11:39, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Followup: of course Hannah Arendt wouldn't have known about IBM in 1963; the info about IBM didn't come out until 2001.Elinruby (talk) Elinruby (talk) 11:43, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

So...I found that item, and it does say 114. The source is used three times and none of the text it is behind has to do with Czech brides. So that's not the problem. I've noticed this numbering discrepancy before, but usually you *can* find an actual page number. I'm thinking that maybe some of their subcontractors started numbering with the frontispiece. So (speculating)

the real page number might be 116 or 118? Elinruby (talk) 12:02, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Wait. @Mathglot: are you saying that my page 114 may be different than his page 114? Elinruby (talk) 12:08, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

oh hey look at this in the documentation in the Google Books template (which I didn't realize existed). @Piotrus: this might explain a LOT: As of 2022 the Elinruby (talk) 12:16, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

trying again: As of 2022 the |p= and |pg= parameters do not seem to work if a preview is unavailable; Google Books may not support going to a page specified by number. q and dq do work; dq to a phrase that only appears on one page will find a specific page. Elinruby (talk) 12:18, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

I am not sure what you mean by this question, but this may help. Arendt's ref is used three times, once with a page number? That's confusing, although it could mean that whoever added it early forgot or didn't know how to list page numbers; one use has page range in the rp template 117–118, the others two don't - one could be 114 (maybe the second one?). But regarding the final sentence - and the only one it is used as a sole citation (Political theorist Hannah Arendt stated that without the assistance of the Judenräte, the German authorities would have encountered considerable difficulties in drawing up detailed lists of the Jewish population, thus allowing for at least some Jews to avoid deportation) perhaps this is the part that in the book that's relevant: If there had been no Jewish organizations at all and no Judenrate, Adrendt suggested, the deportation machine could not have run as smoothly as it did." - and the discussion in the next paragraph or three, spanning to the next page, seems relevant If the Judernate... hadn't compiled the list of potential deportees... would fewer people have died?. I think this is "PT11"for the first quote, and "PT12" for the next, but which printed page number does it correspond too is a good question. Based on the scroll bar, it is somewhere early in the book, so, errr, "around" pages 11-12, probably. If you need to find the pages, I suggest searching within the book for the term Judenräte; that's how I located the cited passage. Hope that helps. <sub>Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here</sub> 12:32, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Hmmm. So there are two Arendt items and I was looking at the wrong one? Possible, of course, because infinite are the ways in which I may be mistaken. It also sounds like whatever you are looking at this on displays quite differently, because I don't get a scrollbar. But to sum up, scratch page needed, but verification failed, however I might know why. See message I left on your talk page. In case that's not the problem though, I will click around in pp 10-13, but not right now; I need to rest my eyes. But Google changing something about their URLs might explain a lot. I will investigate further but probably not until tomorrow. Elinruby (talk) 12:50, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Are you in the chapter titled House of Justice? This is the URL for the source given for that quote: [5] Elinruby (talk) 13:47, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Elinruby (talk) 12:50, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

The term Judenräte appears at the top of p. 11 of the Viking 1963 ed. (OCLC 898973275) in chap. The House of Justice, but not enough to support the quote above, so maybe it's from someplace else. I'll try to find an online copy of this edition so you can see for yourself; in the worst case, I can email you both a photo of the page. Mathglot (talk) 11:19, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

11->114 is a plausible typo. But seriously need to put phone does rt now, too tired to type. Online version better; ok to IA comment I just got, thank you. Will see if it has page numbers Elinruby (talk) 11:29, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Following your plausible typo idea, I checked later in the Viking 1963, and p.124 has "the Judenrat's policy of cooperating with the Nazis" (quotes in the original) and a paragraph about that. So maybe that was the source. Mathglot (talk) 11:37, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Also, IA version will have page numbers, as their books are scanned facsimiles of print books, or at least, that's the only things I've found there, but I'm only an occasional user, not a power user of IA books. Mathglot (talk) 11:39, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Found it. The Internet Archive has it, here; you have to borrow it (14-days) to read or download it, but it's a free registration, and if you're not already registered, it's totally worth it. Lots of books at IA are borrowable for one-hour segments, then you can renew every hour; but this one has a 14-day borrow term. If you can't access it, or don't wish to register, I can email you a copy of p. 11. Maybe IA also has the original, Penguin edition you were talking about above, so check around. Mathglot (talk) 11:26, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

@Piotrus: read the above when possible Elinruby (talk) 11:38, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

@Mathglot For me the above book shows the usual 1 hour. But IA copy isn't digitized, I failed at locating any pages identical in the two editions except the Note to the Author which is not numbered. 10 minutes wasted flipping pages. Aaaargh. <sub>Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here</sub> 13:50, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

@Piotrus:, Oh gosh, so sorry! (Hm, wonder why it shows 14 days for me for that one; maybe because I finally registered and logged in?) Anyway, I didn't follow this whole thread in detail: if we go back to basics, what are we looking for, exactly? Must it be a particular version? As I mentioned, I have the Viking ed. in paper and can send photos, if that helps, and I can get others online. What do you need? (No need to ping; I'm subscribed.) Mathglot (talk) 22:55, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

this is one of several sources that fail verification. I suspect an problem of edition in this case at least. Alternately maybe a less famous and/or re-issued source? A source is not required to be easily verifiable but it would be so much better if it could be verified. Elinruby (talk) 23:07, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

shouldn't we try that dq parameter, Mathglot? I need to do some things before it gets dark but later tonight I can do some experimenting if you don't have time. Elinruby (talk) 23:25, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

I think you could use |dq= as a second-best approach if all else fails, especially if there's only one search hit for the query expression. The weakness of that approach, is that it depends on which pages Google is excluding from their preview, and I'm not sure that is a consistent set. I have the very strong impression that sometimes my visits to a particular book with limited preview sometimes shows one set of pages, sometimes another, but I could be wrong; but if I'm not wrong, then the |dq= isn't guaranteed to find it for someone else, or even for you again later when you try it again. Would be good to nail this down, one way or the other. (Btw, I think you might've been looking for {{od|:::::::::::::}}, and not :::::::::::::{{od}}.) Mathglot (talk) 03:04, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

heh, like I said somewhere, stupid tired. Sorry bout that. Elinruby (talk) 07:25, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

@Mathglot Take a look at my post above that begins with "I am not sure what you mean" where I provide a quotation that I think supports the sentence that it is referencing. I think we need page number(s) for it - the quotes I provide span two pages in Google books. I think that's what we need in this particular case, although Elinruby may have additional comments? <sub>Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here</sub> 02:00, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

I think we we should test it. Willing to put some typing into this Elinruby (talk) 07:27, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

In preliminary tests I did not get dq to work whether a preview was available or not. I will go back through this later checking each step; right now rl calls. Elinruby (talk) 00:25, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

There's another potential problem with |dq=—it's a query, not a specific location. To the extent that users sometimes provide a citation to a book with no page at all (sometimes tagged later with {{page needed}}), having a Gbooks url with |dq= in it might be sort of like that. Better than nothing, but needing a page or other location indicator. Adding|dq=, is sort of like saying: "I found it in Jones-2016 looking for 'Foo'; now you go find it." It's better than nothing, but not ideal. Mathglot (talk) 01:10, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

I hear you but there a lot of these. It would be nice to be part of the solution for the problem I am pointing at. I think that Piotrus is also just trying to solve this. Elinruby (talk) 01:23, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Oh I agree; converting dq to page or loc (or perhaps to PT) is the way to go. Mathglot (talk) 01:58, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Piotrus: Based on history, original page # may have been 117 or 118 Elinruby (talk) 06:41, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

@Elinruby Thank you. Do you think it would be fine to provide a page range as 117-118 for now? <sub>Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here</sub> 11:53, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Not sure. I saw it in the history of Collaboration with the Axis powers that way but there was an edit was going on. I will try to figure this and the other question out before I go to bed. I also need to go look at what the statement was that it was referencing, fo one thing and see if it is different from the one at collaboration. Elinruby (talk) 12:05, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Polite distortions of the truth

"polite distortions of the truth seem to prevail in wiki proceedings over attempts to defend it that also express irritation" should be put here Help:Introduction to Wikipedia to warn potential editiors. People studying a certain subject are frequently emotionally involved in it, psychopats, manipulators, ignorants, paid trolls are not. I understand there exist crazy people, who may destroy any work, but the Wikipedia looses part of its potential concentrating on kindergarden rules. At the same time the WP does not defend its editors from stalking and the majority of the editors is unable to identify and sue a stalker. Xx236 (talk) 08:48, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

it's a problem. I understand that the rationale for not wanting to address content disputes is avoiding the appearance that there is a party Line, but it takes really extraordinary measures to get ANI to to recognize a verifiable misrepresentation of a source. Come to think of it, I am not sure that that has ever been done. Elinruby (talk) 08:58, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

I mean mostly I*, according to VM.

This Wikipedia discriminates editors coming from war regions, eg. WP:Contentious topics/Balkans or Eastern Europe.

Xx236 (talk) 06:46, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Ok. I was wondering if you had some similar story, is all. Elinruby (talk) 07:03, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Database privileges for Wikipedia editors

Hi, Elin, here's the link to the WP Library portal and how to sign up (which as an active and seasoned editor, you should have no difficulty doing):

Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Library

More precisely:

https://wikipedialibrary.wmflabs.org/

[Seemed silly to put this on my own Talk Page].

—— Shakescene (talk) 02:12, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm signed up. I Elinruby (talk) 02:14, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm signed up. I just lost the link Elinruby (talk) 02:15, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Teamwork Barnstar
	Perhaps you don't have this one in your salad'o'meter yet :) Thank you for trying and generally succeeding at being a friendly, AGFing team player in a very difficult topic area. Cheers, Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:08, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

A comment

I saw your question and see that you are new to arbitrations. Arbs are looking for diffs with evidence of misbehavior by named parties only, and preferably very recent diffs, nothing else (although bringing diffs about recent brutal misbehavior by someone else in this subject area would be OK). I do not have such diffs, and therefore do not post any evidence. I am puzzled to see how several very experienced contributors are not doing just that on the Evidence page. Note that just claiming a guilt by someone without providing a really convincing evidence in form of diffs during such proceeding may by viewed as an evidence against you and results in sanctions against you, and that is what frequently happens. Just for the sake of example, someone complaining about G&K during such proceedings, would be probably bringing evidence against himself, unless this is clearly framed as rebuttal of claims by G&K about himself. My very best wishes (talk) 14:41, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes, you warned me about this before, but thank you for doing it again. It confirms what I suspected; I should shut up about old edit wars I wasn't in and only know about because I am trying to fix the result. I appreciate you having my back. I know you are private so: like this or respond in some way so I know you've seen it, and I'll tidy up my talk page. Elinruby (talk) 14:57, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

@My very best wishes: Elinruby (talk) 15:01, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

You can remove this or not, I do not care. Also, consider the statement by Adoring nanny and the way it was summarized. This is because the only thing relevant to the case in her statement was the link to the WP:AE episode. Speaking of which, that was an AE case "with merit" because some sanctions were made, and no one disputed these sanctions. Hence, GizzyCatBella arguably did good thing (for the project) by advising to bring this case to AE. My very best wishes (talk) 15:09, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

She is her own worst enemy. I have seen you try to warn her too My very best wishes Elinruby (talk) 15:13, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Well, I think that GCB and VM could be much better off right now if they did not care so much about content. See also WP:FUCK, but I mean really did not care. For example, if another guy (let's say, I.) wants to include some undue content or remove something of significance, why not let him have a fun? This is just a website that many people do not take too seriously. When I have a math question, I never use WP. My very best wishes (talk) 21:00, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

True. It is a good philosophy. I had mostly seen it as indifference to threats, but ... Elinruby (talk) 22:55, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

One should realize that WP is a low-quality source, even though it may be very useful in some areas. G&K complain about the coverage of Holocaust in Poland. But they did note see the coverage of Russia and USSR! The coverage of Poland is so much better, thanks to contributors like P. and VM. I gave up on Russian subjects long time ago, but would not edit them right now also for another reason: this war did change my perception of that country. Let this content rot. My very best wishes (talk) 23:08, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

And if Russian subjects are still more or less covered, this is thanks to users like M. Who cares that he created a lot of sockpuppets? I was wrong about him. Content he created, that is what matters. I also liked User:INeverCry, he was a fine contributor; I have no idea why he is globally locked. I guess some people are committing a "suicide by admins". My very best wishes (talk) 23:31, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

As an illustration of my comment, did you see this [6]? I think this contributor made an excellent point, but this is not what Arbs are looking for. They can not sanction someone who does not contribute on-wiki. They need to find someone who does. Is it fair? No. But such is life. Perhaps I feel too relaxed. This is because I do not give a fuck and not sure why I am included at all as one of the "parties". My very best wishes (talk) 23:57, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

in the France section somebody had confused the battle of Marseilles (a battle) with the rafle of Marseilles, when they loaded the population of the Old Port onto freight trains. They both really happened but they were very different events a year apart. That's a pretty big mistake. But I think it was caused my somebody who thought they had Google superpowers. Let that be a lesson to us all. Elinruby (talk) 01:51, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

As for why you're included: As far as I can tell it's because G&K mentioned you, and they mentioned you because they saw you when they were looking. Bad sample, probably, yeah. Who is Mick Gold for example? He's not in the article I know anything about Elinruby (talk) 02:09, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

he's not wrong. But if that's not evidence it is a problem nonetheless if it remains true. Elinruby (talk) 01:56, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

This is a very unusual and dramatic case. Here is why. Speaking very generally, the biggest problem of WP is the involvement of external actors. Consider the misuse of WP for advertisement, this is huge problem, a lot of accounts are blocked on a regular basis. Or consider countless accounts that have been indefinitely blocked for promoting various political agendas. Why they did it? Just to "prove" their own bias or because someone paid them to promote misinformation and conflicts and get someone else banned? No one knows. At least, I do not. We do know there are organizations created to intentionally promote misinformation, here is just one of many. This is an exceptional case where the Arbcome (no less!) has decided to take the side of an external party that demanded the WP content to be changed in the way these external actors want. The probable involvement of the banned user only makes this worse. I do not care if they are good or bad actors. This is an unacceptable precedent that can be followed by others. Banning some people might be OK, but not on the request by external actors. My very best wishes (talk) 02:58, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Well. In the case of the IRA we know why. I read Bellingcat. Believe me, I know, but the other side of determining the truth by committee is that once the power of truth by fiat is in play you can wind up with a horse as high priest. And yet we do curate, so... As always it's more complicated than that. Elinruby (talk) 03:17, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

And yet I found out that I was not willing to allow mass rapes to get left out of the story. Elinruby (talk) 03:27, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

March 2023

If you don't stop attacking TrangaBellam, as here ("I will be extremely careful nonetheless to notify the extremely litigious TrangaBellam the *next* time I perceive her to be in a knife fight with someone trying to respect an edit restriction"), I will set an interaction ban between the two of you. You can read here about what that would entail. Bishonen | tålk 14:36, 17 March 2023 (UTC).

I already plan to ask for one at AC, Bishonen, and Marcelus should already have one Elinruby (talk) 14:42, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Bishonen see "Closing small tags" further up this page Elinruby (talk) 14:46, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Interaction Ban Notice

Notice: The ban exemption to allow engaging in legitimate and necessary dispute resolution at the World War II and the history of Jews in Poland case is suspended until further notice. Outside of reporting a violation of this topic ban you should not directly or indirectly mention TrangaBellam; this includes talking about each other on an admin's talk page. Violations of this topic ban will result in escalating blocks. Barkeep49 (talk) 14:52, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Barkeep49 That's a pretty good idea if I understand it. Let me repeat it back to be sure, because the notice you gave me says both interaction and topic ban

You've decided that the original phrasing is unworkable and are withdrawing the exemption. I'm in this for not having her on my talk page so ok. Meanwhile I have about an hour's worth of work to finish that evidence section, can I have that? It's mostly written but I'm wasn't finished proofing and making sure the diffs work. I assume that the topic ban part is stray boilerplate, please confirm. And thanks. Elinruby (talk) 15:03, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Barkeep49 if it helps you at all I don't anticipate any tit for tat once I am done with that hour. I just want to finish what I was doing when I clicked the notification. Or if you want to look at what's there and ask me questions if needex, that's fine with me too, but in that case I am going offline and out into the day for several hours. Elinruby (talk) 15:22, 18 March 2023 (UTC)<

Sorry for saying topic ban when it should have said interaction ban. For now do not post anything about TB. The drafters/ArbCom/clerks are discussing this situation and will get back to you with more guidance. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:46, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

ok am fine with that. You may find some leaps of logic that aren't clear and very likely some cut and paste errors in the diffs is all. I:d call it 85% do ne. I answered the question you left me and once I clear whatever this notification is I am offline for the day. Elinruby (talk) 16:20, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

@Barkeep: The following question relates to the first part of my evidence, but I am asking because of the third part, and that is why here.

Unless someone has an issue with this, I plan to move the diffs at the bottom of section 1 from the other night into the analysis that is currently above them. This text was actually intended as context for the summarized evidence, but I believe the diffs substantiate the fact that there were content disputes, but that the specifics could be clearer. I would also like to find the diffs where people were complaining about references getting separated from the text they were intended to support, but I may not have time to do this tonight.

However, the deadline that I was worried about does not apply to this section, since I have already mentioned E-960, the second unnamed party I asked about on the talk page, and substantiated that he was arguing with other editors in edit summaries, and that is really about all I know. So that part is done, I think. At the moment I have no opinion on whether he should or should not be added: I think it depends on whether the idea that there was a content dispute (unsurprising, no?) is important.

I have a couple of questions about the summary, but they are minor and it seems like it would be a better use of my time to improve the first section before someone rebuts it. I'll start by reassuring Slatersteven that I am not making any statements about his beliefs and that I think the removal of the BUF was proper, assuming the material elsewhere, which I think it is. I just mentioned him as context for Poland, in other words an example of a dispute that was not about Poland.

I agree wihisthe removal ofatthe material from the collaboration article. He is mentioned merely context, as an example of a content disagreement that was not about PolanIfdI come across a diff about that, I'll add it, but as I recall I did not see him do anything with Poland at any point, so he is going to be out of scope, and thus not a party. If

A few of the final diffs I posted about the Collaboration article strayed into section three. I assume it's ok to move them to where they belong, but given the fraughtness of the everything, I will wait for your guidance on that. I would not be touching anything but the sequence of unlabeled and clearly unrelated diffs at the very bottom, but perhaps I should be asking you to move them for me? Since I see no reason not to improve section 1, I will go ahead and start on that, and will be online for about four hours. Please let me know if you have questions or I do something wrong. Elinruby (talk) 09:29, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Oh and this information is probably pertinent: it is possible to edit section 1 without contravening your instructions. Elinruby (talk) 09:35, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi Barkeep49, asking this here as the question applies to this situation only: Is the argument TrangaBellam had with my diffs in the analysis section considered evidence for purposes of rebuttal? Or is this another opportunity to ignore her, as you put it? She mis-summarizes what I said, but I guess it doesn't matter if the section is getting ignored anyway.

(As an example of "mis-summarizes", it isn't double jeopardy to point out that she's been previously warned for exactly the behaviour I pointed out, that her reaction to the complaint against her was a rofl emoticon, and her reaction to the logged warning was another rofl emoticon, and a remark that she could get it taken care of at AN. And meanwhile the behaviour she was warned about continues).

What I am thinking is ROPE, and that I might as well get back to the Collaboration article, where work has stalled, and maybe make some remarks in the case's analysis about the RS policy that I have been mulling. Thoughts? Elinruby (talk) 18:21, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Diffs in an analysis section are not considered evidence. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:23, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

minor request: Please, my name is not "ER", if you can remember that. If you don't want to type out all the syllables, El (preferably) or even Elin is acceptable. I know there's a lot going on so I won't be upset if you forget this at some point, @Barkeep49:. I'm just pointing out that it's a mis-reading and anyone that you may have noticed doing this is Simply In Error and I would prefer that the name not proliferate. Thank you for your attention to this matter.Elinruby (talk) 03:19, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Alliance network

Hello, Elinruby. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Alliance network".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz <sup>Read! Talk!</sup> 05:41, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

@Liz: I believe the article was draftified by someone else; I noticed this at AfD recently, but had several other messy fires going at the time. I don't remember being notified of the draftification, but I could be wrong; six months ago I was probably up to my waist in the current war in Ukraine. I suspect that this article was seen as undue, which possibly it is for a stand-alone article in the English wikipedia; it's a translation from French.

In any event, IMHO it should have if anything been merged either to one of the three separate discussions of foreign units of the German army in the period, and/or to one of the multiple articles on the history of the Vichy régime. But fine; I was not in the discussion to make that suggestion. I am actually trying reorganize some related material in my sandbox, and rather than undeletion, what I would actually like is the restoration of the material to the top of my primary sandbox. I would take care of it from there. If it needed references (quite likely in a translation from French) it is a good time for me to make that happen.

Alternately, if this is easier for you, yes please do undelete it, and let me know, and I will move it there myself, thanks. Elinruby (talk) 08:32, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

As if you didn't have enough donkey-work...

Hi, Elin,

1. My very best wishes for your personal life. Good luck.
2. f you have the time, opportunity and inclination, would you mind looking over the translation of the Vichy Second law on the status of Jews ? There are two sources listed in refs to Yad Vashem and the BNP; the latter also shows the immediately-following and clearly closely-related, law of the same date (2 June 1941) on a Jewish census and legal obligation to report your Jewish status — a law whose translation might be usefully added to that of the 2nd Law.
3. I'm asking because you're fluently bilingual and seem to have some interest and knowledge of legal statutes in French. I just don't know enough myself to know how well the translation (apparently done by a Wikipedia editor, rather than an external source) corresponds with the meanings, definitions and distinctions in the Journal Officiel. There are places where the English seems odd, unidiomatic or obscure, but that may come from the original French. And most laws are very loath to change their wording to match current usage and idiom (which is why British, American, and, no doubt, Canadian laws still carry parallel Norman-French and English terms, such as aid and abet, seize and carry off, breaking and entering, etc.) And that raises the ever-lasting dilemma between literal and idiomatic translation (I once tried reading Mme Bovary in both Eleanor Marx Aveling's very literal translation and more modern translations from French idiom to nearest-equivalent English idiom; rather different results. Same with Machiavelli's Il Principe) Traduttore, traditore.
4. I'm certainly not competent enough to make the comparisons and necessary adjustments, but I'd be interested what you think.
5. As Voltaire (?) is said to have written, if I had had more time, this message would have been shorter —— Shakescene (talk) 20:16, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Hahaha. Stealing that Voltaire quote.

Currently kinda busy, but it sounds pertinent to what I am doing, so ok, probably soon.

I am not making the principal memorial arrangements and have already located and contributed some of my mother's photos, so that stuff is currently caught up. Arbcom is proceeding; still some work to do there but the very short deadline is met and the next one is still pretty far out.

Is everything ok on the Collaboration page? Keep an eye on the Jewish section, please. I know you dislike confrontation, and I know those people better, so you don't have to *fix* anything you see as a problem, but please LMK. I have stalking concerns re two editors on the page. Thanks Elinruby (talk) 20:50, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Are you asking me to verify the references? Please elucidate on the exact question. This comment based on the article history may help: if either Mathglot or Scope creep added the reference or did the translation you are talking about, my degree of confidence in the material is pretty high, above the 90th percentile and possibly the 95th. I have not actually looked at the material yet though, and I think I should probably respond to the notification below before I do. Elinruby (talk) 22:21, 20 March 2023 (UTC

Hi Folks!! Got a ping. I created the Second law on the status of Jews, translation of an fr article. Its an idiomatic translation that I had done of the decree itself. If you think it needs work, then please work on it. If you think it need better translation, then please re-translate it. I created it for the UGIF article. I do plan to create the other law article in that series at some point. There was two major laws, but there is about 16 in total. I like the quote about Voltaire. scope_creep<sup>Talk</sup> 12:01, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

I checked your work at Jublains archeological site and found it quite good, so I don't consider this a priority over putting some stuff about my work into evidence, even though I am fairly serene about all this.

Mathglot is the authority on current French criminal law and the Holocaust under Vichy, but I collaborated with him on a lot of that and might have done a deeper dive on some specific matters. Things that would help me: is there any mention of a judge in there, and if so from which court? If it's admin law it:s probably in my wheelhouse to verify.

I'll get back to y'all, likely tomorrow. Don't have another deep dive in me tonight, too soon since the last one. I suspect any translation quibbles I may have are minor; if so they are for the talk page, and if I have any questions I'll ask here. NB French wiki pages on French law are often very still and formal *in French*. There are also many terms of art. Elinruby (talk) 01:13, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

That (NB) doesn't surprise me. Just for the record, here's the vague, windy response I'd made before you reacted to that ping. Much of it is now irrelevant or wrong, especially since your comment answers one of my questions (how clear and idiomatic is thr original legal French?)

• Thanks; I hadn't looked at the article history. At first sight, I didn't see any clear differences in meaning between the French text and the article's translation, and if you have that much confidence in the competence and accuracy of who you think is (or are) the likely translators, I wouldn't dispute it.
• My possible question was more about style and idiom; as you know far better than most of us, English and French are loaded with faux amis and similar pitfalls. That's why I (not a native speaker of French) checked with you about my translation of Marcel Déat's peroration in Mourir pour Dantzig? (Why die for Danzig?) — where we (and another intervening editor) couldn't be certain of the closest English meaning of nos biens.
• Since you are fluent in idiomatic French, idiomatic English and (apparently) French legal terminology, I was just asking you (when and if you have the time) to see any possible areas where (for example) French technical or idiomatic styles differ from those in English, where an exact translation doesn't convert to a clear and accurate English meaning, or where there might be a slightly-smoother English word or phrase that accurately conveys the Law's language to an Anglophone reader. (Of course, if the customary legal French used was choppy, awkward or ambiguous, it would be wrong to smooth it over simply for euphony rather than to translate the infelicities, obscurities or ambiguities into the closest English.)
• Speaking of which, I'm sleepy and I'm not writing this very lucidly or properly considering the nuances I'm thinking of in the back of my head, so I'll stop here. —— Shakescene (talk) 01:30, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

  @Shakescene:, a couple of thoughts. This discussion really should take place at Talk:Second law on the status of Jews, and if you bring it up there, I (and possibly others) will have more to say, but in my opinion, the section § Text of the law translated should be removed, as Wikipedia is not a repository of primary source material. If it does not already exist there, it should be transwikified to Wikisource (our article already has a link to the French Wikisource text of the law), which *is* a repository of primary source material. Because of this, I don't think it's worth your, or anyone's time to look at that section with a view to improving the translation, because 1) it shouldn't be there in the first place, and 2) whatever effort you expend might end up in the rubbish bin. Finally, you're right to point out the difficulties of translation generally, and even more so wrt legal translation. This is a very long topic which I can't go into here on Elinruby's TP, but if you have questions about specific wording, I might be able to help (please ask at the article TP and ping me). Some of your questions might be able to be resolved at Glossary of French criminal law, but it covers only criminal law, which excludes civil and administrative law. The glossary is not complete, and if you find criminal law terms that are not yet covered, please list them at the glossary talk page.Mathglot (talk) 04:06, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

er stiff and formal Elinruby (talk) 08:02, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

• Oh, one other thing: you asked about "how clear and idiomatic is the original legal French" is. I wasn't certain if you meant the content of French law codes, or the content of articles on fr-wiki. French law codes are marvels of clear (and brief!) writing, that anyone can understand; if only our laws followed that design. If you meant the articles on fr-wiki, there is definitely a problem with them. The main problem, is that they just don't pay attention to sources at fr-wiki as we do, and so a lot of the stuff is pure, unsourced original research, and not worth translating. I'm on a big push to increase our coverage of French law (starting with criminal law) and although I started off with some translations from fr-wiki, I've stopped doing that, and am writing new content and new articles from scratch. Many of the fr-wiki articles just aren't worth translating, for the most part. Maybe little bits and pieces, here and there. The other problem is that they are writing for a French audience, and make all sorts of assumptions, especially, but not solely, in the lead, that everybody knows what "public" and "private" law is, or a "juge d'instruction", or the difference between a délit and a crime, so they don't bother explaining it or introducing the topic with background that is absolutely necessary for an English-speaking audience. Plus, it turns out there are *lots* of good references about French law in the English language. If I were you, I wouldn't bother with most of the French law articles; a lot of them are hardly worth it. Read them through once, maybe, to get a rough outline if you want, but I wouldn't bother translating most of them, you'd be pretty much translating some random French guy's beliefs or prejudices or misconceptions about French law, that they stuck in their article with poor or no sourcing. Mathglot (talk) 09:06, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

  I think in many cases fr.wiki articles are written by subject matter experts who are known on fr.wiki to be subject matter experts. This was certainly the case at Jublains but the problem is that in most cases it isn't as clear as that, and it's absolutely not guaranteed. I'm getting more interested in this question the more I read about it :) But yes, if you translate an fr.wikipedia article, on the whole, you had better be prepared to reference it also. Elinruby (talk) 09:56, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

  on French legal codes, the principe de legalité holds that no-one may be prosecuted for something that was not already clearly made illegal in an easy-to-understand legal text published prior to the act in question. I wrote that article based on a translation, but yes, it is *very" clearly stated as a fundamental principle of French law. As I recall this traces back to a concern in the early republic to prevent the excesses of absolute monarchs and retroactive judgement. Of course, the French have strayed from this path, notably with the Biens mal acquis law (unexplained wealth) passed after WW2. As an aside, it isn't just articles about French law. French academic writing, as it is taught in schools there, is very 18th-century on the whole, as this is considered a good thing, go figure. Glories of the Enlightenment and all that. I saw this based on my high school education. Elinruby (talk) 10:12, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

• The text of a decree has gone from the UGIF article so I guess it needs to go here as well. I might be worth moving this conversation to the talk page of the article. scope_creep<sup>Talk</sup> 12:07, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

  i personally am fine with that if someone else wants to do it Elinruby (talk) 12:10, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/World War II and the history of Jews in Poland: You have been added as a party

Hello Elinruby,

You have been added as a party to the Arbitration case about World War II and the history of Jews in Poland.

Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/World War II and the history of Jews in Poland/Evidence. Please add your evidence by April 04, 2023, which is when the first evidence phase closes. Submitted evidence will be summarized by Arbitrators and Clerks at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/World War II and the history of Jews in Poland/Evidence/Summary, and can be analyzed at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/World War II and the history of Jews in Poland/Analysis.

Owing to the summary style, editors are encouraged to submit evidence in small chunks sooner rather than more complete evidence later.

Details about the summary page, the two phases of evidence, a timeline and other answers to frequently asked questions can be found at the case's FAQ page.

For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration.

For the Arbitration Committee,
~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:27, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

@ToBeFree: Awesome, this will solve my word constraints, but I would still like to ask that the committee expedite taking note of the easily-dealt-with subsection on Slatersteven, and either summarize it or let me know it's ok to edit it out of the evidence section.

Also, the committee does realize that I currently cannot comment on these ludicrous allegations, right? @Barkeep49: I know that's a hard question, and I'd rather have good guidance than rushed guidance, but I *will* need some guidance about how to proceed. For now I will just respond to this with some evidence about the scope of my editing prior to February 2023. I assume that the committee has already thought to look into this, but most of the gawkers probably haven't: see discussion with one of them on Bishonen's talk page. Elinruby (talk) 21:50, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Elinruby, you are allowed to participate normally at the case (e.g. you can submit about TrangaBellam). However, you should read the expectations for participating in the analysis or evidence phases. In particular you are encouraged to keep the following in mind:

Expected standards of behavior

• You are required to act with appropriate decorum during this case. While grievances must often be aired during a case, you are expected to air them without being incivil or engaging in personal attacks, and to respond calmly to allegations against you.
• Accusations of misbehaviour posted in this case must be proven with clear evidence (and otherwise not made at all).

Consequences of inappropriate behavior

• Editors who conduct themselves inappropriately during a case may be sanctioned by an arbitrator or clerk, without warning.
• Sanctions issued by arbitrators or clerks may include being banned from particular case pages or from further participation in the case.
• Editors who ignore sanctions issued by arbitrators or clerks may be blocked from editing.
• Behavior during a case may also be considered by the committee in arriving at a final decision.

If you have any questions please let me know. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:21, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

ok. I don't have any grievances. Elinruby (talk) 01:27, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

lol, well, not about Poland anyway Elinruby (talk) 01:43, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

---

For your information, I have removed a portion of the evidence you submitted with the edit summary removing statement that is in reply to something else removed and that offers nice words about another editor but does not offer any diffs or evidence to substantiate them. Barkeep49 (talk) 20:47, 28 March 2023 (UTC) @Barkeep49: hmm you had me at "in reply to something else removed", so ok sure, thanks.

I actually can give you diffs of good copyedits by GCB if you would like some, and at least one example of her acting as a mediator, but I see why you removed that. I was more interested in underlining that Zero said that the RSN thread was a model content discussion but I don't guess that we specifically need that to be evidence, since he did say it. Is the committee interested in those old 2018-2019 content discussions? They happened, but if they aren't needed or relevant I don't feel a burning need to trace through them, because life is short. Also, does it want a baseline to compare Marcelus' rewrite to? Elinruby (talk) 11:16, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Verification needed - everywhere

Just a random recent item from my watchlist: Talk:Propaganda_in_the_Soviet_Union#Unsourced_reference. <sub>Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here</sub> 02:39, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

I know right? Elinruby (talk) 02:42, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

ok, you made me look ;) and I concur. The reason I particularly dislike this problem is that I do not have a right-click menu or an alt-F option, and can only find text by reading the entire document. I see the problem though, and it's in an area of high interest, so I may give this a shot anyway sometime soon. This second I am looking for lighter reading than Marxist dialectic though. Maybe a compare and contrast of cement terroirs, or a history of forks, perhaps <j/k> Elinruby (talk) 05:37, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

is this still a problem? I'm ill-equipped to find page numbers, but I could look for a different reference, if that helps. Elinruby (talk) 02:55, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Technical note (from a hard-boiled non-techie) just discovered.

Hi, again, ER, I don't know what browser you're using, but you may not need right-click or Ctrl+F (both of which I do have and use constantly} if you're using Google Chrome or Microsoft Edge on MS Windows 10+. I just tested both (for the first time), and found that if (1) you go to the miscellaneous commands icon (three vertical dots or three horzontal lines) in the top right of the browser and (2) you look far enough down, then (3) you can find "Find" or "find on page". When clicked, these commands will bring down a find menu from the top bar without the need for Ctrl+F or Right-click. The equivalent command, however, didn't work this way for me in Mozilla Firefox. And I have no idea how this would work on an Apple browser, Safari or Macintosh operating system. —— Shakescene (talk) 03:22, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

I usually use Chrome on Android. Firefox on Android is an option. Not averse to other browsers, but the current platform is Android. I actually *am* a techie, which is why I get frustrated by stuff like this. If you're looking for something to do that is not the Second law on the status of Jews, could I interest you in the page number problem above that we're having with Eichmann in Jerusalem? I will investigate whether your suggestion works. We actually have quite a few page number problem in the Collaboration article also Elinruby (talk) 03:38, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Correction: This actually does work in Firefox for Windows: the Find box just appears at the bottom of the browser, instead of dropping down from the top as it does for Edge and Chrome. Again, I suppose you could always apply the scientific method of trial and error. As for page-hunting, reference-verification, etc., I already let The Project suck up far too much of my time and attention (Wikipedia and Sporcle substituting for real personal company) — for example, I was caught up for several hours tonight writing comments and replies, while reformatting Duchess of Swabia when I could have been watching Call the Midwife or the World Figure Skating Championships. At the moment, I could be watching Sat. Night Live, although SNL's variable quality might mean that this is no great loss. Yours wearily (but not half so wearily as you, Mathglot and other Toilers in the Trenches dodging a long hard sentence at WP:MOS or WP:MOSNUM — I have no idea how I could bear enduring the 120K of angry disputation at your disciplinary pages). —— Shakescene (talk) 04:00, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Most of that doesn't really pertain to me, but yeah, it's a huge distraction. But I knew I was probably going to have to say something when I decided to try to deal with the balance problem at Collaboration. And that this might happen. Let them scrutinize if their sense of fairness requires it. I suppose I should get back to page numbers, or clicking Mathglot's links. Let me know if you have an opinion on the void ab initio thing. Basically the French position is that this law should never have been passed. And yeah, national narratives are a thing, as we have seen. Elinruby (talk) 04:10, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Incidentally

Did you know Poland is one of the few countries which consider Napoleon to be a hero? I mildly wonder if he is more popular in Poland than in France :) <sub>Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here</sub> 12:30, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

ok, I'll bite: how does Napoleon become a hero in Poland? Elinruby (talk) 00:48, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

... in case you're interested ...

Hi, ER, I just added section titles and a summary of the registration law to 2nd Law, commented on possible Collabo splits and fiddled with the order (Italy above Germany) at the List of puppet states. Your comments, suggestions and adjustments are, as always useful and welcome —— Shakescene (talk) 19:28, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Translation at second law

Why are you bothering to spend time translating the text of the law at Second law on the status of Jews? The whole thing might get removed from the article. If you're doing it for the sake of Wikisource, then it should be done there instead, under their guidelines. I think any effort "fixing" the translation there is not worth it. Mathglot (talk) 07:06, 30 March 2023 (UTC) @Mathglot: it's done and Scope creep can do with it as he wishes. I am letting him worry about the guidelines. Scope, I am getting the thing where the UI overwrites the preview again, plus I am about to be gone for the day,so sorry to combine my answers. Both of you should do as you think best. Elinruby (talk) 14:53, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

The text in the article was used for the Wikisource. The detailed work and analysis was really good. I checked it against the book and it was identical. The hosting admin changed one sentence in the start to reflect the book. He read the talk page discussion and advanced it themselves. scope_creep<sup>Talk</sup> 09:24, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Good work, everyone. Mathglot (talk) 05:26, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Eichmann in Jerusalem

Piotrus Mathglot just in case either of you still has this in the back of your mind, apparently this is no longer a source at the collaboration article, so cross this off your to-do list if it's still there. I'd still like to resolve the question, but it is moot in terms of Collab.and therefore no longer of any particular urgency Elinruby (talk) 19:47, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Translation Barnstar

		The Translation Barnstar
		For excellent work in translating the law decree at Second law on the status of Jews from French to English. Your considerate and long term application of quality are highly admired. That was great work Elinruby. scope_creepTalk 09:19, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Fate of leading French collabotors

Hi, Elin, this is just peripheral, but in looking at Vel' d'Hiv Roundup#Aftermath, I saw a very long account of the fates of the respective collaborators/co-conspirators (Laval, Bousquet, Leguay et al.) Bousqet's paragraph is very informative but very long, and seems a little out of proportion here. There are many reasons (in current French politics, in recent French history and in accountability of present and future war criminals) to keep this detail somewhere, but I was wondering which article would be best to locate it in. While clearly important to the Vel' d"Hiv rafle, the amount of detail (future careers, etc.) seems out of place. (On the other hand, it makes me feel a bit easier about the length of our own summary at Collaboration with the Axis powers#Aftermath.)

1. Would this material find a better home elsewhere?
2. Should whatever remains here be shortened (probably by shortening Bousquet's paragraph significantly)?
3. Should I (or you) start a new question about this in a new section of Talk:Vel' d'Hiv Roundup?

Thanks for any thoughts or pointers, —— Shakescene (talk) 14:58, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

i suspect that information about Bousquet came from his article at en or fr wiki and may be longer because that article is longer. He was such a weaselly yet pivotal character. As far as I am concerned, any text at the collaboration article that covers material covered elsewhere can be removed. However a big caveat: He was indeed very important, so a longer section for him MAY not be undue. Mathglot was the primary author of that article as I recall and may have thoughts about this. Elinruby (talk) 22:44, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm only a minor contributor to Vel' d'Hiv Roundup, although I created or made major improvements to some of the roundup articles, like Green ticket roundup. Shakescene, I think you've posed a good question, here, about where more lengthy information about this belongs, and I agree that the section at Vel' d'Hiv is too long for that content, which is peripipheral to the topic. Perhaps there's a gap in our coverage here that we could fill with an article like "Fate of Vichy collaborators". The topic itself is clearly notable, the only question in my mind is if it deserves its own page or not. (If so, we'd have to check sources to see what the exact right title should be.) I could see it developing into a parent article in summary style, with an Intro section to lay the groundwork and context, major sections about some of the principle characters, a section about the épurations for less well-known characters, and '{{Main}}' links in all the sections, pointing to the more detailed articles on the topic. Feel free to start an article like that if you've a mind to; I think it would be a good addition to the topic area, and to the encyclopedia. Mathglot (talk) 00:44, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Interesting point. One of the primary Belgian collaborators as I recall went on to become president of the European parliament, or something of the kind. Not that i suggest including him; there are a lot of variables that vary from country to country. But yeah, great topic suggestion guys Elinruby (talk) 00:56, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Another possibility, if you're not keen on the new article approach, would be to try adding it to someplace like Pursuit of Nazi collaborators. Mathglot (talk) 01:28, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

I don't currently have an opinion about this, but there is a difference in focus between what we're discussing and "pursuit", isn't there? A lot of these guys were living loud and proud in positions of authority. Elinruby (talk) 01:36, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes, there is; I'm just pointing out what's out there, in case we don't want to go with a new-article approach. It may well be that it doesn't fit in the "Pursuit" article, for the reason you state. Mathglot (talk) 02:53, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

I am interested in the moral complexities of the topic, whichever way we approach it. However I need to stave off cognitive overload and finish up my evidence for the Arbcom case. Let me know if you guys launch something along these lines. By the way it's been bothering me: what was that Dossier something something article that we worked on around the same time as Vel d'hiv? Elinruby (talk) 03:13, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Actually, that Pursuit of Nazi collaborators article has a fair amount about the post-Liberation careers of the French subjects. If that's true of the other countries' sections, the article might benefit from another title, such as "Fate..." or "Post-war fate..." —— Shakescene (talk) 04:09, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Interesting idea, you should broach it at the article TP. Mathglot (talk) 05:28, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Putting this here for future reference: fate of the School of Paris? Elinruby (talk) 07:42, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Michel Kikoine for example Elinruby (talk) 07:52, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Also Moïse Kisling 12:51, 7 April 2023 (UTC) Elinruby (talk) 12:51, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

M of S discussion of formatting Canadian laws

Since I suspect that the Canadian legal system is a subject of interest to you, or one where you have a little expertise, I thought this discussion might interest you: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Conflicting style for names of laws.

[No doubt, say I in almost complete ignorance, Québec's Loi 101 would be (because of different legal heritages) styled differently from, say, the provincial law in Saskatchewan that established universal health care under Tommy Douglas.] —— Shakescene (talk) 18:53, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Deep subject. Like the US some things are federal and some are not and the constitution happened only recently. British North America Act before that Elinruby (talk) 21:14, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

This isn't quite right. The Constitution dates back to 1867: the British North America Act, 1867 was renamed the Constitution Act, 1867 in the 1982 Patriation, with some other amendments. It remains the foundational document of the Constitution, which is composed of a number of enactments. The Constitution Act, 1982 is the other major constitutional enactment, containing the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the amending formula, Aboriginal rights, and a few other things. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 01:36, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

... (au Québec) Notwithstanding.... ;-} —— Shakescene (talk) 03:55, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Câline de tabernak hosti ben sûr Elinruby (talk) 19:09, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

French anti-Semitism before 1940

P.S. would you mind (business after pleasure) looking over my introductory paragraph to Vichy collab with Holocaust:

Long before the Occupation, France had had a history of native anti-Semitism and philo-Semitism, as seen in the controversy over the guilt of Alfred Dreyfus (from 1894 to 1906). It has thus been difficult for historians to establish how much of Vichy's anti-Semitic campaigns came from native French roots, how much from willing collaboration with the German occupiers and how much from simple (and sometimes reluctant) cooperation with Nazi instructions.

—— Shakescene (talk) 19:03, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Oh. It wasn't difficult. Controversial, perhaps. For a time it was the official position of the French government that, more or less, France just disappeared for a while. And that whole Vichy thing was something the.Germans did to France. A French president only recently took responsibility for what happened at Vel d'hiv. Mittérand? But I think it is a settled matter of French WW2 history that there were absolutely eager collaborators That is the big thing that jumps out at me.

I am hip-deep in Polish diffs and just woke up so let me just give you a rant/brain dump without looking anything up. I know you know a lot as well, but let me just hand you a free-form blob of suggestions eithout filtering for what you might already know.

My recent work around has been with French constitutional law, and it was a big deal that the Fourth Republic (and Fifth) imported their preamble from prior to the Third Republic. I think we have agreed on before on Léon Blum, who was attacked and beaten well before the drôle de guerre. The article for Camelots du roi (roy?) is a bad machine translation but extensive. Antisemitism in the French Third Republic exists but is short. An interesting sidenote, School of Paris was originally a derogatory appellation for a community of Eastern European artists, mostly Jewish refugees. I never did trace through all their fates, but at least one died in hiding trying to get out of Marseilles. But that is sort of reverse engineering collaboration. Make sure you cover Bonny. Pierre? It is hard to explain this without knowing more about your background but I am not asking because we need to explain this to anyone of any background, right?

Outside of the big cities France is fundamentally paysan. That usually gets translated as peasant but that isn't really right, especially in this context. Despite what i said, i just looked up landsman but that isn't it either. There is no connotation of Jewishness or of ineptitude at sea. More like definition 4, with overtones of being fundamentally agricultural and "of the soil" and also of a very very specific place. The next village over is "le prochain pays". Imagine a human terroir, if you know that word. A very conservative culture, Catholic to its fingertips and deeply nationalistic. Except that it's l'Aquitaine and pays de la Loire.

But the Armistice shook the country to its deepest roots. It grew up on dreams of empire and la Grande Armée. Verdun was terrible and enough to make Pétain a hero, but the absolute crushing defeat, Paris an open city, was a profound humiliation. I am not sure if the country went into denial but I think the government definitely did, and given Verdun and Pétain it was very very focused on saving French lives. All that is OR for the background. I am burning deadline time so let's zoom in a bit. What you say about Dreyfus is true. But I think the antisemitism even preceded that (something about Emile Zola says a faint whisper from high school?). And maybe there was a difference between the anti-Semitism of the turn of the century and that of the 30s. or perhaps they were just waves of cultural angst separated by the Années folles?

if you look at the couple of sentences in the collaboration article about the rafle in Marseilles, I rewrote it from French policemen helping Germans to Germans helping the French round those people up. Literally slum clearance so the developers could gentrify a desirable older neighborhood, the Old Port. I remember the sources being very emphatic about that. Obviously I didn't learn about this stuff at the lycée. There were specific and I think maybe legitimate concerns in the the French, Belgian and Danish governments (can't remember if the Dutch also) about the Germans draining human and infrastructure capital, yet what they might do that was worse if the collaborators in the government didn't stall them. The history of the Service de travail obligatoire is an illustration of this but I do not remember the timeline without looking it up. For sure, the STO is thought to have been the single largest recruitment impetus. it wasn't that the youth didn't want to work -- they didnt want to work themselves to death in a camp for les Boches. And Hemingway in Paris and the Spanish Civil war, etc were romanticized. The Charlemagne unit is the only one that I have been able so far to determine was definitely and absolutely made up of enthusiastic ideological volunteers. Blum was blamed for the deceat of France, we talked about that I think, and Jews were "other" and somehow a disease. See Le Juif et la France. We have an article about this register, that I cannot find right now.[7] Ask Mathglot. I need to back away from the shiny object and go do some stuff now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elinruby (talk • contribs) 22:25, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Small text

Response to inquiry about Canadian law

Hi Elinruby, as you requested, instead of cluttering up the MOS Talk page, I came here to respond to your inquiry about Canadian law. Here we go.

• Patriation of the constitution didn't really change the use of civil law and common law, as that was already well established. (By the way, we don't use "repatriation", because the Constitution had been a British statute; since it was brought to Canada, metaphorically, we patriated it, a back-formation by PM Pearson.)
• After the Conquest, the British originally tried to impose British public law and English common law on the old Province of Quebec in the Royal Proclamation of 1763. That didn't work, because you can't just substitute English common law for French civil law in matters like property, contracts, and matrimonial property.
• So in the Quebec Act, 1774, the British Parliament said that French civil law would continue to operate in private law matters, and English common law would apply in criminal law and British public law would apply to the government (eg monarchical principle, courts, etc.). It created a mixed system.
• When Confederation occurred in 1867, that division was preserved: the federal government controls the criminal law, based on the English criminal law, and commercial law matters of national application (eg bankruptcy).
• The provinces were given jurisdiction over "property and civil rights" which has been interpreted very broadly: contracts, torts, property, family law, trusts, etc (in the common law provinces), and the civil law equivalents in Quebec (biens, obligations, droit de la famille, etc.)
• New France's law had originally not been codified, since it was under the ancien régime which had a variety of regional customary laws. New France used the coutume de Paris, which was a customary law consisting of decrets, jurisprudence and decisions. After French adopted the Napoleonic Code, the coutume de Paris gradually went out of date.
• Lower Canada (the name for what became the province of Quebec) eventually decided that it needed to adopt a civil code of its own, which it did in 1866, the year before Confederation: Civil Code of Lower Canada. That Code stayed in force until the mid-1990s, when it was replaced with a new Civil Code of Quebec.
• So we now have nine provinces and three territories which use the common law (heavily modified by statutes over the years) and one province, Quebec, which is a civil law jurisdiction on civil matters, but subject to common law principles on matters that come under federal jurisdiction, such as criminal law and bankruptcy.

Hope you find this helpful. I'm afraid I don't know what river you were referring to in the MOS/Law talkpage, so can't comment. Feel free to pose questions; it's a big area and this is just a thumbnail. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 00:58, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

@Mr Serjeant Buzfuz: Thank you VERY much. Several people will be extremely interested. As thanks the best I can do for the moment is look up the name of that river, but just let me know if you have questions about Vichy ;) [8][9] Elinruby (talk) 01:17, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

As a side-note (which you may know already), the Québec Act (1774) was one of the very motley grab-bag of principled, philosophical, patriotic petty and predatory (if you were, say, an Indian) grievances in the Declaration of Independence (1776):

For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an arbitrary Government, and enlarging its Boundaries, so as to render it at once an Example and fit Instrument for introducing the same absolute Rule into these Colonies:

(which was probably not the sentiment of the Québecois — or Lower Canadians — themselves). There's a reason that the noble and inspiring Preamble is often taught, recited and well-known, but not the individual elements of the "History of repeated Injuries and Usurpations, all having in direct Object the Establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States.". And I thank @Mr Serjeant Buzfuz: for a very informative summary of Canadian jurisprudential hsitory. —— Shakescene (talk) 04:36, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Ah yes, one of the "Intolerable Acts". It's a bit difficult to assess what the Quebecers thought of it. It did take away the right to the elected Assembly, but that Assembly had never been called, and there had not been any Assembly under the French so that may have been a bit of a moot point. On the other hand, the Act expanded the boundaries of the province greatly, guaranteed the religious rights of Roman Catholics, eliminated the requirement to swear the Oaths of Supremacy and Abjuration, and restored French civil law, so one would think there was a fair bit there that would be important to them. Perhaps the proof was in the pudding: when the US invaded Canada, the French-Canadians joined with the British military in repulsing the Yankees. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 17:44, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Yankees still swear they won tho Elinruby (talk)

If @Mr Serjeant Buzfuz: was referring to Continental Army or state militia incursions into Canada during the American War of Independence, the Yankees swear that they won, because in fact and without doubt or serious contradiction, they did win. If it was a reference to Canadian participation in the War of 1812 {whose disputatious talk pages Elinruby and I have been haunting for years}, the general conclusion was an inconclusive result (regardless of what Americans or Canadians might think or claim). —— Shakescene (talk) 18:33, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

I was referring specifically to the Battle of Quebec on New Years Eve, 1775, just over a year after the Quebec Act was enacted. Generals Montgomery and Arnold led the attack on a snowy night. The plan was to capture Quebec City, which would have brought all of Quebec under Yankee control, since Quebec City is the choke point in the St Lawrence. If it had succeeded, it could have changed the course of development in North America. If the French-Canadians were opposed to the system of government created by the Quebec Act the previous year, one might have thought they would stay neutral, or even join the Americans in the battle. Instead, they fought with the British. Montgomery was killed, Arnold retreated, and Quebec stayed under British control. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 18:47, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

my own position id that if you invade a country then have to retreat, you didn't freaking win, did you. i actually care much less about this than that one guy who maintained that since there are fewer Canadians Canadian history is a fringe theory ;) But yeah, I was just checking to see if you were paying attention, lol. Some good edits last night even if you do have strange ideas about tnat there war in Quebec ;) Elinruby (talk) 18:42, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, I misunderstood what the Yankees thought they won. Joyeuses Pâques —— Shakescene (talk) —— Shakescene (talk) 18:56, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Il n'y a pas de quoi s'excuser, je déconne Elinruby (talk) 19:06, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia says:."In 1755, six colonial governors met with General Edward Braddock, the newly arrived British Army commander, and planned a four-way attack on the French. None succeeded, and the main effort by Braddock proved a disaster; he lost the Battle of the Monongahela on July 9, 1755, and died a few days later. British operations failed in the frontier areas of the Province of Pennsylvania and the Province of New York during 1755–57 due to a combination of poor management, internal divisions, effective Canadian scouts, French regular forces, and Native warrior allies." Just saying. And no I didnt do that ;) Elinruby (talk) 18:55, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm actually not sure what side if any to cheer for in all that. Elinruby (talk) 18:58, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Your question on ARC

I used the phrase "blood libel" in 2018 in this context (also here). François Robere (talk) 15:06, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

mmmyeah that second diff is in an evidence submission that was waiting to be summarized the last I looked. I quoted item 15. So I will take that to mean that I've fairly represented the concern? (Correct me if I am wrong but I'm under the impression that we've interacted very little, and don't know you let alone your concerns) I was however asking because I had to look the term up to see how a medieval trope about drinking the blood of children actually applied here. I think it's a legit metaphorical use though possibly a bit inflammatory. And also to give you an opportunity to comment on the interactions at the time if you wanted, since I think most people would have reached a point of at least minor hyperbole by then. But I only ever even got into that because Barkeep49 asked me for diffs for the statement that there had been edit wars in the article in the past. If you would rather not comment in the case itself I understand; you're far from the only one, François Robere. Elinruby (talk) 17:30, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

As a neutral mention, it was certainly fair.

We have interacted very little, but my overall impression of you has been positive.

Thanks for the opportunity. Today I might use different terminology for several reasons, but I stand behind that use then. We were just starting to clean up the topic area, and stories like that were a daily affair, often accompanied by stonewalling and PAs.

I intend on elaborating on interactions later, and I have taken some examples from there as well. François Robere (talk) 11:07, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

François Robere, yes even as an uninvolved editor that history was painful to even read. Barkeep asked me for diffs to substantiate past edit warring when I mentioned that I thought that this might account for the large number of references that failed verification in that section, so I am assuming that this was intended to be diagnostic. I think the people who are worried about sanctions being handed down over five-year-old behaviour are underestimating the committee. Barkeep in particular seems to be trying to look under the surface, and besides, supposing you did something wrong (which I am not saying) you have already been sanctioned. My take on that at the moment is that if sanctions were warranted for you, they were also warranted for a couple of other people, shrug, but they took the problem to 3RR, which apparently doesn't consider such things. Elinruby (talk) 17:40, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

By the way, while going through diffs I noticed that you expressed some sympathy that one time that I and some others were getting told to work it out with Gitz on the talk page for the umpteenth time. Somewhere around where I was saying that if Wikipedia did not care that the dumpster was on fire then I guessed I didn't either. Belated thanks for that, François Robere. Random question: I realize that it's your username and you know how to spell it, but is that an anglicized version? I keep having to tell my spellcheck that no, he doesn't put an accent grave there even though yeah, it does seem like there should be one there. Elinruby (talk) 19:08, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Sorry for the late reply - "real life" things to deal with.

I agree with all of the above.

No problem.

LOL! Indeed - no grave accent, just a cedilla (cf. François). François Robere (talk) 22:44, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Simplifying refs with {sfn Legifrance}

Check out my last seven edits at Tribunal correctionnel—dropped 3000 bytes converting the long, Legifrance references using the {{sfn Legifrance}} template, check it out. Also, it makes the wikicode much easier to read, with the shorter refs. Mathglot (talk) 06:50, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

@Mathglot: That's fantastic. I haven't used it yet because of learning curve (minor Though it may be, I am sure) but I intend to use it heavily when I come back to the admin law glossary, most likely after the Sunday midnight deadline I am currently on. @Shakescene, Scope creep, and Sarjeant Buzfux: may also be interested. I was thinking it might be worth starting a civil law project to host these glossaries; or is there already a project somewhere I am not aware of? Elinruby (talk) 16:24, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

is it just {sfn Legifrance [reference number]} ? Pinging @Mr Sarjeant Buzfuz: because I mangled his user name above. Elinruby (talk)`

@Mr Serjeant Buzfuz: Elinruby (talk) 16:31, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Mathglot, if there is a lots of types of citations across multiple article, it might be worth getting it done by bot. scope_creep<sup>Talk</sup> 17:10, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

how does one "get it done by bot"? Asking for a friend that does a lot of repetitive copy edits, Elinruby (talk) 17:13, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the invite, but I'm not familiar with Legifrance at all, nor the specific issue of French criminal law, since criminal law in Canada, and court structure, is based on English common law. However, if you're looking for a glossary of civil law terms as used in Quebec, here's a good link: Dictionnaires de droit privé en ligne. As an interesting side note, when the drafters of the Civil Code of Lower Canada were working on the English version, they consciously avoided using English common law terms to ensure they didn't accidentally import common law concepts. Instead, they used equivalent civil law terms from Scots law, which is a civil law jurisdiction. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 17:17, 8 April 2023 (UTC)::

Post an entry up at the bot noticeboard and see if somebody will take it up and start from there. If there is lots of articles needing updating then it is ideal for that. scope_creep<sup>Talk</sup> 17:39, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Mathglot has written or is writing a glossary of French criminal law. I have made noises about French admin law. I did not know that Scottish law was civil law and find that very interesting. I also did not realize any of what you just said about what you just said about Quebec law and I thank you very much for that. At some point I might like to write up that decision about the Magpie River. where would I go to find out whether the Innu have a treaty with someone, do you know? Elinruby (talk) 19:09, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes, Scots law is civil, but not codified. It has close ties to Dutch law, because the Presbyterian dissenters in Scotland sometimes sent their sons off to the Netherlands for good Calvinist educations. I'm afraid I don't know much about the Innu of Labrador, or their Treaty status (or non-status). If there is a treaty or a modern land claims agreement, it would be with the federal government, under s. 91(24) of the Constitution Act, 1867. You might find these links helpful: Innu Nation and Why Recognize a River’s Rights? Behind the Scenes of the Magpie River Case in Canada. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 20:10, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

oh yeah status, thank you? And um, civil but not codified? Does that describe Dutch law then? no rush on this, and I can look it up then?Elinruby (talk) 21:50, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

In Canada, if a Band has signed a treaty with the federal government, then the members of the Band are "status Indians" (note that the bands and band members generally prefer the term "First Nation" / Indigenous, but "status Indians" is the term derived from the federal Indian Act). There are Indigenous people that for historical reasons are not members of a band that has a treaty, so they are sometimes referred to as "non-status". The terminology also applies in some cases to Indigenous bands, to denote whether they have a treaty with the federal government ("status") or don't ("non-status"). My guess is that the Innu in Labrador don't have a treaty, because the impetus for treaties, from the government perspective, was to clarify title to land that would be settled. Labrador didn't fit that pattern, so the Innu may not be a status band.

Netherlands are a codified civil law country: Dutch Civil Code. Codification was an outgrowth of the French Revolution: get rid of all the local coutumes and local written laws, and their implicit (sometimes explicit) connection with feudalism, and have a single code for the entire nation. That ethos tended to spread in Europe with the French armies in the Napoleonic wars. Since Boney never made it to Edinburgh, no codification of Scots law. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 22:30, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

When I saw mention of Dutch elements in Scottish civil law, I soon thought about other possible (once-Dutch) users, such as Law of Indonesia, Law of South Africa and Law of New York (state). The last doesn't seem to cite any Dutch civil origins, but the lead paragraphs of the other two show intriguing mixtures of Dutch law with other legal traditions: English common and African in South Africa; and Sharia and customary (adat) in Indonesia. See also Roman-Dutch law, Law of Namibia (S.W. Africa), Law of Sri Lanka (Ceylon), Law of East Timor (Timor leste), etc. However, Wikipedia's articles on Suriname and Guyana (the former Dutch and British Guiana) don't say much, although apparently Roman-Dutch law or civil law is also part of their legal tradition. —— Shakescene (talk) 07:08, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

yeah, the mixed systems are interesting, aren't they. But let me repeat something I think I heard. The Dutch system influenced Scottish law (civil but uncodified) through the educational pattern described by Mr Serjeant Buzfuz. Having become a civil system as a result of the general move to abolish feudalism I guess? But the Dutch system became codified after that through Napoleon. And is now a civil codified system. I am going to go off and digest all this for a while. Elinruby (talk) 19:18, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

and Quebec, though a civil law system, nonetheless does have case law, I just noticed. Hmm 19:48, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

I have in the past had people ask me if I had a status card is what I just had a light bulb moment about. Maybe in Port Hardy, a couple of times also on mainland backwaters. i hadn't made the connection though. I had also forgotten that the Seven Years' War predates the PlaIns of Abraham. So, just to follow up on that point, ant case law prior to that would essentially be treated as a coutumw and no longer applied after that date, because civil law doesn't do case law? Yes, I was wondering about a treaty with the French (or the real Canadians, depending on who you're talking to). I know nothing about the Innu, absolutely nothing, but it did look on the map like the Magpie River had its source in Labrador, but it flows to the St. Lawrence from there. So this is a Quebec question -- I think the impetus for the legislation was a proposed hydroelectric project -- but pretty far east on the north shore. Thank tyou, you have given me a lot to think about. Elinruby (talk) 23:15, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Plains of Abraham was smack-dab in the middle of the Seven Years' War, which ran from 1756 to 1763. The battle for Quebec was 1759, resulting in a British victory. The French still held Montreal, and made an attempt to re-capture Quebec in 1760, which failed (they won the battle outside the walls, but the British retreated into Quebec and the French laid siege). The arrival of Royal Navy ships with supplies in the spring of 1760 was decisive, as the British ships had defeated a French naval group that was to re-supply New France. The Treaty of Paris in 1763 ended the Seven Years' War and confirmed that the British had captured New France.

Yes, the effect of the Civil Code of Lower Canada was that it was no longer necessary to refer to the coutume de Paris and the related cases, decrets, etc. That was one of the driving forces for the new Code: once the Code Napoleon was enacted, the French jurists only referred to that Code, and ceased any writings about the pre-Code law. That meant that in Quebec, the legal sources were increasingly out of date, so they enacted their own Code. However, because the court system is based on the English courts, case law is an important part of Quebec's civil law tradition, and look very similar to cases decided by the courts in the rest of Canada. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 13:55, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Getting lost in the indents, so I'll just reply here, and hope I didn't miss something.

learning curve...

Yes, there is a bit of a learning curve for using the {{Sfn Legifrance}} template (and the other two related ones), but not too bad, I'd like to think. I'm a big believer in clear, thorough documentation, so I spent a good deal of time on getting the /doc pages right for all three templates. Which doesn't mean they're perfect, or complete, and I definitely want to hear about anything that isn't clear in the doc now, so please add messages to the template Talk pages (not here, I'll just lose it) for anything that needs clarification, further explanation, or different wording.

is it just {sfn Legifrance [reference number]}

A lot of the time it is, but it's not that simple, because not everything is a "law". For most of the stuff you linked in Tribunal correctionnel that is (or was) a "law", then, yes. But Legifrance is a comprehensive government website containing every law, every bill that didn't become law, every amendment, every nullified law, every decree, act, law, or regulation, most jurisprudence, constitutions, court decisions, links to the entire Journal Officiel, and more, going back to 1529. And then, there are about 60 different codes, one for criminal code, (Code pénale), another for code of criminal procedure (CPP), another for Labor code, Family code, Aviation code, and so on. But, once you know which code, and the number of the law, then it's pretty much just {{sfn Legifrance|CODE|law number}}. You can see some examples in the last column of the table at Template:Sfn Legifrance#Table.

might be worth getting it done by bot

Scope creep, That would be great, if it were feasible, but I think with the current state of things, it wouldn't work. For starters, the laws, acts, decrees, and regulations are only part of the mix (there's all that other stuff alluded to just above) so the bot would have to recognize which type it was. And even when it's a law/decree/reg, etc., the naming isn't exact (see for example, the "param notes" about param |number= at {{Sfn Legifrance#Param notes}}). But there's even a worse complication: in and after 2008, France added a whole bunch of new legal codes (in the sense of, whole new areas of codified law), and then in 2020, they revamped the Légifrance website including some internals such as the format of the url paths, and after that, the French Wikipedia Legifrance template stopped working for the post-2008 legal codes. Our template is based on theirs, or at least, it was up until I changed it earlier this year (especially the total rewrite in this edit), and now it's no longer based on the French template anymore. That doesn't mean the post-2008 codes all work–at the outset, none of them did, and they will have to be converted, one by one, so that they do work. So far, the transport code (CTRANSP) and penal code (CPEN) have been converted, meaning they work in {{sfn Legifrance}} on en-wiki, but not in fr-wiki. Converting the codes is a bit tedious, but is fairly quick, so if you're going to be working with a post-2008 code where the template doesn't work currently because it hasn't been converted yet, just let me know, and I'll convert it so it does. (I should probably document the conversion procedure, so anyone can do it.)

criminal law in Canada... civil law... glossaries of legal terms...

• Mr Serjeant Buzfuz, yes, I noticed the McGill glossary when I was first researching material for the article French criminal law. The Talk page there has a list of glossaries which includes that one, and several others as well; see § Bilingual glossaries, dictionaries, and search engines. One side effect of my research, was the creation of Glossary of French criminal law, without which I couldn't have gone on to create the article about FCL. The FCL glossary is not "finished" (meaning, there are still some very basic gaps in it), and there's still all of (French) civil law, and administrative law to cover, but that will have to be separate glossaries.

I hope that covers everythipng. If I missed anything, lmk. Cheers, Mathglot (talk) 02:00, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

and the award for best use of tq goes to Mathglot it is interesting, very. A timeline would also be a good idea. It this really all just Napoleon? Elinruby (talk) 09:41, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Pt-wiki OCW templates

Split off from previous section; added new H2 header.

you know what would be cool is if the pt--wiki OCW templates worked with English. condider it a long term feature request maybe? Elinruby (talk) 07:42, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Not aware of any, and just checking pt:Operação Lava Jato I don't see anything of note there; care to add a link? Mathglot (talk) 07:50, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

hmmm maybe I saw it at OCW translations

but it wasn't a dedicated WCw template. I will get back to you on th, maybe Monday, no rush right?s. Elinruby (talk) 08:43, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

hey how about List of scandals in Brazil? Seems like that might lend itself to automation Elinruby (talk) 09:17, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

The War over the War of 1812 continues (result inconclusive)

Hi, Elin, in case you should be seized by some lunatic desire to return to the bloody battles of your callow youth, you could stroll down Memory Lane, and see that Talk:War of 1812#Who won? is, 210 years afterwards, still raging. See Talk:War of 1812#Not a neutral article. But now that we're now so much more mature, we can wage the real struggles over Collaboration with the Axis powers. "When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as child, I thought as a child. But when I became a man, I put away childish things. Now we see as through a glass darkly ..." — 1 Corinthians 13. —— Shakescene (talk) 17:53, 11 April 2023 (UTC) @Rjensen:

pretty much. I have zero appetite for a discussion of American exceptionalism. Elinruby (talk) 18:15, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Agreeing with something and being able to recognize it when one sees it are different things. I consider that whole discussion a fine clash of British and American nationalism but my interest is limited to begin with and gets more so the more confused I get about who I should be cheering in the first place. I am inclinec to cheer for the Mohawks a priori but if the decisive battle was Monongahela then that has little to do with an attempt to soberly assess who "won". I never heard of it and associate the name with West Virginia and Ohio. Which might be right, but is something I'd have to read up on, and I fundamentally do not care. I stand by my original position that this is way way too much drama over an infobox entry. Now that we've bored everyone else out of the thread I should mention that I have raised a safety/outing concern at the Arbcom case (unrelated to those previously raised by others) and am amused/content to simply correct the people who call me Polish. The concern is genuine though, and as somebody who could probably already be located by a pissed-off state actor, the last thing I need is TFD demanding the details of my biography as he did last time. The more of that that's out there the more my concern for safety increases, and since he has already taken the position that my refusal to answer proved that I am obviously not proceeding from facts, there seems little point in re-engaging since given the recent incident I am even less willing to bare the identifying details of my biography, thanks. By the way, in my recent teasing discussions of this I was thinking of the battles near Lake Champlain, but the details of that fade into the mist and I have volunteer conscripts, French administrative law and scandals in Brazil to worry about, which i consider to be both plenty enough to worry about and mych mire interesting. Elinruby (talk) 20:02, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

I was hardly being serious about re-engaging in this (especially since I have little knowledge outside what I've learnt editing War of 1812), just letting you know that plus ça change, plus c'est las même chose.

Having thought the editors of the day (years ago) had finally, after much wrangling, writing and research, reached some joint mutually-agreeable consensus (about how to report whatever historians' debate there was) that would resolve this never-ending and fundamentally unresolvable debate, of course the debate has never ended and probably never will (regardless of the warning at the top page that it was not the place for discussions of Who won?) Should Wikipedia, in some form, survive until the 1812 War's 250th anniversary in 2062, the editors of that day will no doubt still be dropping in to argue what can never be set in stone (cf. was Napoléon Bonaparte good or bad for France, or Vladimir Lenin good or bad for Russia?)

P.S. good luck on the ArbCom psychodrama; which frankly I don't read because it's too much work (hundreds of thousands of kB) and too emotional. I witnessed or participated in—but rarely enjoyed—far too many faction fights in my youth. @Rjensen: —— Shakescene (talk) 20:52, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

nod, they are deep into a concordance of who did what to which article, which is complicated by the fact that there is secret evidence that can't be discussed, and the arbitrators'complaints about scope creep, which can't be addressed because nobody knows what the scope is. Not really complaining about any of that -- some of the secret evidence relates to my safety concern (although it in itself isn't central to whatever the issue is as some of the other evidence seems to be) for one thing. For another, there has been a news story that they pretty much have to respond to, and the actual problem, while misidentified by Grabowski, gives new meaning to the word "intractable", so I am just glad they are trying. That doesn't mean that I'm not frustrated, but I think Barkeep49 for one is actually trying to get to the bottom of some stuff and resolve it. I haven't had enough interaction with the rest of them to even have an opinion. Elinruby (talk) 21:43, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

It's perfectly permissible to omit the outcome field, yanno, btw. A propos of nothing. Or disputed. Clearly it is disputed. Also à propos de rien, I have recently been reading Milgram experiment and about the Stanford prison experiment. And objected to the deletion of what looks like it shouldbe a spinoff of lese-majeste, y'all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elinruby (talk • contribs) 18:26, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

You are not alone...

I'm really beginning to regret roping you into this Collabaxis article two months ago and the awful nationalist battle at ArbCom that you consequently have to suffer. It does look as if this push to move blame for collaboration from the Poles to the Jews is part of a concerted ideological/nationalist campaign (no doubt organized off-Wiki). Of course, a mirror campaign to extinguish any mention of Jewish collaborators and shove all the blame onto Polish Catholics would be equally objectionable.

The reason I mention this is this conspiratorial posting I saw on the talk page of a Swedish editor who is apparently both a scientist and a scholar of world Wikipedianism. User_talk:HaeB#Feedback_request:_Censorship_of_Wikipedia.

I never knew that Holocaust studies was part of an Israeli plot; I guess that I'm just naïve.

"For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places." — Ephesians 6:12

S:-( —— Shakescene (talk) 19:42, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Hmm. that's four months old. Are you sure it's related? It's interesting though, because of his involvement with the Signpost's very uncritical review of the Grabowski article. My own involvement is limited to the collaboration article, although it annoyed me to spend several hours checking out the citizenship of various members of the school of Paris. (As far as I can tell tell all the Poles survived.) I am a bit dismayed at the "who suffered more" discourse that apparently took place in Poland, but my own position is that Grabowski was wrong to say that anybody intentionally distorted anything. Certainly VM and Piotrus seem capable of examining their beliefs. On the other hand I absolutely cannot defend some of the things that GizzyCatBella has said, while displaying a Canadian flag to boot. It's essentially over, though. For some reason GCB's antisemitism was not accrpted into evidence, which is confusing, but they are apparently investigating something we are not aware of. As far as I am concerned, I was added as a party, but all of the evidence about me is positive so I am not too concerned. I will need to do a little more talking in the analysis phase, or maybe the correct word is "should". I am just glad France had already gotten past this phase.Elinruby (talk) 19:45, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Article 49 spiked 500x over normal levels

I don't know what the heck happened a month ago, but there was this huge spike in viewership at Article 49 of the French Constitution about a month ago. Normally, it gets around 20 to 40 page views a day, and then out of nowhere, it shot up to over 13,000 on 16 March. Any idea what happened? Did it get onto the Main page, or something? Mathglot (talk) 04:33, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

[butting in, in complete ignorance] I would suspect that such a spike might have to do with Pres. Macron's attempts to increase the age of retirement from 62 to 64 without a majority vote in the National Assembly — attempts which we all know have provoked endless days of protest in the streets, answered with all the subtlety, finesse and restraint for which French law enforcement is so celebrated. The news reports I've read and seen that Macron bypassed a regular parliamentary vote to do so, but I don't know if Article 49 was the mechanism he used, although my reading of the Wikipedia article strongly suggests that to me. —— Shakescene (talk) 05:39, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

I suspected, upon further thought (instead of going to sleep) that the clicks onto this article probably came from Wikilinks in other articles about the controversy. See, for example,

• 2023_French_pension_reform_unrest#Use_of_Article_49.3,
• 2023_French_pension_reform_unrest#Use_of_the_Article_49.3_and_aftermath and
• March_2023_votes_of_no_confidence_in_the_government_of_Élisabeth_Borne

—— Shakescene (talk) 06:28, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Aha Elinruby (talk) 19:51, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

@Shakescene:, good sleuthing! At first, I was dubious about the first hypothesis, because even though the timing was about right, I just couldn't see how the average reader would make the connection between the street protests and the Constitution, let alone a particular article of it. But your list of links makes good sense as a possibility. It's perhaps not the first two (which used to be called "2023 French pension reform strikes" since on 3/16 that article had 6,024 views, and Article 49 had twice that, so that wasn't it (or at least, not most of it). Add the Borne article wasn't created till 20 March, so that wasn't it, either. There are 24 mainspace articles which link to Article 49, so that would be the logical place to look, following up on your two links. Other than your links, which seem like the most likely suspects, I found this candidate:

• 2023 French pension reform bill

but it's not that either, because it has only about a thousand views.

So I started thinking, "maybe it came from links outside Wikipedia, such as a press article with high viewership which either linked to our article (if so, it might be under the old, "strikes" name, depending when it was published) or was about the same topic and prompted readers to search around for more info. So, I checked around, and found "What Is Article 49.3 of the French Constitution? published in the New York Times, on—guess what day?—March 16.

Without access logs, it's hard to be sure, but I think it's fair to conclude that some readers of the NY Times article, after having read it, might have wanted to know more about Article 49.3, and either did a google search or came straight to Wikipedia and searched here (the internal search figure is available, if we ask the right people). If they did a google search for the title of the NY Times article, the What Is Article 49.3 of the French Constitution?, the #1 result is the Wikipedia article (even though the title is different) and #2 is the NYT article itself. Without access logs from the NYT, we don't know for sure how many people read their article, let alone searched for more info and ended up here, but it seems like the most likely scenario.

All of which seems to point to Elinruby as having been prescient, in his major expansion of the article, getting ready for the moment when a reform bill in France over three years later would provoke massive protests, and a NYT article reporting on it, that would in turn send thousands of readers flocking to Wikipedia to read his words. Hm, makes me wonder what kind of crystal ball he is using, and where do I get one? Mathglot (talk) 22:14, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

hmm ok? isn't this the one where there was discussion on the talk page about the administration in power and the government? The article was there as a remedy to the sort of constitutional crisis that ended the Third Republic, as I recall. I got interested in how a democracy came to vote itself out of existence a couple of years ago, when we were doing Liberation of France. one of the things that happened was the Fourth Republic, right?. Elinruby (talk) 23:06, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

putting a little time into the references, which do need it. Also starting a second pass for language Elinruby (talk) 02:06, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Takeaway from referencing: yeah, I got there from previous forays into French constitutional law. I saw that Mathglot removed some untranslated text -- and thank you for that work, Mathglot -- but I did manage to improve on what was there when I got there last night. Based on my most recent referencing binge, the reason 49.3 is important is that it allowed Macron to unilaterally increase the age of retirement. I have to come back to the referencing, but it is precisely this modification of parliamentary procedure* that distinguishes the Fifth Republic from the Fourth, and it was intended to prevent the rotating-door administrations which plagued the Fourth Republic.

I am still uncertain about the motion of non-confidence and the motion of confidence, which a translator before me had conflated. I *think* the motion of confidence was replaced by the engagement in the Fifth Republic, but I think I read somewhere, possibly French Wikipedia, that an engagement requires a simple majority for approval, whereas a vote of no confidence requires an absolute majority, a critical distinction for a minority government. Looking for a reference for that, but I noticed last night that current events are headed to the constitutional council, which is the escalation prescribed by the constitution. Key work escalation. I added a two-sentence paragraph titled March 2023, but am not quite certain that more is going on than the usual protests as a rite of spring in Paris. Apparently this is the 11th time the government has used this mechanism. Certainly though, we do have the executive over-riding the legislature and public sentiment. Elinruby (talk) 20:39, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

• But remember, Parliament != Parliament, which in Britain is the lower house. In France this is the Assemblée Nationale, and Parlement refers to the legislative branch Elinruby (talk) 19:27, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

  Ignorant as I am of the finer points of the Fifth Republic's constitution, I do know something of the (unwritten) British constitution. Parliament means the House of Lords as well as the House of Commons, just as the Canadian Parliament consists of the Senate and House of Commons, and the United States Congress means the U.S. Senate and the U.S. House of Representatives.

  The British House of Lords still has a formal rôle, although its actual (positive or negative) power has been progressively vitiated over the last 120+ years. Legislation must still come before it, for consideration and suggested amendments, although the Government of the Day can easily ignore or override it and essentially enact measures simply by carrying the House of Commons.

  I've seen various names in English for the legislative branch of France, consisting of the Sénat and the Assemblée Nationale, most commonly Parliament. Just to spice things up, parlement, as you know and as countless British and American students must learn, has quite a different specific meaning referring to legal bodies under the Bourbon monarchy.

  I should stop here to avoid dropping into silliness or incoherence. Bonne chance

  —— Shakescene (talk) 02:10, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Really! I stand corrected on the meaning of Parliament, I guess. This is what I guess for opining about the obvious, vaguely remembered from grade school, lol. While I have your attention, did that caption get taken care of? Elinruby (talk) 02:15, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

While you have my attention, what (or which) caption? —— Shakescene (talk) 02:48, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Whether or not ROA/RONA were Nazi by definition? Elinruby (talk) 02:54, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

I went ahead and took care of the caption, since the other editor never did provide any evidence of his contention that you are wrong. Elinruby (talk) 16:14, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Rue Copernic and French fascism

No doubt (sans doute) you might be interested, if you don't already know about it, in an in-absentia conviction for the Rue Copernic bombing https://www.nytimes.com/2023/04/21/world/europe/paris-synagogue-bombing.html

No appeal from an in-absentia conviction sounds strange to me. It's not know whether Justin Trudeau will extradite from Canada.

I'm currently re-reading a book I bought and read just before I left to enter Berkeley as a freshman: International Fascism, 1920-1945, Number One of the Journal of Contemporary History (Harper Torchbooks, 1966). It has a general essay on "The Nature of Fascism in France" by Robert J. Soucy and "The Political Transition of Jacques Doriot" by Gilbert Allardyce.

Have a good weekend —— Shakescene (talk) 19:14, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

¶ Link to JStor edition of the JCH no. 1, https://www.jstor.org/stable/i211473 See especially Robert Soucy's discussion of what drove French fascists towards (or occasionally away from) collaboration with Germany, beginning on page 42. —— Shakescene (talk) 05:35, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

That looks very pertinent. I will download that later today and dig in further. I have been doing some reading re Bulgaria and Serbia, and nibbling around the edges of the volunteer militias. Elinruby (talk) 16:53, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Charter of Rights would come into it. I think anti-terrorism legislation in France might be part of the no-appeal thing; not sure. In my only very slightly informed opinion I think the lack of an appeal might make some people question whether he should be extradited, given the precedent set with Maher Arar. I will do some clicking. Elinruby (talk) 01:48, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

à propos de rien: [10] Elinruby (talk) 16:32, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

confirming the lack of appeal: From Contoumace: La loi du 9 mars 2004, dite loi Perben II, a institué en lieu et place une procédure dite de « défaut criminel »[10]. Cette dernière donne lieu à des débats oraux si l'accusé est représenté par un avocat[11]. En cas d'absence de l'accusé et de son avocat, il revient au juge de décider le report du procès ou la condamnation par défaut. Celle-ci devient irrévocable (le condamné ne peut pas faire appel). Looks like this was an attenpt to bring a more drastic post-911 law into compliance with european human right law. See also: Garde à vue. Elinruby (talk) 18:12, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

the interesting part is that on the face of it the above would seem to violate the Principle of legality in French law. Or maybe not; bombs have always been illegal. But the law about appeals (among other things) came after the alleged offence. I took a look at Canadian procedures for extradition, about while there's no question that what he is accused of is also illegal in Canada, it's a bit less clear what the Justice Department would make of the trial in absentia without appeal. The webpage specifically mentions proof of identity, as in, is this really the person who did this. So there is a review. The fact that it's France probably doesn't matter. I suspect that the Maher Arar case put an end to taking the word of other countries (in that case the US) that they have "proof". And then there is a whole appeal process, so there is time to figure this out. Elinruby (talk) 18:32, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Glancing very hurriedly over some of the reporting, I understand that the prosecution's case was denied by a lower court (one of first instance?} but reinstituted by the Cour de Cassation, which I've understood to be equivalent to an Anglo-American court of appeals. Although it still doesn't make sense from my sense of justice, perhaps one reason he couldn't take it to appeal was that an appeals court had already given its decision.

¶ Since trials in absentia are so rare nowadays in American and Commonwealth law, I may not understand the principle of unappealability, but perhaps it rests on the fact neither the defendant nor an advocate appeared to defend him. (Again, some kinds of defence rely on not acknowledging a jurisdiction to whom you don't want to give recognition — for example, if some court, regular or kangaroo, in Russia or Chine were to assert extraterritorial anti-terrorist jurisdiction and hear charges against you for supporting Aleksandr Navalny or the independence of Taiwan and Ukraine).

But I'm no lawyer; I just have an unused associate's degree in paralegal studies (of U.S. law). —— Shakescene (talk) 19:36, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

I will dig into the legal question a bit. This would come under the admin law I keep saying I will finsh up after all.

Question for Bishonen

@Bishonen: Can I talk to you yet, or would that still be bludgeoning? Elinruby (talk) 18:18, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

If it's still about that ping, which was perfectly correct although you don't seem to understand it, then no, I don't want to hear it. If it's about something else, fine. Bishonen | tålk 20:16, 23 April 2023 (UTC).

Hmm. You still sound kinda ruffled. Look, I admit that I found the allegation so outrageous that I lost my cool, if that helps. I am sorry about all the notifications as I tried to explain to you that it was outrageous. Look at it from my point of view. The situation escalated all the way to you indicating that you would not oppose an indef ban, over "stalking" that amounts to a 1) routine discretionary sanctions notification and 2) a civil (and required) required attempt to discuss an issue of behaviour. That is the sum total of my actions on her talk page, vs:TrangaBellam on my talk page:

• 17:13, 14 January 2023 TB
• 22:05, 24 January 2023 TB
• 10:28, 28 January 2023 TB
• 14:37, 30 January 2023 TB
• 10:08, 2 February 2023 TB
• 10:21, 2 February 2023 El
• 10:23, 2 February 2023 El
• 10:35, 2 February 2023 TB
• 11:07, 2 February 2023 El
• 11:09, 2 February 2023 El

Maybe I'm reading the editor interaction analyzer wrong; infinite are the ways in which I have been and will be wrong. My saving grace imho is that I admit it.🌻 However, it looks to me like, if anything, she follows me, although she seems to spend more time at the noticeboards than I do.

This is *not* at this time an appeal of the interaction ban, although it's getting in the way of my wikignoming a bit. But I do understand it's considered best practice for these to be two-way, and I wish you would have a word with her about complaining to journalists about the "hostile reaction" she claims to get when she "cleans up". Pro tip, if she would talk to people, instead of daring them to start wiki proceedings, she would get less of that, definitely from me, at least. Bonus pro tip: If one tells other editors to take it to AE, one shouldn't respond with rofl emoticons when they do. It makes it look like one thinks the fix is in, especially when one's reaction to a warning is another rofl emoticon and an announcement that one can make the warning go away.

This does not require a response, unless of course you want to make one. I've said what I said and don't plan to say more at this time; not looking to argue with you, but as I understand it you're the person to talk to about that ban.Elinruby (talk) 21:15, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Elinruby, you can appeal the I-ban if you wish, but you can't complain about the other user without appealing the ban, as you do above. An appeal is an exception to the rules for interaction bans, which state "if Alice is banned from interacting with Bob, Alice would not be allowed to ... make reference to or comment on Bob anywhere on Wikipedia, directly or indirectly". See WP:IBAN. Asking an admin to take action against a violation of the ban by another person is another exception, as is asking for clarifications about the scope of the ban. But you're not doing any of that, AFAICS. What you do above — discussing TB's actions and complaining about what led to the ban — is not an exception. This is a warning. Don't complain about TB directly or indirectly again. Bishonen | tålk 21:47, 23 April 2023 (UTC).

so: echoing to make sure I understand: It is a violation of an I-ban to complain that a banned user is talking to Slate magazine about their alleged hostile treatment by another user, but it is not a violation of the interaction ban to complain to Slate magazine about the other user?

If so: let's consider this an appeal then, since in that case it's just permission for slander, about which I am not permitted to complain. The basis for this appeal, of a ban which I requested, is that it isn't being enforced. She fails to follow the procedure of the case, yet makes fun of me on talk pages where it is not appropriate for me to reply.

And you are giving *me* warnings. I assume that my appeal is denied because how dare I, but just saying. This has been an effort to discuss, and since this has not been possible, fine. I told you I wasn't looking for an argument. Have a nice day. Elinruby (talk) 22:24, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Look, I'm not trying to be difficult, but I can't action complaints or appeals on mere hints; you say "I wish you would have a word with her about complaining to journalists about the "hostile reaction" she claims to get when she 'cleans up'", apparently assuming that I closely follow everyting both of you do. In reality I don't know what you're referring to. Now you have specified that into "a banned user is talking to Slate magazine about their alleged hostile treatment by another user"; still not helpful without a link or diff. Also I don't know what to do with a general, diff-less, complaint that "She fails to follow the procedure of the case, yet makes fun of me on talk pages where it is not appropriate for me to reply", either. And you add a list of times TB contacted you on your talk before I placed the ban. Presumably that's a complaint about what led to the ban.

Also, and I'm sorry you weren't told about this clearly at the time, Arbcom, as represented by User:Barkeep, briefly altered the conditions of my I-ban in March, and I therefore asked them to take over the ban, which they agreed to do. See this discussion on your page, this on mine, and this note in the log. So could you please address your appeal either to Barkeep as your first port of call, or put it at WP:AN (for consideration by the community) or WP:AE (for consideration by uninvolved admins)? Wherever you put it, please consider that the reader(s) will need specific information, diffs, etc. Bishonen | tålk 08:28, 24 April 2023 (UTC).

Your points are well-taken, and btw I am not trying to be difficult either. To the extent that I am anyway, I am sincerely sorry.

I actually am under the impression (from an, actually, quite close reading of the subsequent thread on your talk page) that BK only' modified it to allow evidence submission in the case. The issue of evidence submission on talk pages is indeed his problem to that extent, and only brought to you on my second reply when I thought we were burnng an appeal.

If you are requesting that any appeal go to AN, that is the procedural clarity that i was looking for, so thank you for that. I will do that at some point, and btw simply say that you referred me there, period. BK is of the DENY philosophy (I think), which still leaves my wikignoming hampered by a sanction resulting from a baseless complaint imho. But the reputational harm has already been done and his hands are full with gnarly procedural questions, the last I looked, with what to do about evidence submitted by a blocked sock. This is definitely more urgent and probably more important than the forensic investigation that now appears to be required for me to manifest as a punctuation fairy.

So peace out, Bishonen. Sorry to bother you but I was under the impression it was required. I have questions about Bishzilla but they can await a later time, and the procedural questions I still have about this this don't need to be asked here if you are referring me to AN. 🌻 Elinruby (talk) 19:16, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Either AN or AE, yes. Welcome in Bishzilla pocket, little user! bishzilla <sub>R</sub>OARR!! pocket 19:44, 24 April 2023 (UTC).