User talk:Icewhiz

Please read this carefully

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding the Arab–Israeli conflict, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Template:Z33 Doug Weller talk 14:38, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Historiography on fighter aces

Hi, I'm familiar with some of the literature listed in the Fritz Lüddecke along with the sources on German aces in general. I could offer more info here, instead of the AfD, so that not to make the thread too long. If you'd be open to it, it would be great. If not, that's cool and will just post a short reply there. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:41, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

@K.e.coffman: - I'm guessing you will say (and if you do - you're right - you're a bigger authority than me in terms of these authors (frankly - I'm impressed by your knowledge in the area)) that these are pseudo-historians writing under an alias? I'm definitely open to hearing. I do however think we should have an article - even if it is stubby.Icewhiz (talk) 19:45, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for being open to hearing more. My experience has been that non senior commanders, even if highly decorated, usually lack sufficient coverage to meet GNG. The discussion at Notability:People arrived at the same conclusion. The types of sources used in the articles that have been redirected fall roughly in these categories:

1. Phaleristics-oriented catalogues of award winners and their respective decorations; I consider these to be primary sources and not sufficient for establishing notability.
2. Landser-pulp literature, also known as Landser Hefte, which aims to heroicise the military men and strays into historical fiction while doing so. Franz Kurowski is the prime example of such authors; see for example Infantry Aces. I also created The Blond Knight of Germany, just for the heck of it. :-)
3. Deliberate historical distortions, published by authors such as the fringe Richard Landwehr and various authors affiliated with HIAG, the post-war Waffen-SS lobby group in West Germany. In the German language, these works are generally published by far-right and extremist publishers such as the Türmer Verlag, the Arndt Verlag, and the Pour le Mérite Verlag, among others.

In North America, Group 2 & 3 titles are being published by J.J. Fedorowicz and Schiffer Publishing. Some eventually find their way into more widely available publications by Osprey, for example. Schiffer Publishing, in particular, seems to have published a lot of Luftwaffe-related titles. Some of these titles have origins in war-time propaganda, see for example Talk:Helmut_Wick#Tags, where a Schiffer pub was initially defended, until I was able to show that this "work" could largely be traced to NS propaganda.

Specific to the sources listed in Lüddecke article:

• Fellgiebel, Walther-Peer (2000) [1986] -- a catalogue of Knight's Cross winners. A primary source that provides only names, date of decoration, and not much else.
• Obermaier, Ernst (1989)-- a POV-driven tribute to the Knight's Cross winners of the Luftwaffe, specifically its fighter force. Obermaier is best known for producing hagiographic accounts on the Luftwaffe fighter aces, and has no credibility.
• Patzwall, Klaus D.; Scherzer, Veit (2001) -- another catalogue of awards recipients, this time those who had been awarded the German Cross.
• Scherzer, Veit (2007) -- yet another catalogue of Knight's Cross winners; here's a sample from Feldgrau.net forum. Not a suitable source for notability.

My conclusion is that there are insufficient reliable sources for NPOV articles on most German aces of WW2. The articles I come across are either unsourced or consist of nothing but an infobox and a list of awards. Some have been closely paraphrased from Aces of the Luftwaffe, a POV driven fan site. It's best, IMO, to have the names redirect to a list. What's your take? K.e.coffman (talk) 04:54, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

@K.e.coffman: I agree with much of what you wrote, though perhaps differ in tone. I will note that I do not doubt that some of the continuing coverage is nazi or neo-nazi motivated. But not all - some (I would say most) of it caters for various aficionados - from war buffs to the more modern phenomena of gaming (and flight simulators).

We do have similar material for non-Nazi pilots - from WWI (where quite arguably the air-war had very little significance, yet was widely covered) , through non-German (Allied and Axis alike) WWII, Korea, Vietnam, Israel-Arab wars, etc. This is generating on-going coverage. It's not only books. It also TV series (someone has to fill up the "History channel" which others have called "The Hitlet Channel) ([1])), computer games, memorabilia, and on-line fan sites of various sorts.

I do think that much of this material is verifiable, and that while hagiographical (or a villification) - it can can be NPOVed.

The real question, is what do we do as editors on Wikipedia. There are two choices in mind -

• Delete this - meaning continuing deletion discussions, combating re-insertion of this from other avenues (e.g. someone creating "aerial engagement of JG51/III over X"), and directing traffic on this individuals (who are getting traffic 70+ years on) off of Wikipedia (because people who will look this up - will get the hits from the fan site up on their list)
• Keep it - but tone it down, keep it NPOV. Often times this will result in a short article - with still verifiable information.

I prefer the latter. I prefer that modern neo-Nazis (and close fans) and more importantly run of the mill aficionados and kids get their information from Wikipedia (following editorial oversight by our non-Nazi (vast-vast majority at least not) editor base) - than from some fan-site whose motivation is.... Suspect. I think I understand your POV - but I think it is better to have this on Wikipedia (for figures that are generating interest 70 years later!) - rather than have this in all sorts of dark corners of the internet. I prefer to have it here - he was in X, flew Y missions, killed Z aircraft, won so and so medals, a few notable encounters perhaps, and death - than to have it all trumped up elsewhere (and sometimes on the side - pushing a very not nice agenda, sometimes merely repeating previous agenda that they are sourcing from) - that's my POV on editing this.

Back when I was in my childhood and teens - I was engrossed in all things flight related, including aerial combat. I read many books on the subject (while aerial warfare still interests me - I haven't read such items in a long time) - from more serious books on the technical aspects of flight, through aircraft catalogs, and accounts on aerial warfare (which range from the serious through the popular description of engagements - and often a mix of the two). Back then - the online scene wasn't as developed - but reflecting on myself - if I were a ten year old today, would I be reading those books? Or would I be getting this info from Wikipedia or a fan site? Would I read the fan site more if it were off-wiki?

In terms of Wikipedia policy - you could justify either view. They both have merit. The question is not policy - but what is right to do.Icewhiz (talk) 08:22, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

There's also a third option -- redirect to a list. If someone locates sources that would allow for an NPOV article, then great -- restore the article with the new sources. The content you are suggesting -- he was in X, flew Y missions, killed Z aircraft, won so and so medals, and death -- can fit into a couple of sentences, and can be presented on the list. There's "list notability" (the name appears in an encyclopedia on a list) and there's stand-alone notability. It's appears to be clear to me that there aren't sufficient sources for a stand-alone bio article. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:08, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Having this as a redirect might or might not retain Wiki's Google ranking on this - but even if it does, I don't think anyone looking for information on these people would be satisfied from what's on the list - they'll just move on to the fan site who has this in highly biased detail. The current list article - List of Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross recipients (L) doesn't have information on missions, air craft kills and other information (for instance - death in emergency landing, which is actually pretty well sourced here) - it would get cumbersome to fit this in for each medal recipient.Icewhiz (talk) 04:45, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm guided by the WP:N principle that "if no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, then it should not have a separate article." Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information; "Determining notability does not necessarily depend on things such as fame, importance, or popularity". Where do you propose we source the details of their bios from? K.e.coffman (talk) 08:49, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

For basic bio details, I would propose using the sourcing in there at present. I don't think this should be developed much beyond a stub (unless there is an additional unknown source).Icewhiz (talk) 09:17, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Well, we had a lengthy discussion on the notability of the Knight's Cross winners, and then an RFC on the aces:

• MilHist:RfC on the notability of flying aces.

Even though it was held in a non neutral venue, it failed to gain support. At the end of the day, an ace (military) is just a person who was good at his job and / or lucky to survive long enough to accumulate sufficient number of aircraft shot down, GRT sunk, etc to earn an award. We don't have articles on people who produced X numbers of widgets or mined Y tons of coal in their lifetime. That's my position, anyway. I'm curious why you brought up google rankings. Could you clarify? K.e.coffman (talk) 01:10, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

I see notability of the various "aces" (and military heros) as quite similar to notable athletes. Why is Floyd Mayweather Jr. featured in the In The News on Main_Page? Because he racked up a 50-0 win record. Isn't he just "good at his job"? Why is a business person who founded a multi-billion dollar company notable? Isn't he just good at his job? Tales (and actual accounts) of military exploits of individuals go back to Ancient times (e.g. Samson, Hercules, or Gilgamesh if we want to go to the mythical, Pheidippides for somewhat less). I mentioned google in context of the non-policy argument (and policy could go either way here, which is why I noted it) of whether Wikipedia comes up as the first source of information - or a fan or even a neo-Nazi site - I think it is preferable that at least innocent traffic ends up here and not in less reputable venues.Icewhiz (talk) 12:36, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

AfD

Given that the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fritz Lüddecke closed as delete, would you agree that similar articles cover nn subjects and that their redirects should be restored? K.e.coffman (talk) 04:08, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

On similarly sourced subjects, that would seem to be the expected result, yes. Note that sourcing for Luddecke was particularly weak.Icewhiz (talk) 04:14, 11 September 2017 (UTC) @K.e.coffman: - I will not challenge similar redirects on the same sourcing level (in article + quick BEFORE for post-war (also non-books) and for war (mainly books)), however if there is coverage amounting to a few pages in RS books, I would object.Icewhiz (talk) 05:15, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

I could not find significant coverage in reliable, independent sources on the subjects, that’s why I had redirected them. Do you recall where you felt that the coverage was there for a stand-alone article, vs a redirect?

This list of Talk pages where we interacted could work as aide-mémoire. The bulk of the entries is where you responded to my “Notability” comment: Editor Interaction Analyser list.

Does this help? Are there any on the list that would object to being redirected? K.e.coffman (talk) 19:32, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Note I'm doing this quickly on each one, mainly based on in-article + "google books" results (so we can discuss in greater detail ones we disagree on - this is rough triage)

No objection (I consider these similar to sourcing level for Fritz Lüddecke, and while another AFD (in which I would vote Keep on most) may yield other results, I concede the point): Karl Willius Horst Patuschka Walther Wever (pilot) Wilhelm Philipp Alexander Preinfalk Heinz Golinski Johann Pichler Peter Kalden Otto Gaiser Kurt Knappe Friedrich Rupp Edmund Wagner Edwin Thiel Hans-Joachim Heyer Otto Tange Helmut Schönfelder Wilhelm Mink Lutz-Wilhelm Burckhardt Reinhold Hoffmann Josef Pöhs Berthold Graßmuck Hermann Wolf Wilhelm Freuwörth Karl-Wilhelm Hofmann Hans Fuß Ulrich Wöhnert Eugen-Ludwig Zweigart Helmut Rüffler Detlev Rohwer Alfred Franke Günter Fink Ludwig Häfner Heinz Hackler Heinrich-Wilhelm Ahnert Heinz-Gerhard Vogt Max-Hermann Lücke Erwin Laskowski Werner Quast Hugo Dahmer Jürgen Brocke Franz Barten Johannes Bunzek Wolfgang Böwing-Treuding Johann Badum Ernst Andres

Better sourced / other grounds for notability, need to see in AFD/discuss: Herbert Huppertz Rudolf Pflanz Siegfried Simsch Hans Strelow Horst Tietzen Josef Kociok Max Stotz Diethelm von Eichel-Streiber Hans Ehlers Herbert Kutscha Robert Olejnik (pilot) Hugo Broch Wilhelm-Ferdinand Galland Georg Schentke Erwin Clausen Rolf Pingel Rolf Pingel Herbert Kaiser Hans Götz Hubert Strassl Anton Resch Gerhard Loos Helmut Mertens Franz Hrdlicka Ernst Börngen Heinrich Klöpper Bernd Gallowitsch Alfred Teumer Klaus Quaet-Faslem Anton Lindner Karl Kempf Rudolf Müller (pilot) Hans-Joachim Kroschinski Eduard Isken Heinrich Krafft Joachim Wandel Karl-Heinz Bendert Gustav Frielinghaus Friedrich Wachowiak Viktor Petermann Viktor Petermann Emil Omert Herbert Findeisen Ernst Düllberg Kurt Dombacher Fritz Dinger Paul-Heinrich Dähne Albert Brunner Max Bucholz Walter Brandt (pilot) Franz Beyer (pilot) Anton BenningIcewhiz (talk) 09:22, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:52, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

WikiProject Investment

Hey there! I just re-launched the WikiProject Investment.

The site has been fully revamped and updated and I would like to invite you the project.

Feel free to check out the project and ping me if you have any questions.

I'd like to invite you to join the Investment WikiProject. There are a lot of Investment related articles on Wikipedia that could use a little attention, and I hope this project can help organize an effort to improve them. So please, take a look and if you like what you see, help get this project off the ground and a few Investment pages into the front ranks of Wikipedia articles. Thanks!

Cheers! WikiEditCrunch (talk) 19:33, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

June 2017 London Bridge attack - edit war

Your recent editing history at June 2017 London Bridge attack shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.Sport and politics (talk) 15:22, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Icewhiz. You have new messages at Sport and politics's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Third Opinion Dispute Resolution Notice

I have asked for a Third Opinion resolution to our dispute. The request is here. You do not need to do anything. This is simply a notice. Mavriksfan11 (talk) 16:08, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

A beer for you!

You probably need one after surviving that POV avalanche. Drink up; almost all of the discussions have been closed. E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:39, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Closed RfC

My deepest apologies -- somehow I missed that, don't know how. Thanks for reverting. --Yalens (talk) 20:03, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Signature

Hey, I think you forgot to sign your comment. --Mhhossein ^talk 13:41, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! Sinebot used to take care of this lickity split, but not lately. Signed.Icewhiz (talk) 13:42, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Comment by IP

Stop editing/deleting articles to fit your political biases. This is not an Israeli News Channel or Fox News. We are suppose to be neutral. No need to delete paragraphs which have sourced information.

Please sign your comments, and take this to the article talk page. Sourcing is not enough (particularly when using a highly biased source). Read WP:BLP, WP:UNDUE, WP:PROPORTION. Also, please refrain from personal attacks, which the above comment could be construed as such.Icewhiz (talk) 19:57, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Johnny Landmine

Thanks for the feedback - I'm guessing that I was unable to find any information due to the fact that the article's creator used the incorrect name for the landmine (is it Joni 95 or Jony 95?). I am not a military ordinance expert by any means but I'm thinking that it might be best to create an article for Tamil Tiger landmines or Sri Lankan landmines and the merge the information from Jonny landmine and Rangan 99 as subsections - what are your thoughts (as you appear to know more about this than me). BTW is the Jony 99 the same as the Rangan 99? Dan arndt (talk) 09:40, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

@Dan arndt: There are a number of variant spellings for the Joni, indeed (including the slang the article creator used). I would keep the Rangan 99 (or Joni 99) separate article - possibly merging to the Pakistani source mine (which doesn't seem to exist, we do have P3 Mk2 mine, but not the p4). It is possible perhaps to create a Tamil Tiger landmine (or wider IED) article - covering implements, tactics, and possibly subsequent de-mining - but this should probably be done by an expert in the Tamil area or someone who is willing to go deep. I don't see any harm in a standalone Joni 95 article - weapon systems with designations are usually notable for standalone. We could clean up the current article, and keep it as a tidy little stub.Icewhiz (talk) 09:53, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm happy to assist in cleaning up the current article but as previously stated I'm a novice at military articles. Is there any articles that we could use as a bit of a template? Dan arndt (talk) 10:32, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

@Dan arndt: POMZ, BLU-43 Dragontooth, S-mine, VS-50 mine.Icewhiz (talk) 11:08, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

ANI

Hi Icewhiz. Thank you for your note on my talkpage. I opened a report at ANI regarding the disruption by Mhhossein. Dr. K. 17:31, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to MILHIST

Hello and welcome to the Military history WikiProject! As you may have guessed, we're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to military history.

A few features that you might find helpful:

• Our navigation box points to most of the useful pages within the project.
• The announcement and open task box is updated very frequently. You can watchlist it if you are interested, or you can add it directly to your user page by copying the following: {{WPMILHIST Announcements}}.
• Important discussions take place on the project's main discussion page; it is highly recommended that you watchlist it.
• The project has several departments, which handle article quality assessment, detailed article and content review, writing contests, and article logistics.
• We have a number of task forces that focus on specific topics, nations, periods, and conflicts.
• We've developed a set of guidelines that cover article structure and content, template use, categorization, and many other issues of interest.
• If you're looking for something to work on, there are many articles that need attention, as well as a number of review alerts.

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask any of the project coordinators or any other experienced member of the project, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome, and we are looking forward to seeing you around! Anotherclown (talk) 09:04, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

US Dollar

Dear Icewhiz, thank you for the information you have given regarding the wiki article on the US Dollar. Per wiki policy Talking and editing Policy:

"Be bold in updating articles, especially for minor changes and fixing problems. Previous authors do not need to be consulted before making changes. Nobody owns articles. If you see a problem that you can fix, do so. Discussion is, however, called for if you think the edit might be controversial or if someone indicates disagreement with your edit (either by reverting your edit and/or raising an issue on the talk page). The "BOLD, revert, discuss cycle" (BRD) is often used when changes might be contentious.

Boldness should not mean trying to impose edits against existing consensus or in violation of core policies, such as Neutral point of view and Verifiability. Fait accompli actions, where actions are justified by their having already been carried out, are inappropriate."

I would respectfully request that you do not edit the existing consensus without following the wiki policy on editing. Thank you very much. Kind regards.