User talk:Ealdgyth/Archive 71
 | This is an archive of past discussions about User:Ealdgyth. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 65 | ← | Archive 69 | Archive 70 | Archive 71 | Archive 72 | Archive 73 | → | Archive 75 |
Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources
Just wanted to raise one issue regarding the contentious matter of the Collaboration in German-occupied Poland, there is such a thing as a Majority view, a Minority view and a Fringe view, just because a book which was published is not widely circulated or holds a minority position, does not mean that it holds a Fringe view. But, is seams that some editors do not respect a minority position and automatically try to label it as fringe or unreliable because it is not "mainstream". --E-960 (talk) 12:57, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
- I'm going to repeat - I did NOT type the word "fringe". Please stop with the assuming what other people believe. Rather than using WP:QS, it's better to use the best possible sources ... which then keeps other editors from objecting on the basis of non-reliability. Trust me, I have spent a very great amount of my time on Wikipedia dealing with reliable sources and their usage. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:00, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
- But, I'm familiar (as most people) with how the Anglo-Saxon media works, you just need a good publisher to get your work noticed... do an interview in NYT or go on a book tour, and now you are mainstream, and your book is widely circulated, that's the reality of publishing. So, it is important not to discredit a source just because it is not "mainstream" or from a non-English speaking country. --E-960 (talk) 13:14, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
- Scholarship does NOT work like that. In this area, there is plenty of reliable scholarship published by academic presses. THAT is what should be used, not books published by iUniverse or Lulu.com or BiblioBazaar or written by non-historians. Frankly, anyone defending the use of works published by iUniverse or the like is raising a big red flag about their ability to identify reliable sources. (And as a helpful tip - learn to use the preview button so you're not constantly revising things ... which re-pings the user everytime you fix a small typo. It's very very annoying to be pinged multiple times for typos or to constantly hit edit conflicts because of typos being corrected, both of which have already hit me numerous times this morning) Ealdgyth - Talk 13:22, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
- This comment is not designed to just hit the ball back, not the intent here. But, none of the sources cited in the article come from self publishing websites. Also, here is an example of what at lease I perceive as possible bias, a statement from the Treblinka Museum (in Poland) was labeled as unreliable (with user Icewhiz calling it some 'regional museum'), but similarly short references form the United States Holocaust Museum are labeled as reliable. This can be viewed as bias, because the Treblinka Museum is the museum which manages the site of the former death camp, but apparently it is not is not reliable but a museum in the US automatically is. --E-960 (talk) 13:33, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
- The Treblinka museum was just established recently, and it IS a regional museum - it's managed by a regional museum in Poland, not a national museum with a history of sponsoring and publishing peer-reviewed scholarship. The Treblinka museum may indeed grow to something like the Auschwitz museum, USHMM, or Yad Vashem someday, but today it does not have that reputation. Note that I included the Auschwitz museum there - they have a reputation for fostering and publishing scholarship that is used by other scholars in the field, so the Auschwitz museum's website would indeed be a reliable source and well within the mainstream of historical research. And you're also missing much of the point of the objection to the source... it wasn't so much that the source was a regional museum, it was that the Treblinka museum source discussed one incident. Going from one incident to a general statement is WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. Historians take specific incidents and make generalizations from them. Wikipedia editors are NOT historians, and we should not be doing that. The best course is to find a source that backs up the general statement made. Given the sheer volume of academically published sources in this subject area, if the generalized statement is even a minority view it should be findable as a generalized statement. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:41, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
- This comment is not designed to just hit the ball back, not the intent here. But, none of the sources cited in the article come from self publishing websites. Also, here is an example of what at lease I perceive as possible bias, a statement from the Treblinka Museum (in Poland) was labeled as unreliable (with user Icewhiz calling it some 'regional museum'), but similarly short references form the United States Holocaust Museum are labeled as reliable. This can be viewed as bias, because the Treblinka Museum is the museum which manages the site of the former death camp, but apparently it is not is not reliable but a museum in the US automatically is. --E-960 (talk) 13:33, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
- Scholarship does NOT work like that. In this area, there is plenty of reliable scholarship published by academic presses. THAT is what should be used, not books published by iUniverse or Lulu.com or BiblioBazaar or written by non-historians. Frankly, anyone defending the use of works published by iUniverse or the like is raising a big red flag about their ability to identify reliable sources. (And as a helpful tip - learn to use the preview button so you're not constantly revising things ... which re-pings the user everytime you fix a small typo. It's very very annoying to be pinged multiple times for typos or to constantly hit edit conflicts because of typos being corrected, both of which have already hit me numerous times this morning) Ealdgyth - Talk 13:22, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
Greetings- Medieval Europe
Hello, I appreciate your interest in the Middle Ages article. I placed the template here, because medieval Europe is a part of world history, and is indeed included on template. I see where you are coming from, regarding the regional v.s world-wide focus but I think having the template on the page would provide continuity between all major articles that cover continental history. Have a good day, Sunriseshore (talk) 21:18, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
- “my interest”. Heh. Yeah, that’s one way to look at it. Why thank you for thanking me for being interested in the article. Because, yeah, I really needed others approval or something. Perhaps when you’ve been around a bit longer, you might investigate these little things called featured articles. Which, amazingly enough, the Middle Ages article is. And hey, wow, guess who had a lot to do with getting that article up to that status? The template does not help with the articles main focus, and it is ugly as sin and certainly doesn’t need to be featured right at the top. Continuity is not needed...Ealdgyth - Talk 00:14, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
- oh, and a free piece of advice, please start using edit summaries, it’s collaborative and helpful to other editors. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:19, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
Your concern is noted. Sunriseshore (talk) 01:00, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. -- SuggestBot (talk) 12:58, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
Laid back
You got it. Just send me some beer vouchers... The Rambling Man (talk) 12:13, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
Æthelflæd
Could you take a look at the latest edit on Æthelflæd. I have reverted as I do not think it tells us anything about her, but the editor has re-reverted. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:12, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
- argh, this like totally slipped past me...still need it? Ealdgyth - Talk 23:14, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
WP:AE
Gizzy DID make a change to the text you (correctly) object to [1]. In fact, her current version of the article is very close to Icewhiz's preferred version, pogrom and all! The main difference is that it mentions the historical existence of the Jewish community in the lede. So why is Icewhiz even bringing this to WP:AE? Because he just wants to get somebody that disagrees , but him sanctioned.
Icewhiz is bullshitting you. He only showed the edit in which Gizzy restored an older version. He didn't present all the subsequent edits made by Gizzy which cleaned up that version. Please don't fall for this schlock.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:47, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
Uh, those sentences that are unsourced that you are complaining about at WP:AE were added by Icewhiz, not Gizzy! Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:56, 24 June 2018 (UTC) −
- I looked at the current version of the article...and the edits GCB made. It’s still sloppy sourcing use. Personally, unless ALL the editors tone it down a bit and start actually working together, it going to continue being a mess and eventually the community will get tired of dealing with it. Unfortunately, I’m a bit too involved in a close enough topic area that I can not possibly use admin tools, but if I wasn’t ...I’d probably put the whole topic of Polish-Jewish relations in WWII under the restrictions the NeilN put the Collaboration article under. Actually trying to use sources correctly would help a lot here...your defense of GCBs carelessness is not going to help them learn to edit well. That’s why I posted, I’d like for them to learn how to cite sources properly and turn into a productive editor who isn’t in a position to be dragged to AE by other editors all the time. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:02, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
- The March version has tophose sentences sourced to a totally different source (actually two sources). I’m on a tablet, so I can’t do diffs easily, but it appears that GCB stripped off the sources that IW used sometime during their edits. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:02, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
- yes, here is GCB adding the information back in without adding the source, instead leaving the Rossino source still at the end of the sentences. This is what I mean about sloppy editing...Ealdgyth - Talk 20:06, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
Now, I’m about to go see infinity war again and try to figure out how in the hell Loki is going to make it out of this fix...replies will be delayed. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:09, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
- Yeah, there's probably some sloppy sourcing there. However, its nothing that warrants a topic ban or block, can you agree to that? I mean, the sentences you are objecting to were added by Icewhiz, not Gizzy. If Gizzy is being careless, so is Icewhiz. And Gizzy presumably added this info back in [2] to placate Icewhiz who was the one who added it.
- And please keep in mind that she was still working on the article, took a break, and then Icewhiz ran to WP:AE. In fact, she explicitly request that he let her finish (and help), this request was made only 10 hours ago, and Icewhiz ran to WP:AE only TWO HOURS after she made that request. He was obviously trying to WP:GAME it, so that he could present the situation the way he wanted it. The sheer bad faith and dishonesty in that filing is worthy of multiple WP:BOOMERANGs.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:15, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
And enjoy infinity war (I haven't seen it yet! Never get to see movies anymore cuz kids). Can you please though drop a quick note at WP:AE - I would hate for a good editor to get railroaded just because Icewhiz managed to pull wool over some eyes.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:15, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
- "asking for time" is not an excuse for not self reverting (which they could have done). The subsequent editing of GCB left at least 5 serious misrepresentations - including turning German-Polish terror in 39 to Soviet terror in 39-41. This is beyond careless. I detailed these five misrepresentations clearly in the report. GCB's initial edit (and subsequent revert) introduced an antisemitic hpax into Wikipedia - every sentence there was wrong - which is not acceptable. Removing some of the errors (and introducing new ones) does not fully rectify this. Again, had she self reverted and discussed her concerns - rather than edit warring - I would not have filed this.Icewhiz (talk) 20:29, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
- You're lying.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:14, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
- Specifically - you're lying about GCB not self-reverting. She went on to include the overwhelming majority of edits from your preferred version. You are trying to hide that fact.
- Specifically - you're lying that there are "five misrepresentations" which constitute a "hoax":
- More specifically #1 - the sentence "local administration was abolished and replaced with local communists", while not exactly supported by the source (though it does suggest it) is not a "gross misrepresentation" and in fact isn't all that controversial. OF COURSE the Soviets replaced local administrators with local communists. Who else were they suppose to put in there? Monarchists? Buddhists?
- More specifically #2 - the German terror is still described in the text. Your complaint is that Gizzy added that there was also a Soviet terror. And indeed there was, per source: from the very beginning agents with the Soviet Secret Police, the NKVD, embarked upon a campaign of terror against the civilian population in search of reputed "anti-Soviet" enemies.
- More specifically #3 - the text does not claim the synagogue was set on fire in August. At worst, this is just a bad ordering of sentences in the paragraph - if this sentence is moved before the preceding one there is no problem here. This is not a "gross mischaracterization"
- More specifically #4 - your complaint is that it's sourced to a dead link. Yet you say that it mostly matches another source you found. So... what's the freakin' problem? How is this a "gross mischaracterization"?
- More specifically #5 - I agree that the phrase "linking perpetrators and victims" is weird (I have no idea what it's suppose to mean). It's something somebody put in the article long time ago. It's at the end of the paragraph. Gizzy was working her way through the text and probably would've gotten to it if you hadn't run off to WP:AE.
- There's no "HOAX" here. These aren't "five misrepresentations". She did self-revert. She did discuss. You're the one who refused to discuss. You're the one who behaved badly here. And still are.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:35, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
- The initial edit (and subsequent re-revert) was grossly defamatory. They did not self revert and left the article in a mess. 1 - not supported by the source. 2 - Not according to the source cited, you are claiming Rossino says this - however he attributes this and does not addreess Stawiki. 3 - the yizkor book is PRIMARY which is an issue, and the "bad ordering" also mosrepresents it. 4 - It is hard to AGF that this dead link was actually checked when restored from the hoax version - in any event this is not a RS (it is a wiki like site), and the details differ from what an actual RS says. 5 - This is an acute misrepresentation, whose aim is to claim the Polish pogroms were done by Germans or at their very close dorection - a narrrative of denial advanced by some elements in Polish society, but not accepted by most historianss.... As for discussion - when someone shows up to a page and rolls it back more than 3 months, reintroducing a hoax, and repeats this action - AGFing such behaviour is difficult, particularly when it is repeated on other pages as well (all be it, not restoring an egrigous hoax), and where most of the discussion is not conductive to compromise. I chose to report this particular incident since this defamatory hoax should not have been present on Wikipedia at all. I could have reported the wider pattern.Icewhiz (talk) 03:03, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
- The version from before August 2017 had some problems. But it wasn't "grossly defamatory", whatever the heck that is suppose to mean. It wasn't a HOAX. It, like a lot of articles about small towns that really nobody gives a flip about, had sloppy sourcing. With this "defamatory hoax", or "egrigous hoax" (sic) etc. you're just trying to use misleading hyperbolic language to appeal to people's emotions because ... well, because you ain't got much of anything else. I've already gone through your 1 through 5 and showed that none of it amounts to "gross misrepresentation" as you falsely pretend. The text does not claim "Polish pogroms were done by Germans" - so you're making shit up again. Rolling back to a version from before 3 months may be entirely appropriate, especially on an article about an obscure topic such as this. And especially regarding somebody who has a history of misrepresenting sources or using fringe sources (like anti-semitic, far right publications, like you did at another article).Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:05, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
- This is a very disturbing statement, and indicates a severe problem with NPOV and sourcing. This version contained (misrepresenting sources) -
the local administration was abolished by the Soviet NKVD and replaced with Jewish communists who declared Soviet allegiance. Ethnic Polish families were being rounded up by newly formed Jewish militia, and deported to Siberia. Some Poles went into prolonged hiding from the enemy .... A German Einsatzkommando unit under SS-Obersturmführer Hermann Schaper arriving in Stawiski on July 4–5, 1941, massacred 700 local Jews in nearby Płaszczatka Forest .... Some Poles, who emerged from their forest hideaways, including prisoners released by the Nazis from the NKVD prisons, were led to acts of revenge-killing in German presence (approximately 6 suspects, around July 5–7).
- this a grossly defamatory version, completely without a basis in any source (and misrepresenting the cited sources) - blaming the Jews of Stawiki for actions against Poles in Stawiki (without any basis, beyond a well known canard) - and then claiming (again without basis) that a pogrom by Polish mobs (a large amount of people) - was actually led by the Einsatzkommando and that only some 6 Poles (who were released from a communist prison or were hiding from the Jews in the forest - emerging from their hideaways) took part in the massacre of Jewish. So - grossly defamatory statements on Jews, and denial of Polish responsibility for the massacre (besides those six - whose "revenge killings" are "understandable" given their persecution by the Jews - and even they were "led to" doing this by the Einsatzkommando).Icewhiz (talk) 05:07, 25 June 2018 (UTC)- You really need to cut it out with the hyperbolic rhetoric like "disturbing statement". As you are very well aware of the "militia" thing is straight from Rossino, who in turn quotes Israeli historians to support it. So spare me your fake "concern". Stop trying to put on a phony act for the admins.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:20, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
- Rossino (who is a bit off-center on this issue, but is a fair work of scholarship if you don't cherrypick from it in contradictions to his conclusions) quotes Musial (who belongs to a very particular historiography school) who says
Musiał found that in many cases Jewish militia members directly participated in mass arrests and deportation actions
and quotes LevinDov Levin has similarly concluded "the labeling of the Soviet administration as a 'Jewish regime' became widespread when Jewish militiamen helped NKVD agents send local Poles into exile
. These are general stmts about Jewish participation in the Soviet administration (which accepted Jews into government (in contrast to the prior regime) - so Jews helped in some cases. Rossino himself - in his summary further down - makes this clearIn eastern Poland, the vision of Jews greeting the Red Army, and in isolated cases of Jews in militia uniform assisting the NKVD, appeared to bear out the deepest suspicions of a nefarious Jewish-Bolshevik alliance
andThe evidence clearly demonstrates that like Poles and other native Eastern European peoples with communist sympathies, a certain small number of Jews collaborated with Soviet occupation forces. But when speaking of an unholy union between all Jews and Communists, the fear of which fueled the surge of native anti-Jewish feeling in the first weeks of the German occupation, one can only conclude that scholars are dealing with a fantasy imagined by resentful Poles, a perceived reality that proved to be more influential than reality itself.
- so in short these are isolated cases, not documented in Stawiki, with Rossino himself refering to the generalization as a "fantasy imagined by resentful Poles" - and such a "fantasy" was edited into our article some 77 years after the Poles of Stawiki massacred the Jews of Stawiki - and is now defended as merely "sloppy" by another editor.Icewhiz (talk) 05:46, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
- Rossino (who is a bit off-center on this issue, but is a fair work of scholarship if you don't cherrypick from it in contradictions to his conclusions) quotes Musial (who belongs to a very particular historiography school) who says
- You really need to cut it out with the hyperbolic rhetoric like "disturbing statement". As you are very well aware of the "militia" thing is straight from Rossino, who in turn quotes Israeli historians to support it. So spare me your fake "concern". Stop trying to put on a phony act for the admins.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:20, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
- No, Rossino actually refers to several authors who point out that this phenomenon did indeed existed "in small towns west of Bialystok" (which means Stawiski). Levin's quote for example does say it explicitly. I guess you can call being part of a communist militia "participation in the Soviet administration". But that's obviously a lopsided reading. As is your entire reading of the source. Also, what "regime" are you actually referring to "in contrast to the prior regime"? If you mean Nazi Germany, then why does that even have to be mentioned and what is the relevance? Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:42, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
- Quoting William W. Hagen Hagen, William W. "Before the" final solution": Toward a comparative analysis of political anti-Semitism in interwar Germany and Poland." The Journal of Modern History 68.2 (1996): 351-381.
"Even though in various ways the Polish regime in fact fell short of fascism, the cumulative effects on the Polish Jews of its hostile policies, as well as of Endek aggression and the consequences of demographic growth amid still widespread economic depression, were threatening them by 1939 with conditions comparable to those to which the German Jews had been reduced."
, surely this well-cited piece in The Journal of Modern History is not "offensive".Icewhiz (talk) 09:18, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
- Quoting William W. Hagen Hagen, William W. "Before the" final solution": Toward a comparative analysis of political anti-Semitism in interwar Germany and Poland." The Journal of Modern History 68.2 (1996): 351-381.
- This is a very disturbing statement, and indicates a severe problem with NPOV and sourcing. This version contained (misrepresenting sources) -
- "if you don't cherrypick from it in contradictions to his conclusions" - please actually explain what conclusion of his is being "contradicted"? By what text specifically? Quote it. You're making stuff up.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:54, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
- The conclusion at the end of the paragraph that is at the end of the section regarding allegations of Jewish Bolshevism (in which evidence is presented both ways - including the bits you quoted):
The evidence clearly demonstrates that like Poles and other native Eastern European peoples with communist sympathies, a certain small number of Jews collaborated with Soviet occupation forces. But when speaking of an unholy union between all Jews and Communists, the fear of which fueled the surge of native anti-Jewish feeling in the first weeks of the German occupation, one can only conclude that scholars are dealing with a fantasy imagined by resentful Poles, a perceived reality that proved to be more influential than reality itself.
- you see VM, I actually tend to read sources in their entirety (which I even try to do in languages I'm not as adept in) - as opposed to searching for a keyword. Prior to removing Rossino from Stawiki - I read it in whole. Rossino's conclusion (small number of Jews, and a "fantasy imagined by resentful Poles") did not even support going from a generalization of widespread Jewish Bolshevism (which is an antisemitic canard) in former Eastern Poland (which could then by OR be perhaps reflected onto Stawiki). However, the real reason not to use Rossino is that he simply does not treat Stawiki at all - beyond a mention of Germans troop movements on 23 June (which are mostly irrelevant - that the Germans overran Western Belarus rapidly in Barbarossa is well established). So no - I am not "making stuff up".Icewhiz (talk) 07:37, 25 June 2018 (UTC)- No, you're evading the question and busily constructing some red herring about Bolshevism (a red red herring) . What text IN THE ARTICLE actually contradicts Rossino? Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:38, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
- The conclusion at the end of the paragraph that is at the end of the section regarding allegations of Jewish Bolshevism (in which evidence is presented both ways - including the bits you quoted):
- The version from before August 2017 had some problems. But it wasn't "grossly defamatory", whatever the heck that is suppose to mean. It wasn't a HOAX. It, like a lot of articles about small towns that really nobody gives a flip about, had sloppy sourcing. With this "defamatory hoax", or "egrigous hoax" (sic) etc. you're just trying to use misleading hyperbolic language to appeal to people's emotions because ... well, because you ain't got much of anything else. I've already gone through your 1 through 5 and showed that none of it amounts to "gross misrepresentation" as you falsely pretend. The text does not claim "Polish pogroms were done by Germans" - so you're making shit up again. Rolling back to a version from before 3 months may be entirely appropriate, especially on an article about an obscure topic such as this. And especially regarding somebody who has a history of misrepresenting sources or using fringe sources (like anti-semitic, far right publications, like you did at another article).Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:05, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
- The initial edit (and subsequent re-revert) was grossly defamatory. They did not self revert and left the article in a mess. 1 - not supported by the source. 2 - Not according to the source cited, you are claiming Rossino says this - however he attributes this and does not addreess Stawiki. 3 - the yizkor book is PRIMARY which is an issue, and the "bad ordering" also mosrepresents it. 4 - It is hard to AGF that this dead link was actually checked when restored from the hoax version - in any event this is not a RS (it is a wiki like site), and the details differ from what an actual RS says. 5 - This is an acute misrepresentation, whose aim is to claim the Polish pogroms were done by Germans or at their very close dorection - a narrrative of denial advanced by some elements in Polish society, but not accepted by most historianss.... As for discussion - when someone shows up to a page and rolls it back more than 3 months, reintroducing a hoax, and repeats this action - AGFing such behaviour is difficult, particularly when it is repeated on other pages as well (all be it, not restoring an egrigous hoax), and where most of the discussion is not conductive to compromise. I chose to report this particular incident since this defamatory hoax should not have been present on Wikipedia at all. I could have reported the wider pattern.Icewhiz (talk) 03:03, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
- Ealdgyth - please look at the following 2 editor interaction reports - [3] and [4] - notice on which side the blue is (and most of the other side is talk/main unsynced, or the arbitrary start date) - the pattern here is showing up to an article I edited and blanket reverting back to an old version. Wiping out improvements, returning misrepsentations, SPSes, or in a few cases BLP vios. I chose to focus the AE on a particulary egrigious incident (a rollback to a hoax version with absolutely no merit) - however there is a history here. See for instance this edit on Jan Grabowski (historian) which among other things duplicated the opinions of Berendt, Musial, and Samsonowska (3 historians - described by VM as "several") - which already appear in the next paragraph (and which were discussed at length previously) - a simple duplication that should have been easy to rectify - but while there was reverting, there was no response to a TP post for 5 days [5] on this rather clear error - the error is still there after page protection. Or this series of edits - which rolled back the article a month, on top of that removed well sourced (academic books) information dating back earlier, and introduced BLP issues (the most serious of which was omitting the closure of this "investigation" in 2008) - and this on a topic which serves as a dog whistle in far right media. Holocaust historian Michael Marrus has said that Polish and Lithuanian authorities chose to investigate to draw attention away from their own atrocities such as the Jedwabne pogrom and Kielce pogrom. This thesis is an illuminating read - it seems that each time a Polish atrocity towards Jews is reported in Poland, then this incident is covered in a Polish right wing publication. (an incident - a Soviet attack against an armed AK village that fought back agaimst Soviet requisitions, and where the Soviets killed some 30-40 in an assault on the village - which is poorly covered outside of this dog whistle context - there are more RSes on its use as a dog whistle and on the "investigation" than the incident!).Icewhiz (talk) 03:40, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
- There's obviously something wrong with the "blue" in the interaction report. For example according to the tool, you were supposedly the first person to edit the article on the Bielski partisans. This of course is nonsense since I made edits to that article as far back as 2009, way way way before you were even on Wikipedia (right?).
- And you DIDN'T focus on a "rollback to a hoax version with absolutely no merit". It wasn't a hoax. It had some merit. And the rollback was followed quickly by substantial changes. You repeatedly misrepresented Gizzy's actions acting as if her restoration of the pre-August 2017 version (which was the version for six years on WIkipedia) was her final act or something. You need to stop doing this as it's thoroughly dishonest.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:58, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
- Ealdgyth - please look at the following 2 editor interaction reports - [3] and [4] - notice on which side the blue is (and most of the other side is talk/main unsynced, or the arbitrary start date) - the pattern here is showing up to an article I edited and blanket reverting back to an old version. Wiping out improvements, returning misrepsentations, SPSes, or in a few cases BLP vios. I chose to focus the AE on a particulary egrigious incident (a rollback to a hoax version with absolutely no merit) - however there is a history here. See for instance this edit on Jan Grabowski (historian) which among other things duplicated the opinions of Berendt, Musial, and Samsonowska (3 historians - described by VM as "several") - which already appear in the next paragraph (and which were discussed at length previously) - a simple duplication that should have been easy to rectify - but while there was reverting, there was no response to a TP post for 5 days [5] on this rather clear error - the error is still there after page protection. Or this series of edits - which rolled back the article a month, on top of that removed well sourced (academic books) information dating back earlier, and introduced BLP issues (the most serious of which was omitting the closure of this "investigation" in 2008) - and this on a topic which serves as a dog whistle in far right media. Holocaust historian Michael Marrus has said that Polish and Lithuanian authorities chose to investigate to draw attention away from their own atrocities such as the Jedwabne pogrom and Kielce pogrom. This thesis is an illuminating read - it seems that each time a Polish atrocity towards Jews is reported in Poland, then this incident is covered in a Polish right wing publication. (an incident - a Soviet attack against an armed AK village that fought back agaimst Soviet requisitions, and where the Soviets killed some 30-40 in an assault on the village - which is poorly covered outside of this dog whistle context - there are more RSes on its use as a dog whistle and on the "investigation" than the incident!).Icewhiz (talk) 03:40, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
- You know what? I started to read this wall of text this morning and didn't get more than a couple of back-and-forths into it before realizing that it's all WP:BATTLEGROUND. I'm not sure what you two want me to do... play mama? Sorry - my son is grown and out of the house... I don't have to play mama any more. It's pretty obvious that you both are reading selectively - both in what the other is writing AND in what I'm trying to get across to you. You both need to stop accusing each other of things. That isn't collaborative and will not calm things down in the topic area. And I'm serious, at this rate, if this sort of behavior keeps up, it's going to end up at ArbCom and the likely result is a bunch of topic bans or total bans. That's if someone at AE doesn't just do that as an AE action.
- I'll repeat again - I cannot take admin action in this topic area - my editing in the Holocaust area is just too close to the topic for me to feel comfortable taking anything other than actions against clear vandalism - I'm happy to protect pages against vandals, etc. but I'm not going to do blocks/bans/enforcement. So asking me to look at editor interaction tools, etc isn't going to be useful. I've actually been observing the area for a while - just because I don't edit a lot doesn't mean I'm not keeping an eye on things.
- My advice would be for everyone in the topic area to step back for a few days. And then attempt to restart the whole thing with moderating your own behavior. Things I find that help to keep things from getting battlegroundy - avoid the use of "you" in referring to other editors (I know I broke my own advice above). Any time someone reads "you" - even if it is meant generically as a general "you" - they take it personally. It instantly personalizes things. Instead - attempt to define things as neutrally as you can. If you are upset - use "I" statements - rather than saying "You lied" ... say "I think that there is an issue with the use of sources here - it appears that X isn't supported by the source given." You can see this in action above - where I explained things without using any value judgements about the motivations of the information - I kept it to a description (and an AGF description at that) and VM appears to have been much more accepting of what I was saying and calmed down (at least at first). When you use "I" statements - it becomes much easier for the other people in the discussion to feel less threatened and much more willing to discuss rather than fall into battleground behavior. Another very important thing - when someone else personalizes the dispute - instead of doing the same - be dispassionate and say something like "Please don't personalize this, lets stick to sources." If it happens again - repeat "You've been asked not to personalize, it's not helpful to the discussion." That's ALL that is needed to address the behavior. Take the high ground - if gods forbid the dispute ends up at ArbCom - taking the high ground will help with demonstrating that your own behavior was better and not deserving of a topic ban or indef. Of course, the main reason to take the high ground is that it makes the editing enviroment better and helps collaboration - but whatever works to make it easier for folks to do it ... I'm not proud.
- One big things that I see in this dispute is the constant repetition of phrases - by constantly throwing around pet phrases ... you make it less likely that the other side is actually going to listen to what you're saying. I see a lot of "cherry-picked" "unreliable sources" etc. in discussion without any actual demonstration of how the phrase applies. Rather than using that sort of phrase - explain (in detail) WHY such a source is not-ideal/misused/etc. But do so with that first rule in mind - don't use "you" or similar (i.e. keep the mention of editor names to a minimum). Do not assume that what is clear to you is clear to others. A clear, dispassionate description of the issue is much more helpful than a bunch of wikipedia shortcuts such as WP:SPS, WP:IRS, etc. etc. Do not assume that other editors are going to be experienced editors - explain dispassionately what you mean - remembering that this is a text medium and it is very easy to lose non-verbal cues. And in this area, where it is clear that some editors are not native English speakers, try to remember that English idiom is not always clear to non-native speakers.
- Another - stop with the reverting. Reverting is seen as nasty nasty nasty. It's confrontational. The whole area has fallen into the bad habit of reverting instead of discussing. And BIG reverts just feed each other - rather than making one big edit that does a bunch of things - do small ones. Explain. Don't bundle typo fixes into edits that introduce new content. If you are confronted by a bunch of small edits and disagree with some of them... rather than reverting them all - be surgical if its vital that remove, otherwise, just discuss on the talk page.
- Accept that things will not get resolved instantly. Discussion takes time. Be paitent. One reason things have gotten so bad is that the editors who aren't entrenched have been driven off or (like me) have no desire to enter into such a cesspit. And when we DO enter the discussion, we get drowned out by the behaviors above. WELCOME outsiders - listen to them and don't treat them badly - having other editors in the discussions will help keep the passions from being inflamed again. Outside editors not part of entrenched disputes are like grease/oils/lubricates in an engine - we keep things from seizing up.
- I tried here to explain how to make things better. Please prove my pessimistic side wrong and actually read and think about this rather than just continuing on as things have been going. (Hey, @SMcCandlish:, I can do the wall of text thing too!) Ealdgyth - Talk 12:11, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
- Soon your journey towards the Dark Side will be complete. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 13:47, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
- On a more serious note, @Icewhiz and Volunteer Marek: some related points can be found in WP:HOTHEADS. I think it really is good advice. Compare my comportment here today with what it was like in, say, 2012 (and note that people tend to listen to me now instead of trying to get me indeffed). — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 13:50, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
- I apologize for the excessive posting here - I got carried away into replying after I saw this off-AE discussion - and this was clearly excessive here. Sorry.Icewhiz (talk) 12:25, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
TFA
Hi, is there a page to propose TFAs or are they chosen and written by the four coordinators? I ask because I noticed this article is an interesting topic but has never been on the front page, despite being an FA for almost a decade. Cheers, Anarchyte (work | talk) 06:34, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests is the requests page. We have an insane number of video game FAs... this makes running them difficult at times. (And a ten year wait isn't unusual in other over-represented categories - Robert of Jumièges has been an FA for almost ten years also and still hasn't appeared on the main page. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:17, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
Same topic: Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/History of Norwich City F.C. was not fit last year, but has been improved and updated. Their first game in the new season is 4 August. Would you consider to schedule it then, or should I reopen the nom on TFAR? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:44, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
- reopen the nom...we got time..and that way I’ll remember when I start scheduling in three weeks. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:13, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/History of Norwich City F.C. (I confess that I struggled with the instructions but am ever so proud that I managed in the end) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:47, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
Thank you and all who helped (you kindly mentioned Eric Corbett (talk · contribs), John (talk · contribs) and Karanacs (talk · contribs)a) for "a forger, slave smuggler and general all around scoundrel"! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:14, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. -- SuggestBot (talk) 11:55, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
Monroe Edwards and historic England
Hi Victoria,
I enjoyed reading your feature article about the life of Monroe Edwards. I checked out your user page and I see that you write quite a bit about Medieval England. Great!, I enjoy reading about Anglo-Saxon England, Anglo-Norman England and early Medieval history. I look forward to reading your articles on those subjects. MauraWen (talk) 13:15, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
Jill Valentine
The dreaded topic again, but this shouldn't be too traumatic. ;) I've been advised to contact everyone who has ever commented at one of the article's FACs, and address any outstanding issues they may have before nominating it again. You provided a source review at FAC1 and questioned some sources at FAC2. I'm not asking for a source review, or for you to do one at the next FAC, but would you mind taking a quick look at Jill Valentine#References and seeing if there are any issues with source quality? The article has come a long way since FAC1. The only references I'm hesitant about now are the Feminist Frequency primary sources—but, knowing the article's history, I'm loath to touch them with a barge poll. I'd appreciate any thoughts you have on the subject. Regards. Homeostasis07 (talk) 00:25, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
Ealdgyth
My apologies for the errors, and I appreciate the work you've put into the article.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:50, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
Quarter Horse Hall of Fame horses work
Hi Ealdgyth. I saw you did a bit of work on quarter horses recently. I thought maybe this might be a good time to remind you of the outstanding issues from that work I did on the hall of fame quarter horses back in September 2017, you know fixing all the links that were pointing to an archive when there were perfectly good live links. The message for you is now archived in talk page it's been so long. But, I did say it could wait until you were ready. The issues were two links that aren't really working right that are in all of the hall of fame QH articles. And then, the other issues were articles that had specific issues where I wrote it up in the talk page as a message to you. All of these issues I wrote up in a talk page message for you to make it easy for you to find them. I added a link to each talk page message in the talk page; there were 10 horse articles. It really shouldn't take you that long. There are some notes in the talk page message too, but they are more informative and not requiring any response. If you have time to work on them in the near future, great. If I can do anything to make the issues clearer for you to follow, just ask. Whatever you need. Hope all is well with you. Oh, and as a side note, you didn't vote for your own horse Hamiltonian 10 in my sandbox. I can vote for you if you like. Here's the link to my talk page message. We can still work in the archive. [6] Thanks! And if you don't have time, let me know when to try again. dawnleelynn(talk) 16:31, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
WikiCup 2018 July newsletter
The third round of the 2018 WikiCup has now come to an end. The 16 users who made it to the fourth round had at least 227 points. Our top scorers in round 3 were:
Courcelles, a first time contestant, with 1756 points, a tally built largely on 27 GAs related to the Olympics
Cas Liber, our winner in 2016, with two featured articles and three GAs on natural history and astronomy topics
SounderBruce, a finalist last year, with a variety of submissions related to transport in the state of Washington
Contestants managed 7 featured articles, 4 featured lists, 120 good articles, 1 good topic, 124 DYK entries, 15 ITN entries, and 132 good article reviews. Over the course of the competition, contestants have completed 458 GA reviews, in comparison to 244 good articles submitted for review and promoted. As we enter the fourth round, remember that any content promoted after the end of round 3 but before the start of round 4 can be claimed in round 4. Please also remember that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them. When doing GARs, please make sure that you check that all the GA criteria are fully met. Please also remember that all submissions must meet core Wikipedia policies, regardless of the review process; several submissions, particularly in abstruse or technical areas, have needed additional work to make them completely verifiable.
If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article nominations, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed (remember to remove your listing when no longer required). Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13 (talk), Sturmvogel 66 (talk), Cwmhiraeth (talk), Vanamonde (talk) 04:55, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – July 2018
News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2018).
Administrator changes
Pbsouthwood • TheSandDoctor
Gogo Dodo
Andrevan • Doug • EVula • KaisaL • Tony Fox • WilyD
Bureaucrat changes
Guideline and policy news
- An RfC about the deletion of drafts closed with a consensus to change the wording of WP:NMFD. Specifically, a draft that has been repeatedly resubmitted and declined at AfC without any substantial improvement may be deleted at MfD if consensus determines that it is unlikely to ever meet the requirements for mainspace and it otherwise meets one of the reasons for deletion outlined in the deletion policy.
- A request for comment closed with a consensus that the {{promising draft}} template cannot be used to indefinitely prevent a WP:G13 speedy deletion nomination.
Technical news
- Starting on July 9, the WMF Security team, Trust & Safety, and the broader technical community will be seeking input on an upcoming change that will restrict editing of site-wide JavaScript and CSS to a new technical administrators user group. Bureaucrats and stewards will be able to grant this right per a community-defined process. The intention is to reduce the number of accounts who can edit frontend code to those who actually need to, which in turn lessens the risk of malicious code being added that compromises the security and privacy of everyone who accesses Wikipedia. For more information, please review the FAQ.
- Syntax highlighting has been graduated from a Beta feature on the English Wikipedia. To enable this feature, click the highlighter icon (
) in your editing toolbar (or under the hamburger menu in the 2017 wikitext editor). This feature can help prevent you from making mistakes when editing complex templates. - IP-based cookie blocks should be deployed to English Wikipedia in July (previously scheduled for June). This will cause the block of a logged-out user to be reloaded if they change IPs. This means in most cases, you may no longer need to do /64 range blocks on residential IPv6 addresses in order to effectively block the end user. It will also help combat abuse from IP hoppers in general. For the time being, it only affects users of the desktop interface.
Miscellaneous
- Currently around 20% of admins have enabled two-factor authentication, up from 17% a year ago. If you haven't already enabled it, please consider doing so. Regardless if you use 2FA, please practice appropriate account security by ensuring your password is secure and unique to Wikimedia.
Hilary of Chichester scheduled for TFA
This is to let you know that the Hilary of Chichester article has been scheduled as today's featured article for July 4, 2018. Please check the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/July 4, 2018, but note that a coordinator will trim the lead to around 1100 characters anyway, so you aren't obliged to do so. Thanks! Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:55, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for this man who "isn't really a saintly bishop, but he wasn't a bad boy either. Just a typical 12th century bishop and royal judge." - Forgot to sign above, sorry. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:10, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
RE - N&N
I added N&N to The Holocaust in Poland. See this diff, talk page section, and subsequent editing to this section. I think I fairly presented both views (those who would exclude, and those who would include). Initially - Poles as victims of the Holocaust was sourced to the IPN which actually did not make the stmt (they referred to Jews as Holocaust victims, and Poles as war and occupation victims).Icewhiz (talk) 15:34, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
- You added it without a page number and in such a way that it's almost impossible to figure out what is the quote and what isn't. And N&N present FOUR views, not two. You need to read the whole freaking CHAPTER to get what N&N are trying to do with their definitions. Not just a couple of pages or a Google snippet view. And for the sake of all the gods - learn to put book titles into italics. You've been on Wikipedia long enough to learn that it isn't someone else's job to clean up after your edits. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:42, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
Hi! You completely misunderstood me.
I completely agree with the viewpoint that Poles in general weren’t victims of Holocaust.My point was Icewhiz claim that Nazis weren’t engaing in genocide against Polish people.While Poles weren’t part of Holocaust, they certainly were victims of genocide, this is accepted by mainstream historians and in line with verdicts made in Nuremberg Trials.We have to remember that while Holocaust was the most ruthless and total genocide carried out by Nazi Germany, it wasn’t the only one.Again, this is nothing radical,just normal mainstream theory.I have limited access to internet at the moment, I would appreciate if you could amend your statement accordingly as it was a misunderstanding.Regards --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 17:06, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
- My point is that the citation given for the statement is wrong - and that the fact that this wasn't noticed by either side is rather reflective of the battleground mentality currently active in the area. I just used your diff because it was handy - since I happen to own Columbia Guide so I could see the full context of the citation and compare it to the information presented in the various diffs. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:09, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
Sacrifices
Hi, Thought of you when expanding this section! Do you guys follow the old ways? Johnbod (talk) 17:44, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
- Not in full on animal sacrifice, at least right now. We're not in a place where it'd be easy nor are we settled permanently (still trying to get the house on the market). Hubby's also Asatru, so it's all a bit up in the air who gets to sacrifice when too (grins). If I need to do an animal sacrifice - I do it symbolically - usually make a tiny animal from dough or use a picture. Cultus Deorum/Religio Romano/Roman Polytheistic Reconstructionism is very much more household centered in its reincarnation - lares and penates are a big part along with local spirits. So each meal sees a small libation, etc. (I put mine into a small lidded container which I periodically ritually clean and burn the contents). When we get settled, we'll probably set up an altar outside and any butchering we do will see an offering, but unlikely to do a sacrifice of an animal just because unless it's a major crisis requiring a large sacrifice. I'd love to get a place with access to a cave for the proper feeling when offering to the cthonic deities... but we'll see. I'm also very much Roman in my cultic beliefs, not Greco-Roman. So I try to stay true to the older, Republican traditions without bringing in the Grecificiatoin of the mythos. My personal feeling is that the equating of the Greek gods with the Roman gods was pretty much a manifestation of the highly literate Grecophiles in Roman society (thank you Scipio Africanus!) - I very much see it as more of an affectation than a true syncretistic adaptation (ala Serapis). I also venerate Epona, Bast, and ... Loki - one reason I appreciate Cultus Deorum is that it is very much unapologetic about "stealing" other gods and it allows you to pull in local gods or gods from other pantheons that you feel particularly attracted to. Loki, of course, is quite controversial in Asatru ... which is probably one reason I didn't follow the hubby. I think he avoided going Cultus Deorum just to avoid me having him do the Salian priest thing... There's a group in the Ukraine building a Roman cultic site - http://templvm.org ... and several other groups trying to form. It's certainly interesting. Obviously, Wicca's the big dog in the polytheism realm, with Asatru coming in second... but I have to always choose the difficult/different path and the pull was just to a different pantheon/cultus. (There is also a group trying to reconstruct the ancient Indo-European religion... talk about picking a hard pantheon to follow!!) Ealdgyth - Talk 18:22, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. -- SuggestBot (talk) 12:34, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
Managing holocaust deniers
An interesting discussion here [7] on how they're dealt with on one of the more sober subreddits. Acroterion (talk) 17:45, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker) It's actually, I'd venture to suggest, the antithesis of of Reddit itself—and both parties do know it! —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 18:32, 21 July 2018 (UTC)