Jump to content

User talk:Elinruby/Archives/2023/March

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


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:
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)

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,[1] partly because of deliberate disinformation spread by the black troops themselves as they travelled around the country.[2] While entirely unfounded, the notion "that we Africans eat people", as one RAR soldier put it,[2] had a fearsome psychological effect; men of 1RAR reported Japanese soldiers picking up their comrades' bodies in the midst of battle and running away.[2]" Elinruby (talk) 06:42, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Binda 2007, p. 73.
  2. ^ a b c Stapleton 2011, p. 188.

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Your article Draft:Rubricaire

Information icon 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)

Page needed for digital books on GBooks without page numbers

I've noticed [1]. If we follow the link to [2], 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. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 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. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 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. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 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: [3] 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. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 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? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 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? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 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)

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 [4]? 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)

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 Read! Talk! 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_creepTalk 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)

Technical note

Re: [5]. 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)

Verification needed - everywhere

Just a random recent item from my watchlist: Talk:Propaganda_in_the_Soviet_Union#Unsourced_reference. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 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)

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)

... 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)

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)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Elinruby/Archives/2023/March&oldid=1162435896"