User talk:Paul Siebert/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Vandalism

That is the first warning to stop vandalize the article GULAG.Celasson (talk) 13:00, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

communicat

Thanks your thoughtful and helpful comments at WW2 discussion. I'll soon respond there. Regards. Communicat (talk) 18:23, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I believe we might have met personally in London, in the distant past -- Think Kings Cross / student essays / things people do for money -- about 20 years ago. If I'm not mistaken your Phd thesis had something to do with comparing WW1 with WW2, the former as a labour-intensive war, the latter as capital intensive. If you're not the same Paul Phd, my apologies. Regards. Communicat (talk) 13:30, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, not. I am not a professional historian and my PhD had nothing to do with history. Let me also point out that, in my opinion, the style you conduct your discussion on the WWII talk page in not satisfactory: in actuality people are much more friendly than you think. Try to focus on providing more concrete arguments and more sources, and avoid general comments on the article as whole (which in general is in a good shape) and on concrete editors. Otherwise, your activity will have the effect opposite to what you want to achieve. BTW, I myself is not fully satisfied with this article, but I believe its improvement can be done gradually and in much peaceful manner.
Cheers,
--Paul Siebert (talk) 13:17, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunatly, Paul Siebert, you have difficulties to define , what is a curriculum is [[1]] and thinks that it should be written by students.In what field you earned his PhD.If I may ask?Celasson (talk) 13:05, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

August 2010

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Gulag. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If the edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. VQuakr (talk) 03:52, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Stanisław_Bułak-Bałachowicz

Hi Paul, I don't have much of a dog in this fight but this edit [2] (in particular the "notorious bands in the service of the Polish army") is quite POV and inflammatory. Another concern is that it conflates two distinct issues: 1) A "notable victory". The part which says Perhaps the most notable victory of the Bułak-Bałachowicz's group took place on September 26, when its forces once again broke through enemy lines and captured Pinsk. The city was the most important rail road junction in the area and was planned as the last stand of the Bolshevik forces still fighting to the west of that city. After it was lost, the Red Army central front collapsed and the withdrawal turned into a panic retreat. This text is obviously about the importance of the military operation concerned and it describes a tactical/military victory. The part which you added; committed a series of Jewish pogroms (sic). There were hundreds of victims of rape and murder in Pinsk and in the vicinity. is about what happened afterwards (like I said, I don't have much of a dog in this fight). At the very least, both things should be described - the military importance of the capture of Pinsk by BB and then what happened afterwards. Regardless, wording such as "notorious bands in the service of the Polish army" needs to be obviously avoided. This edit is also very uncharacteristic of you, if I may say so.radek (talk) 02:37, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

This wording was taken from the cited source, I just slightly softened it. Since nothing is said in the article about anti-Semite atrocities of Bułak-Bałachowicz, I think this wording should stay. In addition, the source tells that Bułak-Bałachowicz's "bands" just entered a city after withdrawal of the the Soviet troops, so the role of Bułak-Bałachowicz in Pinsk capture is controversial. In any event, the role of Bułak-Bałachowicz in pogroms should be described in more details.--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:56, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, ok. Two separate issues. One is how the military operation should be described. And the wording that was there which you removed addressed that. So even, if the text added is legit, that is not a reason to remove the text that was there before. If you want to discuss the "controversial" participation of BB in the capture of Pinsk then the text should be about the controversial capture of Pinsk by BB. There's no reason to remove the text that was there before.

The second, separate, issue is the participation of BB's troops in any kind of pogroms that took place. I agree that if there are sources for this then they should be included. But this is a separate aspect from the military importance of the capture of Pinsk which you removed. I'll look at the sources later.radek (talk) 03:04, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

BTW, there is already an article on the Pinsk massacre - so just linking to it, while discussing the military operations, would probably be sufficient.radek (talk) 03:06, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

The reason for removal of the text was that it, as well as most of the article is unsourced. I replaced a piece of unsourced text with the text taken from a reliable source that states that:

"The cruel excesses committed on Jews by the notorious bands of General Bulak-Balachowicz in the service of the Polish army, which entered Pinsk in October 1920 after the evacuation of the Soviet troops, constitute another chapter of the martyrdom of the sorely tried Jewish community. There were hundreds of victims of rape and murder in Pinsk and in the vicinity."

Regarding sources in general, the situation is as follows: there is almost no English sources about Stanisław_Bułak-Bałachowicz. In this situation, the article should rely on other sources. What sources they could be? In my opinion, Jewish, Polish, Russian and Belorussian sources should be represented equally, because the Bułak-Bałachowicz's activity affected the representatives of all these nations. Obviously, the description of such a controversial figure would depend on the source's language. Thus, Jewish source describes him as a bandit and criminal, Russian sources tell about him as about filcher, bandit and advenchurer, contemporary Polish and Belorussian as about a talented commander or a national hero, accordingly. The article in its present form is a nationalist Polish-Belorussian views. That should be fixed.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:21, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Re Pinsk massacre, the source tells about it separately. The extended quote is below:

"Then came the horrible day of April 5th 1919, when 35 Jews who had gathered in the Beth Am at a meeting on relief activities were dragged out by Polish soldiers, put against the cloister wall and mercilessly executed. The cruel excesses committed on Jews by the notorious bands of General Bulak-Balachowicz in the service of the Polish army, which entered Pinsk in October 1920 after the evacuation of the Soviet troops, constitute another chapter of the martyrdom of the sorely tried Jewish community. There were hundreds of victims of rape and murder in Pinsk and in the vicinity."

In other words, according to the source, the atrocity of Bulak-Balachowicz's "bands", which were just "in the service of the Polish army" was a separate event that took place after the Pinsk massacre proper(which, according to the source, was committed by regular Polish Army).. In addition, the word "notorious" means that Bulak-Balachowicz's troops were known to commit such pogroms systematically.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:29, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) Ok, I'm probably not being clear. Your edit [[3] replaced text which was already in the article with new text. This means that there's two issues here. First, whether or not the text that was already there in the first place deserved to be removed. Second, whether or not the text you replaced it with is NPOV. It's sort of like two-reverts-in-one. My sense is that the answers are no, and no. But let's leave the second issue - of the text you inserted - out of it for a second. The first issue - that the capture of Pinsk was a notable military phenomenon in the war under discussion - is important in and of itself and therefore should remain in the article. Hence I am going to put it back in, though keeping the text you added (for now). The second issue - the pogrom that might have happened and how to describe it - we can deal with afterwards. Do you agree with this?radek (talk) 04:09, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that it seems that there is no agreement between sources about the role of Bułak-Bałachowicz in capture of Pinsk. At least one source states that his troops just entered the city after evacuation of Soviet troops. How do you propose to resolve this issue?--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:17, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

WQA Alert

Hello, Paul Siebert. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Doc9871 (talk) 12:01, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Request for mediation rejected

The Request for mediation concerning World War II (overview article), to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. An explanation of why it has not been possible to allow this dispute to proceed to mediation is provided at the mediation request page (which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time). Queries on the rejection of this dispute can be directed to the Committee chairperson or e-mailed to the mediation mailing list.

For the Mediation Committee, AGK 20:15, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
(This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.)

Sorry WW2

Sorry if there was any edit conflict...did not realizes you were editing the page at the same time... All good ..Moxy (talk) 04:00, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

:-)
--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:49, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

This might be of interest to you

[4] As of January 31, 1951, the amnesty legislation had benefited 792,176 people. They included people with six-month sentences, but also about 35,000 people with sentences of up to one year who were released on parole. Frei specifies that these figures include a bit more than 3,000 functionaries of the SA, the SS, and the Nazi Party who participated in dragging victims to jails and camps; 20,000 other Nazi perpetrators sentenced for "deeds against life" (presumably murder); 30,000 sentenced for causing bodily injury, and about 5,200 charged with "crimes and misdemeanors in office

Btw-the Denazification article on Wiki needs serious rewrite to be more informative and neutral.Right now it is very apologetic, with claims inserted like "witch hunt" regarding denazification.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 12:27, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. I found some sources on that account, and I will try to do something in close future.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:20, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Great. I have some sources of my own regarding acceptence of Nazis in West Germany and protection of war criminals, so I can certainly contribute to this article and cooperate with you on expanding it.Have a good day.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 00:11, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

"Might well qualify as" vs. "may constitute"

The fact, that the Spanish cruiser Vizcaya is seen above water the day after the Battle of Santiago de Cuba – despite the claimed 20 yard hole in her bow – raises the theoretical possibility that the Spanish won the battle and in fact the whole Spanish-American War. (more...)

The Spanish cruiser Vizcaya might well have qualified as the most powerful war ship on the Atlantic, if only her armor had not been breached by the main guns of U.S. battleships Texas, Iowa, Oregon, and Indiana and the armored cruiser USS Brooklyn.

More at Talk:Mass killings under Communist regimes#According to professor Michael Ellman.... -- Petri Krohn (talk) 22:05, 1 September 2010 (UTC)'

Agreed.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:08, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I read trough the original source you provided and immediately realized that I had seen this wreck of a straw man argument before on Wikipedia (see right). Anyway, here is a barnstar for you. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 22:21, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

P.S. – I do not think tendentious editing is the right expression – that is what the article is full of. I think this is a more willful misrepresentation of sources. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 22:25, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		For your resilience in verifying sources. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 22:13, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

[5] I knew there were previous discussions, but I had no idea where to even start to look. Great job finding them so quickly! Jmlk17 17:26, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

-) --Paul Siebert (talk) 18:24, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Paul Siebert. You have new messages at Wgfinley's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hello, Paul Siebert. You have new messages at Wgfinley's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

You might be interested

Mass suicide in Demmin-a very strange article. Perhaps you know some sources about this story which could make the article more neutral.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 13:07, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

The article cites the Goeschel's book, although only the number of victims has been taken from here. I found the article written by the same author (Suicide at the End of the Third Reich Author(s): Christian GoeschelSource: Journal of Contemporary History, Vol. 41, No. 1 (Jan., 2006), pp. 153-173) where he analysed the causes of mass suicides in Germany and explains them mostly not in connection with the Red Army's atrocities.

"It is perhaps this wave of suicides, a highly individual phenomenon that sheds light on wider trends and mentalities, which illustrates very clearly the violent breakdown of German society in 1945 that included the collapse of moral, psychological and religious norms and values.00 For the mass of Germans, life had been restructured to promote an eventually suicidal war campaign, and when this failed, the prohibition on suicide was lifted, and killing oneself became culturally and socially acceptable in a culture of suicide in defeat.1'0 The lack of hope in the future was felt by the German people in general, and found expression in the common fears and common language they used to describe them. With each suicide having a profound impact on friends, families and relatives, they all had to come to terms with their losses on a very personal and emotional level. Since the suicide epidemic mainly occurred in East Germany, it is reasonable to speculate that the emotional and psychological burden on those in the East was much greater and drastic than on those in West Germany."

In connection to that, I believe the stress which has been made on the atrocities committed by Soviet military (with has been made using standard cliches) seems to be redundant.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:18, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

There is another aspect to this; the number of women committing suicide is often used as proof of "Mass rape of German women by Soviet Red Army" and of the barbarity of the rapists. The truth seems to be that suicidality was part of the Nazi psyche, like Hitler they just could not stand defeat. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 13:14, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

This does not contradict to what I read. However, none of the sources I read draw this conclusion.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:25, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

This might be a useful source.

• Christian Goeschel (2009). Suicide in Nazi Germany. Oxford University Press. ISBN 0199532567.

You do not seem to have email enabled. Can you email me. I am drafting something and would need help with sources. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 14:21, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

P.S. – In fact Molobo has started an article at Mass suicides in 1945 Nazi Germany. He seems to have the book, as he is using it as his primary source. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 14:48, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

P.P.P. – I thought the photo on the book cover was staged, but in fact it is authentic, see here File:Leipzigsuicide.jpg. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 14:54, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

The book seems to be an extended version of the article I quoted on the top of the section.

I disabled my email after notorious EEML case to eliminate any possibility to communuicate with me off-Wiki. I personally see no problem with off-Wiki communication between good faith users (and also I saw no problem with off-Wiki communication between EEML members per se, provided that they use it for creation of good context, not for falcification of the consensus procedure). However, taking into account the recent development of the EEML issue, and, whereas I don't see why good faith editors cannot contact openly, I prefer to avoid any e-mail contacts (and do not recommend you to do that). If you experience problems with sources, please, let me know. I have an access to some databases and I believe I will be able to provide you with needed refs and quotes (if they exist; otherwise, I'll let you know that such sources do not exist, or represent minority views, so they should be treated with cautions).
Sincerely, --Paul Siebert (talk) 15:13, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

File copyright problem with File:Soviet flag on the Reichstag roof Khaldei.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Soviet flag on the Reichstag roof Khaldei.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. J Milburn (talk) 16:50, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Resolved.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:14, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

The Article

I'm going to add a section based on what I read in German 1945. I'll publish it on the talk page first so changes can be made.

Anonymiss Madchen (talk) 23:53, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Good.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:54, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Battle of Borodino

Hey Paul I've concluded my research do you mind popping over and reading what I've found? Chandler's book was written in 1966 and his line seems to be in line with the historiography of the Soviet period at that time. We need to discuss it a bit.Tirronan (talk) 12:47, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I think the work you have done is generally good, although some issues still remain. Firstly, the lede still reflects only the Riehn's position. I also see some inconsistency in the infobox: if the battle was French victory, how can it be a French strategic loss? IMO, if the sources don't tell otherwise, the outcome should be "tactical victory" and "strategically indecisive" (neither French nor Russian strategic situation changed appreciably as a result of the battle). --Paul Siebert (talk) 02:46, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Battle of Berlin

Did you intend to change the section heading here? VernoWhitney (talk) 15:36, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

No. Have no idea how did it happen.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:57, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

WWII Talk

When I made that edit I was restoring the Talk page to Nick-D's version. [6] I was acting under the impression that Communicat had refactored Nick-D's comments. Apologies for the misunderstanding. Edward321 (talk) 00:15, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Now I see what you are talking about. I accidentally removed this. [7] Apologies, I clearly screwed up there. Edward321 (talk) 00:26, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Glad to hear it was done by accident.--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:30, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Battle of Berlin photo issue

Paul, I don't know if we will prevail as to the "photo issue". Irregardless of the outcome, we should write a stub or article as to the "raising the flag over the Reichstag photo" such has been done with that other iconic photo from WWII (by other editors) of US Marines in the PTO, Raising the flag on Iwo Jima. We could then put the photo you have obtained up and link it to the "Battle of Berlin" article. What do you think? Kierzek (talk) 23:59, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Here is an alternative (File:SovieticsAtBrandenburg.jpg), but I really do not understand, how this could be {{PD-self}}! -- Petri Krohn (talk) 00:06, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

It is hardly {{PD-self}}. If I am not wrong, last time when I looked at this photo, it was not PD-self. More importantly, we need the Reichstag and nothing else: the taking of the Reichstag was the political goal #1 since 1943; it effectively marked the end of the WWII in Europe, and that fact is important enough to warrant inclusion of the photography of this event into the WWII related articles.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:13, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Battle of Berlin, etc

Please, just drop it. You're really starting to wear me down, which would hardly constitute a reasonable conclusion. We don't need these masses of debate- please, you know more about this topic than me, you'd easily be able to resolve this issue in minutes if you wanted to. Why do we have to go through all this? Are you enjoying it? I'm certainly not... J Milburn (talk) 00:37, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Don't be egocentric. For me, it is also not a light chat. I am also somewhat tied. However, we need to end this dispute with some general agreement, because I have a feeling that in future we may encounter each other on WP pages again and again, and similar dispute will be resumed. I propose to take a break for few days to allow passions to settle down. During this period I promise not to undertake any actions regarding this image, and expect you to do the same. I have to think not only about new arguments for the future dispute, but also about possible solutions, which would take into account some of your concerns. Agreed?--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:22, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

PS. The words "you'd easily be able to resolve this issue in minutes if you wanted to" are a hidden accusation in bad faith. Although such words have no effect on me, I advise you to moderate your tone in future discussions which involve other editors: you lose your patience too frequently(I mean, too frequently for an experienced editor and administrator). Try to be more friendly, peoples in actuality are better than you think. :-) --Paul Siebert (talk) 14:29, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

There was no egocentricism, and there's no assumption of bad faith here. I just don't know why we need to go on and on and on and on. We should all be doing our best to minimise non-free content- we should never ask the question "Am I allowed to use this here?" we should always be asking the question "can I get away without using this here?" J Milburn (talk) 14:37, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Frankly, we two belong to two different camps, and, accordingly, we see the purposes of Wikipedia differently. You goal is to make Wikipedia as free as possible, although you don't mind it to be a good encyclopaedia, whereas place these two tasks in a reverse order. Your position has nothing in common with a desire to protect Wikipedia from possible lawsuits: for instance, you opposed to inclusion of the Rosental's photo into the Iwo Jima article despite the fact that AP explicitly granted a right to use this photo for WP purposes, so the usage of this photo will not result in any lawsuits against Wikipedia. I have to say I understand your position, moreover, in this particular case I share it: the Battle of Iwo Jima article has a lot of good free photos which cover all important aspects of the battle (including the free photo of the flag on Suribachi). Moreover, we have a US postal stamp there, which is in actuality a precise and detailed reproduction of the Rosental's photo (which makes, in my opinion, the former to be a derivative work of the latter, however, I don't care). In other words, in this situation we probably have a good opportunity to create the article which is totally free from any non-free media (although, in my opinion, the last word belongs to those users who work on this article and are more familiar with the subject). Note, I agree with you in this particular case not because you are formally right, but because I feel that the absence of the Rosental's photo is really not detrimental for the article, and the article's ability to achieve its educational and encyclopaedic purposes is not affected (or just negligibly affected) by the removal of this photo.

In other words, I think that the main problem with your vision of the issue is your belief that formal application of the policy without going into details of every particular article gives you a correct and indisputable answer about the fate of one or another non-free image. This position is deeply flawed in my opinion, firstly, because WP policy was not conceived as a collection of formal rules, and, secondly, because formal application of policy rules is harmful for Wikipedia.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:23, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Wow. Well, you've misjudged my position, my intentions and the nature of the NFCC in one fell swoop, there. If our positions are really as incompatible as you make out, just give up now, stop wasting my time... Frankly, I'm not interested in dealing with editors who suggest that I "don't mind [Wikipedia] to be a good encyclopaedia". J Milburn (talk) 15:53, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Don't take offence. In actuality, I just tried to explain you how your position looks like: your behaviour on the BoB talk page creates an impression that the quality of this WP article is not your primary concern. It is very good if I was wrong. Again, I propose you to think about my words and ask yourself: if several editors who worked on WWII related articles for a very long time strongly oppose to removal of this particular photo (note, I never opposed to removal of any other non-free photo so persistently and stubbornly, you may check my history if you have any doubts), then, probably, there is some serious reason behind that, which you overlooked?--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:05, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I can understand that the photo is important- I see several articles in which the photo/variants of the photo are used absolutely legitimately. The thing is that it can't simply come down to "those users who work on this article and are more familiar with the subject" to make judgements on issues like this- for a start, their involvement with the article automatically means that they look at the issue in a different way. It's comparable to how we ask outside editors to copyedit. Equally, the editors of the article may not fully understand/care about the particular policy issues. For instance, at a recent FAC, an editor thought it was "a shame" that a copyright violation would end up deleted, and continually asked reviewers to ignore the images, and focus on the prose, when the images were (at that time) the real problem. Equally (and I speak with first-hand experience here) people can often be a little more willing to include things like non-free content, trivial information, plot information and so on in their own articles, while they would support the removal (or even actively remove) comparable material in other places. J Milburn (talk) 16:14, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Regarding your "...people can often be a little more willing to include things..." As I already said, I never opposed to justified attempts to delete non-free images from the articles I work on, and you had an opportunity to see that I am always ready to find a free replacement for non-free images (even when such replacement is not fully adequate). For instance, I noticed that something is wrong with one of the original images the EF collage is made from. I am going to fix it in close future (in connection to that, please, do me a favour, don't remove this collage from the EF infobox: I remember about this problem and I'll replace it with something else soon.) Consequently, this your argument does not work here, moreover, that adds additional points to my position: since my attitude towards non-free media is reasonable in general, the fact that I oppose to the removal of this particular image means that there is something here that you overlooked.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:30, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely, it does, but I think you misunderstood what I was saying- people can generally be more inclined to include NFC in their own articles, while still fully respecting the NFCC elsewhere. Originally (if you'll excuse the very trivial subject matter...) I used an image that was completely unwarranted in Connie Talbot, while spending a lot of time cleaning up other non-free content. It's harder to look with objective eyes at articles on which you have worked- that's why processes like GAC/FAC exist. It would be a little silly if we just left that to "those users who work on this article and are more familiar with the subject". J Milburn (talk) 16:38, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

No, I didn't misunderstood, just didn't make myself clear enough. Of course, you are right, an opinion of non-involved person is sometimes very important and helpful, however it does not mean his word has always to be the last one. In most cases it has to: as a rule, when someone replaces non-free images with free alternatives (even of poorer quality) or even removes these images, neither I nor other editors take any steps to revert that. I am watchlisting most Eastern Europe related history articles and I see that many images, which appeared to be non-free, are gradually disappearing form there. I do not oppose to this process, and I see that other editors also take no steps to prevent that. However, that does not mean that we all accept the idea that the last word always belongs to non-involved editors whose decision is based mostly on the (formally understood) NFCC rules. And this particular case is a rare exception.

I cannot say this image is non-replaceable. I know several alternatives, however, all of them are not free. That is a major problem of the EF related article: the photos are scarce, and even those few photos which are available are non-free per new Russian legislation. I know Russian WP even send a request to adjust Russian copyright law to make usage of this images possible in Wikipedia, however, I doubt something will be done in reasonable future.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:11, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Re:Two questions.

In answer to the first- if they're on Commons as CC from the German archive, they're fine for our purposes. I have no opinion on the wider issue, I can't say it's anything I really know about. In answer to the second- yes, but, that's not necessarily the same thing as "public domain". J Milburn (talk) 18:24, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Something interesting

This caught my eye. The claim in the hook seems pretty stunning. Maybe you will find it interesting too. In case you have expertise about the subject, I'm wondering what your opinion about the claim is? Offliner (talk) 22:02, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Here is a review of the source used. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 07:29, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

The fact that some plans existed to bomb Baku is well known. However, the way the article is written is hardly correct. The information is presented in such a way that a reader gets an impression that only German actions against the USSR and France prevented the bombing. However, in actuality even after Sept 1 1939 Britain still hoped that the USSR would eventually become the British ally, so the British policy towards the USSR was "frigid, but non-provocative" (I can provide sources if necessary). The attack of Baku would contradict to British grand strategy, so this attack was considered as possible, but unlikely step.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:55, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

No doubt there would have been voices who hoped that the USSR would eventually become an ally of the British, which you can no doubt find sources for. There were also those who advocated making peace with Nazi Germany too, remember the Munich Agreement? The fall of France was a game changer, it is Osborn's conclusion that this effectively stopped the operation. Recall that the British attacked the French fleet in Operation Catapult as a result, so it really isn't inconceivable that Britain was seriously going to attack the Soviet Union in 1940. Osborn documents that this operation had gone beyond the planning stage; serious preparation was being undertaken: airfields being built, bombs stockpiled, aircraft transferred and recon flights undertaken. Osborn also mentions Churchill's long standing anti-Bolshevism, his strong advocacy of foreign intervention in the Russian Civil War, etc, as a factor affecting his thinking too. --Martin (talk) 20:12, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

GULAG

Thank you for the professional and balanced discussion about GULAG statisticts! I had a similar discussion regarding the Russian Wikipedia article on stalinist repressions (it is a pity that such an comprehensive if unfinished article (ru:Сталинские репрессии) with numbers of victims per categories and different sources is missing in the English wiki).

I would just write what I wrote in the Russian Wikipedia discussions about the number of victims - in an English-language album about the Holocaust it is written that the arguments about the corect number of victims actual dininish the value of EACH perished life. If you say that Solzhenitsin's or Conquest's estimates are exagerrated and the official archive figures should be trusted it does not mean that you try to acquit Stalin. Olegwiki (talk) 14:42, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I agree that the discussion of the number of victims should be more detailed in English Wikipedia. I believe the Russian article will be helpful for that.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:26, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

World War II article

Hi Paul, Would you be able to provide a citation to support the material you reverted back to here? Thanks, Nick-D (talk) 08:41, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

The sources are:

1. Земское В.Н. К вопросу о репатриации советских граждан. 1944-1951 годы // История СССР. 1990. № 4 (Zemskov V.N. On repatriation of Soviet citizens. Istoriya SSSR., 1990, No.4. This is the article from the late Soviet/Russian scientific journal. The figures I refer to have been taken from this and other articles of this scholar. Unfortunately, this concrete article is in Russian, so it would be senseless to provide a quote here. However, Zemskov's data are being widely used by Western colleagues, e.g.
2. Edwin Bacon. Glasnost' and the Gulag: New Information on Soviet Forced Labour around World War II. Source: Soviet Studies, Vol. 44, No. 6 (1992), pp. 1069-1086.
3. Michael Ellman. Soviet Repression Statistics: Some Comments. Source: Europe-Asia Studies, Vol. 54, No. 7 (Nov., 2002), pp. 1151-1172.

Although these authors do not reproduce the figures on ex-POWs, they confirm existence of special filtration camps, which were different from GULAG camps, they confirm that many of the filtration camps' inmates were sent home (although they add a reservation that those who died in these camps were also considered to be sent home: "The postwar filtration statistics, which purport to show that as of 1 March 1946, out of the 4.2 million people checked, 58% had been sent home, include those who died in the filtration camps among those 'sent home'." Ellmann, op. cit.). In addition, these, as well as other authors, including even late Conquest, widely use other Zemskov's figures, and do not question reliability of the data obtained by Zemskov. See, e.g., the Edwin Bacon's conclusion about the documents used by Zemskov:

"The arguments in favour of the archive revelations' worth are strong. The possibility of their being a recent fabrication is virtually inconceivable, as several scholars have worked from them, and in any case the atmosphere of glasnost' prevailing in the last years of the Soviet Union militates against a convincing motive for such subterfuge. Therefore, genuine secret state documents of the era are being dealt with. It may be supposed that the authorities wished to have the correct facts available to them, and hence sought to ensure that the reported figures were reliable and comprehensive. Many of the data, notably with regard to the labour settlers, sub-divide the numbers involved in terms of gender, age, nationality, offence of which they were convicted and geographical location. The various types of forced labour and definitions of categories also serve to increase knowledge in a previously sketchy area." (op. cit.)

I think what should be said in the article is that "Soviet ex-POWs and repatriated civilians were treated with great suspect as potential Nazi collaborators, and that some of them were sent to GULAG upon check by NKVD." --Paul Siebert (talk) 16:29, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Paul. A rate of 42% of 4.2 million people being sent to prison camps seems higher than the wording "some of them" implies though. It might be best to quote this statistic in the text. Nick-D (talk) 23:00, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

You misunderstood the quote. Neither Zemskov nor Ellman implied that all the repatriants were send either home or to GULAG. The actual state of things was much more complex. In actuality, a full statistics is as follows:

Results of the checks and the filtration of the repatriants (by 1 March 1946)
Categogy	Total	%	Civilian	%	POWs	%
Sent home (including those who died in custody)	2,427,906	57.81	2,146,126	80.68	281,780	18.31
Conscripted	801,152	19.08	141,962	5.34	659,190	42.82
Sent to labour battalions of the Ministry of Defence	608,095	14.48	263,647	9.91	344,448	22.37
Sent to NKVD (spetskontingent)	272,867	6.50	46,740	1.76	226,127	14.69
Were waiting for transportation and worked in Soviet military units abroad	89,468	2.13	61,538	2.31	27,930	1,81
Totally:	4,199,488		2,660,013		1,539,475

You can see how deceptive statistics can be: although only 58% of the repatriants were released (and some of them in actuality died by that moment), only 6.5% were to NKVD as spetskontingent (the latter not necessarily meant they were sent to GULAG: sometimes, very frequently, that meant just 6-year exile to remote parts of the USSR.). The discrepancy between the number of sent home and the number of spetskontingent is quite simple: the heavily devastated country simply could not afford a luxury to allow these people just to go home and recover. Many ex-POWs and young civilian were conscripted to serve in the Red Army, others worked in labour battalions to rebuilt the infrastructure destroyed during the war. The labour battalions were closer to military service rather than to GULAG, and, accordingly, these battalions were run by the Ministry (Narkomat) of Defence. Of course, according to contemporary moral norms such a treatment of the peoples who survived in German captivity was inhuman, however, it is necessary to take into account that other Soviet people suffered in about the same extent during the war, therefore, our contemporary criteria of humanism are simply inapplicable to those time situation.

In addition, you have to agree that 226,127 real or alleged Nazi-collaborators out of more than 30 million of serving in the Red Army during a four years period is a quite realistic figure.

The number of those who died in filtration camps (i.e. of those who was released but didn't arrive home) was 32,381. --Paul Siebert (talk) 03:51, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for that Paul; I agree with your wording in light of those statistics. It might be best to copy and paste this discussion to Talk:World War II so there's a rationale for the change. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 07:14, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Done.--Paul Siebert (talk) 11:33, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Paul Nick-D (talk) 22:46, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

See

Here mark nutley (talk) 18:10, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

There is another way

Could you verify the source here on Trotsky stating statements about Lenin's famous quote? Is it a valid RS for the following stament anyway?

It is said that when he heard of the execution Lenin calmly replied, "There is another way," never becoming involved in a plot to kill the Tsar or other high officials. Leon Trotsky, though, states it is highly unlikely that Lenin made the statement, knowing that Lenin was a supporter of terrorism until the early 1890s,

(Igny (talk) 23:23, 9 October 2010 (UTC))

MKUCR POV tag

Paul, I belatedly responded to more than one of your posts about the POV template. TFD suggested that the way I did it might be easily overlooked, so here is the diff. (I have noticed your response to one part of my responses, but just in case you didn't see the others...) Thanks. AmateurEditor (talk) 23:14, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for informing. Please, read my last post there [8]. Although it is not a direct responce to your post, it probably may help to come to some consensus.--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:55, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Re. removing Justus Maximus's posting

To quote from WP:RPA "Removal of text

There is no official policy regarding when or whether most personal attacks should be removed, although it has been a topic of substantial debate. Removing unquestionable personal attacks from your own user talk page is rarely a matter of concern. On other talk pages, especially where such text is directed against you, removal should typically be limited to clear-cut cases where it is obvious the text is a true personal attack."

I'd say being described as an apologist for terrorism is a personal attack. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:39, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

It is not a personal attack. It is a legal threat. However, since your removal does not work (the text is being restored again), it would be better not to join a talk page edit war.--Paul Siebert (talk) 13:44, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

You seem to be right. Per WP:LEGAL, "Wikipedia's policy on defamation is to immediately delete libelous material when it has been identified. If you believe that you are the subject of a libelous statement on Wikipedia, please contact the information team at info-enwikimedia.org." However, again, since the editor persistently re-inserts this materials it would probably be better to leave the text as it is.--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:07, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I'll keep out of this until it is resolved, unless JM repeats the specific remark, or something similar. I'm in no mood to engage in calm debate, but I'll reserve my right to remove any more such personal attacks on me. It would probably be better for non-involved parties to try to sort this mess out. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:15, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Sure.--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:19, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Your post to ANI re Justus Maximus

Please note that I have moved your post to a previous section discussing the same editor, per my action here. I have kept the header used by you as a sub-heading in the existing discussion. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:00, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Justus Maximus at ANI

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Mathsci (talk) 15:34, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Paul Siebert. You have new messages at Access Denied's talk page.
Message added 17:00, 24 October 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

AFTERMATH main article

Hi Paul, I've started reworking the main Aftermath article (with predictable disruptions by edward321). How 'bout getting involved in improvement of same? Regards. Communicat (talk) 13:34, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki

The bombing of Nagasaki and Hiroshima is not comparable to the Holocaust, though civilians died in both events, one was genocide and the other a military operation against military and naval targets. It was not an action that targeted civilians and therefore the opening section should not state that it was. Whether minor or not that is a matter of opinion but the fact that American air forces targeted military bases is not. Please do not revert my edit. --$1LENCE D00600D (talk) 04:13, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Since the Holocaust goes first, your edit understates intentionality of the Holocaust, and, therefore, is unacceptable. Try to propose another solution.--Paul Siebert (talk) 13:32, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Couldn't help noticing this above. US Strategic Bombing Survey (USSBS) noted that both cities, Nagasaki in particular, were civilian centres and not noteworthy military targets. Communicat (talk) 13:38, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

My Response

Paul Siebert, please see my response to your post on Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. As already stated, all you need to do is retract and apologize for your false statements, and I will retract any of my own statements should it be established beyond reasonable doubt that they can be construed as "offensive" in the context. Regards, Justus Maximus (talk) 13:04, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Nomination of Soviet occupations for deletion

A discussion has begun about whether the article Soviet occupations, which you created or to which you contributed, should be deleted. While contributions are welcome, an article may be deleted if it is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines for inclusion, explained in the deletion policy.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Soviet occupations (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and you are welcome to contribute to the discussion.

You may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 01:28, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

P.S. – I went through the edit history, and it seems that all other editors involved in the article are banned. topic banned or have left Wikipedia, so I am only informing you. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 01:28, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Holodomor

With its present title the Holodomor article can never be much more than a politicized POV-fork of the Soviet famine of 1932–1933. I think it should instead concentrate on something different: the "Holodomor industry" itself. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 19:42, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't think so. Holodomor was a major part of this famine, this term is widely used now, so I see no problems with the title per se. However, this title has become an attractor for various Ukrainian nationalists, and the only thing we can do is to prevent them from converting this article into a piece of nationalist propaganda. I believe we are able to do that.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:59, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Battle of Borodino

I can use your help on the article, we have a peer review listing what should be done. I've ask everyone else that has cared to join the arguments. If we care enough for that then improving the article should be important too right?Tirronan (talk) 21:52, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I'll try to do my best, although during next week I hardly will be able to devote much time to that.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:13, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I am Russian

I think I should mention this because of the issue I had a few weeks ago with my first response.

Maybe I shouldn't have been too strong just now, about the suspicion.

--Anonymiss Madchen (talk) 23:40, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Independently of your ethnicity, it is incorrect to equate a whole nation with animals. In addition, your national identity, your personal experience and the experience of your relatives is totally irrelevant. All WP edits are based on reliable sources.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:10, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry about the recent accusation.

I included this in the older reply that I last sent, and it was obscured by the more recent comment.

----

I'm not intending in anyway to say that support for Nazi or Communist propaganda is intentional or negligent. I have had Jewish friends unintentionally express Nazi sympathizer's views on Allied actions, and I didn't blame them for it.

--Anonymiss Madchen (talk) 17:56, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

name

This isn't meant as any kind of criticism or even a complaint, but just wanted to note that I changed my username for a reason and as such I want people to stop using my real life name. Actually I don't have a problem with you in particular using my first name, but I do have that problem with regard to some others, and since I've asked them not to do so, I want to be consistent here. Thanks in advance. Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:44, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

No problem. I didn't know what is your real name is, and that you don't want people to use your previous username. In future, I will address to you by your new name.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:40, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

My content has now been censored.

I will be going to other articles to edit more productively. Also, I will be editing the Russian-Holocaust article for Sturmkreig, and portraying the truth.

--Anonymiss Madchen (talk) 16:14, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Although Wikipedia is a free encyclopaedia, there are some (few) things that the Wikipedians cannot do. My "censorship" is limited with only these things. Hope to interact with you again on the Rape... and other WP pages.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:42, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Your Question

That quote was made by General Patton, and it was taken from Wikipedia. So you already have it here. Also, I will take your advice and I will not edit that article; it's not worth it when everything you do gets undone by deniers. I have plenty of other topics I can contribute to.

You can delete that last post from the talk page if you want. You seem very intent on changing my comments, yet you can't seem to delete them yourself. This is a wiki.

--Anonymiss Madchen (talk) 16:07, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I am afraid not only I can delete all racist crap from all WP namespace, but I must do that. However, I give you a chance to do that by yourself, because, if I'll delete that by myself I'll have to report you.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:30, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

In addition, although the article about Patton does contain this quote, the quite is supplemented with the following commentary:

"Though many of his attitudes were common in his day, as with all of his opinions, he was often exceptionally blunt in his expression of them. He once wrote: " (The quote follows)

I believe, no comments are needed.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:49, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry about the disruption to the site.

I shouldn't have disrupted the site with angry content.

--Anonymiss Madchen (talk) 17:25, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

No problem.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:08, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

"Racist Crap"

1. ) Russians are not a race.
2. ) I am Russian.

--Anonymiss Madchen (talk) 16:15, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

1. . Your user page is racist in the same sense as Nazism is considered as racism.
2. If you really are Russian you should be familiar with the Evgeny Shvarts' "The Dragon" [9]. If not, you should read it. Read in any event, because it is a very good play. You should also watch this film [10], made based on this play. I would say, the film is even better (which is rare). I am sure that after watching this film you will realise that your "WWII plan", which you presented on the your talk page, could be implemented only by the dictator more terrible than Hitler and Stalin taken together.

And, in addition, have you ever thought that the idea to kill many people, for the sake of the common good, (which you promote on your user page) was unintentionally borrowed by you from some well known historical person?--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:28, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

PS. And, after reading "The Dragon" (which was written in 1942) try to realise that, had your plan been implemented, the author of this play would be dead and the play's text destroyed.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:34, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm only half Russian. I also should remind myself of the progress I am making to stop hating them, and stop self hating.

--Anonymiss Madchen (talk) 21:04, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

The ongoing discussion.

I replied to your last post, and I continued the discussion here^{User talk:Anonymiss Madchen/Genocide Denial (Talk:Rape During the occupation of Germany)} because it was very long and I did not want to take up too much of the talk page; I also left a link there too for anyone else reading the page to contribute.

--Anonymiss Madchen (talk) 04:44, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Did you find my reply?

--Anonymiss Madchen (talk) 15:34, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I was busy, sorry. You can find my reply on your talk page.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:23, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

In case you're interested

Hi, An arbitration application has been accepted by the arbitration committee concerning POV-bias at military history project] Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Military_history_POV-bias

There's also some interesting related talk at Reliable Sources Noticeboard: [[11]] Communicat (talk) 18:14, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

WWII template

Just sending you a notification that we still need to come to a conclusion about the inclusion of Tito on the WWII template. I replied several days ago and no one else has added anything. If there is no reply within the next few days I will again remove Tito from the template. --PlasmaTwa2 18:42, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

It is a part of a more general issue: what are the criteria for inclusion into the infobox. Let's discuss 3x3 as a general solution. I support it. Nick-D seems to support too.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:32, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree on the 3x3 solution and officially proposed it on the WWII talk page. Your input would be appreciated. --PlasmaTwa2 00:30, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Reply to your Response

I replied to your message.

User_talk:Anonymiss_Madchen/Genocide_Denial_(Talk:Rape_During_the_occupation_of_Germany)

--Anonymiss Madchen (talk) 06:00, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Arbitration Case

Communicat has a case before the ArbCom and, in discussion prior to the case being accepted by ArbCom, I mentioned that you had experienced negative interactions with Communicat. Let me start by naming others with whom Communicat has had similar negative interactions, as the Committee may wish to either involve them or review the interactions: Arnoutf, Parsecboy, Binksternet, Paul Siebert, Moxy, and White Shadows. Those interactions have not been universally negative, though mostly so.

This prompted Communicat to write the onus is on Habap to inform those editors that he has involved them, so that they may speak for themselves, if at all. at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/World War II. In the arbitration case, Communicat alleges anti-Soviet bias by the members of the WikiProject Military History, specifically naming Edward321, Hohum, Nick-D, Georgewilliamherbert and me. If you would like to present evidence, you would do so on the Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/World War II/Evidence page. If you disagree with my characterization of your interactions as being "mostly negative", it would be appreciated if you would state that on the evidence page to clarify the matter.

I apologize for involving you in this process as I am sure you have more enjoyable things to do. --Habap (talk) 14:58, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Paul Siebert. You have new messages at MikeNicho231's talk page.
Message added 11:47, 2 December 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Just thought you would be interested. MikeNicho231 (talk) 11:47, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry about the way I've been acting

I'm going to work to change the way I've been expressing.

--anonymissmadchen ^Talk 21:21, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Old version of the WWII info box discussion

Hello, I was wondering if you knew how far back the discussion was in relation to the WWII info box? I liked the one you posted (e.g. [12]) which was changed, I've been looking for the discussion for why it had changed, just EnigmaMcmxc idea was rather good and seemed more balanced (stopping arguments into how things should be ordered). --SuperDan89 (talk) 06:56, 05 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi

I added a short section on historical background in the article here that we discussed before[13]. I really think that without explaining the situation in WW2 Europe this article won't be neutral, and would give impression of something happening only in 1945. There is also a problem with some cherry picking of Neimark's claims[14]. Any comments welcomed.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 06:09, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I think it's pretty obvious

After reviewing your conduct, It's become quite clear that you're obviously some sort of severely anti Semitic, closeted Russian Nazi supporter, or white supremacist. I will be willing to listen to every senior editor who offers advice or instructions, except for you. I will not be intimidated by tyranny, or bigots.

--Нэмка Алэкс/Nemka Alex^Talk 20:49, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

PLEASE READ

I am not myself right now. I am sorry about the provocative edit descriptions, and edits without proper consideration. I am going to voluntarily leave for awhile, and I will return when I can discuss things.

--Нэмка Алэкс/Nemka Alex^Talk 03:06, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

You might be interested

[15] --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 14:49, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I've had time

Please forget about the last edits to that article. I've moved past the moment I was in.

--Нэмка Алэкс/Nemka Alex^Talk 16:52, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Your Proposal

I definitely can get a book written about the Russian-Holocaust.

--Нэмка Алэкс/Nemka Alex^Talk 01:07, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Fine.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:11, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

World War II article

Hi Paul, now that the arbitration case has concluded, I'm planning on spending less time on this article and may remove it from my watchlist. I've enjoyed working on it, and think very highly of your views and contributions (even though we sometimes disagree; I hope that my disagreements with you have been expressed in as civil terms and backed with as good references as your disagreements with me!). Please don't hesitate to drop me a note if there's anything you'd like me to look in on. Cheers, Nick-D (talk) 09:47, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Nick. I will continue to watchlist this article, and, since your opinion is very important for me, I definitely will draw your attention to all controversial cases.

Cheers, --Paul Siebert (talk) 14:16, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Nazi propaganda perpetuated on Rape during the occupation of Germany

This probably is not intentional perpetuation¹, but there are several claims that the Poles were perpetrators of genocide against the Germans. In reality, the Poles were not perpetrators of violence against Germans, but rather victims of the Russians; this is something that Nazis do not want us know. Portraying the Poles as perpetrators of violence against Germans removes them as victims of the Russians and plays into the Nazi game of a Jewish conspiracy or something.

¹See, no name calling.

--Нэмка Алэкс/Nemka Alex^Talk 01:49, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

There were no claims that "the Poles were perpetrators of genocide against the Germans". There was a claim that some Poles raped some German women. Generally speaking, rapes ≠ genocide.

Portraying the Poles as perpetrators of violence against Germans does not removes them as victims of neither Germans nor Russians; similarly, portraying the Russians as perpetrators of violence against Germans does not removes them as victims of the Germans. The sooner you re-consider your manicheanist vision of history, the better.--Paul Siebert (talk)

So there was not any genocide. Still, the claim is that the crimes by Poles were racially motivated. Maybe a few Poles did rape German women, but this is unlikely. It very clearly isn't mass rape, which is the title of the article. Having it in the article with the current title implies such, and plays into the game of the Nazis. Also, not being mass rape means that it isn't relevant to be in an article about mass rape. A few crimes aren't really relevant to history and should be left alone to prevent them from being exaggerated by Nazis.

As a German I don't think it's necessary to remember what ever few crimes were committed by Poles.

--Нэмка Алэкс/Nemka Alex^Talk 02:55, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

The rapes may constitute genocide or may not. If mainstream RS state some mass rapes had a genocidal nature, such a claim can be added to the article, however, to the best of my knowledge, no mainstream reliable sources accuse the Soviets in perpetrating genocide of the Germans. Re Poles, please, read Naimark.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:05, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

The differences that we have.

I would like you to know that I am half Russian. I was never told about the genocide by anyone in my family until I wanted to know about it; I could have easily started toward denial of it, especially considering the guilt it has caused. My people raped my boyfriend's grandmother in a concentration camp, and I have to deal with that. Yet I don't deny it. Why are you so focused on minimizing what happened?

No hostility,

--Anonymiss Madchen (talk) 04:10, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I am not focused on minimising that, just on finding truth. When I looked through the sources, the only source that provided more or less precise numbers was the Johr's book about Berlin. This procedure is reproduced in details on the talk page. Although this procedure is very unreliable, it is the only numerical data available for me. All other sources just repeat this estimate, as well as the Johr's extrapolation to whole Germany, and I doubt we have to reproduce all subsequent exaggerations, which are based on hearsay or even on virtually nothing.

Frankly speaking, the story of rapes per se is a genocide denial. These mass rapes cannot be compared with mass murders of peoples in Eastern Europe committed by the Germans. Even if we exclude the Holocaust, the number of people who were executed, bombed, starved to death etc, far exceeded the number of raped German woman. Yes, these woman were raped, and that was bad. However, taking these events out of their historical context means presenting the Germans as victims, not perpetrators, which means denial of genocide.

We don't have to forget neither rapes, nor their historical context (what the sources do in actuality). Therefore, by writing what it wrote I just restored balance.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:30, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Sure, no hostility. You just should read more.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:32, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

However, taking these events out of their historical context means presenting the Germans as victims, not perpetrators, which means denial of genocide.

According to that, the Rape during the occupation of Germany must have a section about what happened to Anna Beshnova, otherwise she would be portrayed as a victim rather than a perpetrator. She was a member of the Russian Nazi party, try to think about that.

I once again support adding such a section.

--Нэмка Алэкс/Nemka Alex^Talk 19:37, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I do not know who Anna Beshnova is, and what is the connection between the "Russian Nazi Party" and rapes of German women. However, if you explained what concretely do you mean, I would be able to express my opinion on that.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:18, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Reply

I replied here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Rape_during_the_occupation_of_Germany#Nationalistic1_Russian_Deniers

--Нэмка Алэкс/Nemka Alex^Talk 20:44, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

SirEpicBob

Hi Im "SirEpicBob" I Have A New Account "SirEpicRichard". Just A Notification. SirEpicRichard (talk) 18:54, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

MkuCr POV tag discussion

The POV discussion has been dormant for more than two weeks. I intend to remove the POV tag from the article in a day two days, as the discussion seems to have concluded. But, before doing so, I wanted to check in with you to be sure you didn't simply overlook C. J. Griffin's last post on the talk page. If you still dispute the neutrality of the article, a response here or on the article's talk page would be appreciated. AmateurEditor (talk) 00:38, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

A comment

(relating to Red Army) ...the soldiers who bore the major brunt of the war...

This statement demonstrates unfamiliarity with the suffering of soldiers during WWII.

--Jüdischen Deutschen^Talk 02:30, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

No, it doesn't.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:30, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it demonstrates unfamiliarity with the air war over Germany.

--Jüdischen Deutschen^Talk 03:49, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Cannot agree.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:13, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

The reply on the Rape by During the Occupation of Germany talk page

I left a reply to your message on the talk page, at the bottom.

--Jüdischen Deutschen^Talk 20:37, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

For the record...

Since we're on the opposite ends of a dispute, I want to make sure this does not attain any kind of personal character whatsoever. Frankly I'm amazed that we're "at odds" at all, as we seemed to have had a shared position in each encounter. :) I further want to make it clear that I consider you far more knowledgeable in WWII history, but this time I think you're not correct in supporting a removal of an actual WWII combatant from the WWII infobox. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 10:45, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I am absolutely not amazed that we are "at odds", because independently thinking people cannot be always in accord. That is absolutely normal situation, and I by no means take it personally. I am also glad that you also see it as just as a temporary disagreement over one particular issue.

I cannot rule out the possibility that I will accept your point of view, however, you haven't addressed my arguments so far. In addition to ##1-5 from the talk page, try to think about the following: inclusion of Vichy lowers the threshold for inclusion, thereby opening the door for addition of such strange "belligerents" as Quisling Norway, etc. Try also think about my #5, because if we consider Vichy a belligerent, we must concede that it fought on its own side, i.e. against both the Allies and the Axis. Therefore, it should be either in both sides of the infobox simultaneously, or a separate section should be allocated for it. Both variants would be a nonsense.

Cheers,--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:07, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

WWII template 2

Paul, I have gone one step further than you and reverted the template back to the version after my last edit, which was the last one before this debate about Vichy France started. This isn't meant to be an endorsement of Vichy France's inclusion on the template, but rather I believe we should have the template as it was originally when the discussion started as JJG's edits to remove Vichy France were not based upon consensus, and because we do not yet have consensus for either side I do not believe we should edit the section in question until we do. Regardless of Vichy France's status during WWII, it was on the template before this debate started and should only be removed upon reaching consensus here. Anything else could be considered edit warring and could lead to the template being locked until we figure this out. Personally, I believe we need to get MILHIST involved further to determine what we should do here, and we should have the template locked if Direktor or JJG attempt to change the template again without consensus. --PlasmaTwa2 19:07, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

See my response on the template talk page.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:27, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Speculation about the Soviet–Japanese War (1945) and Hiroshima

There was some unsourced speculation about some evil Stalinist double-crossing plan in Soviet–Japanese War (1945), most of it is now gone. The speculation reminds me of the claims of Stan Winer about British-American plans to double-cross the Soviet Union with Hiroshima and nukes.

Do you think there would be a case for an article on End of WW II conspiracy theories, provided we could find sources. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 20:32, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I remember that someone already tried to add this text before, however, it had been removed soon. Regarding the conspiracy theories, I do not know if sufficient amount of reliable sources are available. And, frankly speaking, do we really need such an article?--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:51, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

This

[16] was a very poor choice. You reinserted content which has been tagged as CN since November 2010. The RAF were only called the "Baader Meinhoff Gang" by the press, there were no Successors to this group, plus the source calls them communist, not left wing. Also [] this source clearly states communist terrorism. Please be more careful in future with blind reverts. Tentontunic (talk) 02:00, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Red Army Faction "Red Army Faction" "Left wing terrorism" -"communist terrorism" vs "Red Army Faction" "communist terrorism" -"Left wing terrorism": 201[17] to 2[18]. Among those sources let me quote, for instance William F. Shughart II ("An analytical history of terrorism, 1945–2000", Public Choice (2006) 128:7–39), who writes in the chapter 4 ("Left Wing Terrorism"):

"Organized by Andreas Baader and Ulrike Meinhof in the West Germany of the late 1960s, the Red Army Faction (RAF) – an “army” whose strength at most numbered perhaps three dozen (Laqueur, 1999, p. 27) – was the first of the left-wing terrorist groups to surface in the postwar era. "

Please be more careful in future with making premature statements.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:10, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Look at what your source says, and read again what i wrote. The RAF were only called the "Baader Meinhoff Gang" by the press, there were no Successors to this group Your source proves my point. Again please be more careful with blind reverts. Tentontunic (talk) 03:21, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

And now in your rush to edit war and restore uncited content you have removed two merger proposals, please restore them. Tentontunic (talk) 03:24, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I am not in rush, it is simply easier for me to revert you right now than to restore the article when you will destroy it completely. I do not care how the press called RAF. The article is peer-reviewed journal I quoted describes RAF as a left-wing terrorist group, and stated that this group did have successors. More extended quote is provided below:

"Organized by Andreas Baader and Ulrike Meinhof in the West Germany of the late 1960s, the Red Army Faction (RAF) – an “army” whose strength at most numbered perhaps three dozen (Laqueur, 1999, p. 27) – was the first of the left-wing terrorist groups to surface in the postwar era. Also known as the Baader-Meinhof Group, the self-styled revolutionaries carried out a series of bank robberies, burned several department stores, and murdered a number of bankers, industrialists and judges, their most prominent victims being the Attorney General, Hans-Martin Schleyer, and Siegfried Buback, the head of the Berlin Supreme Court (ibid. p. 28; Rapoport, 2004, p. 57). The RAF’s first, and perhaps most notorious, actual terrorist act was to bomb the officers’ mess of the US Fifth Army Corps at Frankfurt, killing one person and injuring 13 others. That attack was later justified at the trial of one of the RAF’s leaders as befitting retribution for the mining of the North Vietnamese harbor at Haiphong by the US Air Force (Hoffman, 1998, p. 81). Terrorist groups with similar ideological motivations soon appeared in Italy, Belgium and France. The Italian Red Brigade (Brigate Rosse) was formed in 1970. It was much more active than the RAF, engaging in some 14,000 terrorist attacks in its first ten years of existence. Like the RAF, the Red Brigade mainly targeted prominent public officials, including judges and jurors, concentrating its attacks in Rome and in Italy’s industrial regions (Laqueur, 1999, pp. 28–29). Frequently applying non-lethal force – “kneecapping” was one of the group’s favored tactics – the Red Brigade nevertheless nearly succeeded in bringing Italy’s legal system to a standstill (ibid., p. 29)."

As you can see, I am quite able to support my claims with reliable sources. Please, keep that in mind in future.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:58, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

You are only seeing that which you wish to see. Your extended quote does not mention successors, at all. The Baader-Meinhof gang were the RAF. I would ask you to read up on the literature, you obviously do not currently have a clue. Also, reverting in uncited content and removing suggested merger discussions is against policy, do not do so again. Tentontunic (talk) 04:19, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Another explanation is that your point is not clear enough. Firstly, how do you interpret the words:

"Terrorist groups with similar ideological motivations soon appeared in Italy, Belgium and France. "

Secondly, what relation do your point about successors and the name (Baader-Meinhof gang) has to the article, and to your attempt to remove this text?--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:25, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Note

I think you're now banned from Mass Killings under communist regimes. Just so you know.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:15, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Why?--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:54, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't know either.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:44, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

You don't know if I am banned, or you know that I am, but don't know why?--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:42, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

• As a result of a DIGWUREN enforcement request at this.
  • You would need to be mentioned
    • here
    • here
    • or here to be banned from editing the interminably horrible MKuCR. However, every editor is on 1RR/week at MKuCR. Fifelfoo (talk) 06:04, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I think that because Paul has a block related to the article he falls within this wide net but who knows.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:19, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Volunteer Marek. I checked all three articles "sanctions" pages, but couldn't find Paul listed. Maybe his block was non-DIGWUREN/EEML/ARBRB related, like a simple 3RR violation? I think Paul ought to ask ARB for a clarification. Fifelfoo (talk) 06:44, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

He violated the original 1RR restriction on the article, which was placed as an Arbcom enforcement discretionary sanction. It should have been reported to WP:AE, as TFD did recently in another 1RR violation by someone else, instead of AN3. Anyone blocked for violating this 1RR restriction would normally have been logged, as Igny was here --Martin (talk) 08:50, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks Martintg; maybe you ought to get that clarified. Fifelfoo (talk) 11:02, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I was blocked for 1RR violation before this rule became a part of the policy. By that moment, 1RR was vaguely formulated (you can see the details of the discussion there[19]) and it was clarified as a result of the discussion initiated by me. In connection to that, I believe all users who were blocked for 1RR violation of the "Mass killings...." page before June 8, 2010 should be excluded from the list, because the admins are partially responsible for that (because of the vague formulation of the restriction).

--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:34, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, personally I think that all users who had never edited the article, or have not edited it for more than six months should be excluded from the article topic ban, but Sandstein doesn't seem to be listening.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:14, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

MKuCR editing proposals, a process problem with your proposal on article talk

Martintg raised the process issue here that restricted editors cannot discuss your proposal. I suggest you move your proposal on the article talk page of MKuCR to Sandstein's talk page where a proposal is under discussion for process issues, allowing otherwise restricted editors to comment on it. Many thanks, Fifelfoo (talk) 02:48, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Done. --Paul Siebert (talk) 05:10, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

MKuCR arbitration enforcement request against Fifelfoo

You may have some interest in the MKuCR related Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Fifelfoo Fifelfoo (talk) 13:55, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for informing me. Unfortunately, by pointing my attention at this issue you deprived me of a possibility to interfere, because my voice will have a zero weight now (per WP:CANVASS). Fortunately, you are perfectly able to protect you by yourself by providing the diffs demonstrating that I and TFD repeatedly pointed Tentontunic's attention at the need to read the talk page archives to avoid repetitions of the same questions, which were asked and addressed before, and repeated ignoring of these requests by Tentontunic. In my opinion, it would be sufficient to demonstrate that this user simply exhausted your patience. In addition, WP:AGF is not a part of the policy, therefore, to observe it in all cases it is not mandatory.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:15, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I pointed your attention to it because you had had similar issues with Tentontunic in the same thread, and as he hadn't notified other individuals he'd been behaving with in that way. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:46, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I personally see no problem in pointing my attention to this issue. However, some people can interpret that as canvassing. Please keep in mind that, as well as the fact that I am watchlisting the relevant pages, and, most likely, I will be aware of future incidents of that type.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:21, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Except, to be quite honest, there won't be. To the extent which I can be bothered, I'll be importing my behaviour from Libertarianism towards editors who fail to observe policy. Note the policy on talk, ignore, move on. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:35, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Outing

Mr. Siebert,

Thank you for pointing out to me something I was not aware of. It is removed.

Cordialement,

--Frania W. (talk) 18:42, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Communist terrorism

Paul, (is it Ok to call you paul?) I am currently working on a new section for the Communist terrorism article article, your input would be much appreciated regarding the cold war usage of the term, especially during the Regan era. Please look [20] here and let me know what you thin thus far. Thank you Tentontunic (talk) 00:22, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

You need a cite from a terrorism academic, or multiple cites from Malaya, Philippines and Vietnam historians regarding terrorism. As this is readily challengable (they were producing "revolutionary terror" ala France, not "terrorism" ala the FCOs). If someone's examined these as a stepping stone between revolutionary terror, and terrorist revolutionaries then it would be pretty vital to include that. Also, the section is misnamed, this is history: the telling of the past; not historiography: the telling of how historians tell the past. The writing is good. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:33, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Fifelfoo, we I believe have gotten off on the wrong foot. Would you consider adding to the proposed section should you have the time? Out of curiosity, what would you call a section regarding the past exploits of terrorist groups? Tentontunic (talk) 00:54, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I think we have gotten off on the wrong foot. Mass killings under Communist regimes does that to everybody I think. If you don't mind me doing so, I'll edit into your sandbox. I haven't read the terrorism literature at scholarly depth (unlike the literature of mass mortality, sigh). As far as I understand it there's a deep difference between "modern terrorism" and "revolutionary terror". I have read the history of Malay and Vietnamese revolutionaries' use of terror: it was revolutionary terror, not modern terrorism. For the past exploits of terrorist groups I'd use "History", or if there's another section on the history of the academic classification, I'd use "History of terrorist groups" for the groups, and "Theory" for discussing the history of the idea of terrorism. I know in some languages other than English, "Historiography" means was "History" means in English. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:34, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

The groups were not named "Fighting Communist Organizations". That is a term used in the book Europe's red terrorists[21] and you found a source (Sandler) that also uses it. But Sandler normally refers to them as left-wing terrorists in common with most authors.[22] The article is written bass ackwards - a title has been chosen and we are now trying to figure out a topic for it. TFD (talk) 01:45, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Where have I experienced that syndrome before? Fifelfoo (talk) 01:49, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Dear Tentontunic. It is quite ok to call me Paul, you can call me as you want to. With regard to the rest, as far as this is my talk page, let me explain you my point of view. I am trying to stick with this POV when I edit Communism related articles, so by reading the text below you will save my and your time in future.
I see several issues and omissions with the text proposed by you.

1. It is necessary to start with the explanation that the term "terrorism" is vague and controversial, and different scholars in different periods of time interpreted it differently. The most common meaning of this term is "individual terror", so the scholars who share this viewpoint trace the roots of terrorism down to zealots.
2. Then it is necessary to mention that some authors do not stick with this narrow definition, and they combine "terrorism" and "state terror" (and revolutionary terror) into the same category, so they consider a Reign of Terror as a progenitor of contemporary terrorism. Therefore, according to these writers, the term "Communist terrorism" is a subset of "Revolutionary terror". Therefore, the term "Communist terrorism" is sometimes used as a synonym of "Communist revolutionary (or state) terror".
3. In connection to that, it is necessary to point out in the article, that, although the word "Communism" is frequently associated with the word "terror", XIX century social-democrats, as well as their descendants, Communists, condemned individual, or group terror as senseless and harmful, because it contradicted to major Marxist doctrine. However, the idea that Communists may resort to terror to come to power had been put forward by the Nazi party in Germany, and had been successfully used as a pretext for seizing a power in this country. That is the second meaning of the term "Communist terrorism".
4. The WWII gave a start to a full scale anti-colonialist movements in most Western colonies. Some of them acted under Communist slogans. As a result, the activity of Communist partisans is sometimes described as "Communist terrorism" (the best example is Malaya). Therefore the term "Communist terrorism" is also used to describe some cases of guerilla warfare.
5. And, finally, during the post-war era small terrorist groups emerged throughout the world that used Communist phraseology as a justification of their terrorist acts. Although some writer describe this phenomenon as "Communist terrorism", others prefer to use the term "Left-wing terrorism", or "Euroterrorism", or characterise them as ordinary criminals. These authors do not see any appreciable connection between these groups and Communism, so it would be incorrect to present the usage of term "Communist terrorism" in this case as a mainstream POV.
   In other words, we have a strange situation when, from one hand, the term "Communist terrorism" is being widely used, but, from another hand, it is being applied to quite different, and sometimes rather poorly connected phenomenae. In some cases, it is sometimes being used in parallel with other terms, such as "Left-wing terrorism". In the latter case, the fact that different writers use different term to describe the same facts is not a reason for having separate articles describing essentially the same events.
   In summary, the "Communist terrorism" article cannot be written in such a way as if this term had a strict and well established meaning (the scheme you are trying to implement). By contrast, the article should be devoted to the explanation of what different sources mean under this term (with links to more specialised articles), and how this term was evolving during last centuries.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:41, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Your interests

Hi, and thanks for your valuable contributions to historical articles. I was wondering, exactly which areas of history are you interested in? I could think of several history topic areas that could use your expertise and ability for thorough research and analysis. Nanobear (talk) 21:33, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

WWII, Soviet history, Cold war and related topics.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:52, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Hermann Rauschning

Lieber Paul Siebert, Vor längerer Zeit stellten Sie mir ein wichtiges Zitat von Stephan Horak zur Verfügung, welches ich mittlerweile sehr gut im Stresemann-Artikel einsetzen konnte. Nochmals verbindlichsten Dank dafür! Ich möchte mir erlauben, Sie auf Seltsames hinzuweisen, das mit dem Rauschning-Artikel geschehen ist. Nach längerem Ringen mit einigen Admins war es gelungen, einen einvernehmlichen Wortlaut des Capitels "Entdeutschnung .." zu finden, der die wesentlichen und wichtigen Informationen transportiert. Inzwischen ist zu meiner Überraschung das gesamte Capitel eliminiert worden, ja es sind sogar die Revisionen, die es aufgebaut hatten, blockiert worden, sodaß sie nicht mehr zu öffnen sind. Und dies alles ohne Discussion, ja sogar ohne Nennung desjenigen, der dies bewirkt hat. Lebte ich in China, so würde mich dies nicht wundern, aber hier .. Wenn Sie Zeit und Lust haben, schauen Sie doch mal rein. Ich bin da mit meinem Latein am Ende. Eine Antwort ist nicht erforderlich. Herzlichen Gruß: Jäger (talk) 01:26, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I looked at the article; its major problem is that it is poorly sourced. I am not sure that removal of the text you added was justified, although Rauschning's book is a primary source in the article about himself, so it should be used with great cautions. Unfortunately, I have no time now to analyse the issue in details, however, I'll try to return to that in close future.--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:54, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Many thanks! I just restituted this section using a new primary source.Jäger (talk) 02:10, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

And it has already been deleted by a certain marek, who claims the "dtv Altas zur Weltgeschichte" to be "unreliable stuff". Apparently Wikipedia has become a chinese enterprise!! Jäger (talk) 01:54, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I remind you that primary sources should be used with great caution. The probability that the content added by your will be removed is lower when you use secondary sources only. At least, you will be able to defend your edits. Re "chinese enterprise", if you decided to edit Wikipedia, be ready to defend your edits, because to make edit is just a first, and not the most difficult step.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:59, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, ok, well I've followed this - the main thing is that Rauschning wrote a book about the alleged mistreatment of German minority by Poles. He also wrote a book about his intimate relationship with Hitler. The second book has been widely debunked as his own fantasy. Hence, even if we allow for the use of primary sources, the fact that the guy had a tendency to make stuff up out of thin air means that at best we can present his work as just that - fantasy. What you are trying to do Jager is to present Rauschning's work as a reliable source and a basis for statements about what actually happened. But we can't do that. The best we can do is just mention that he wrote a book about some thing and give its title - and in fact, I kept that fact in the article. Just please stop trying to use Rauschning's work as some kind of factual basis for article content or subtly try to insinuate that it had any kind of value as a historical document. Volunteer Marek  02:04, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

"Alleged mistreatment of German minority by Poles" - And the agrarian reform act, which expropriated the german land-owners but not the polish: is it also alleged? Is the "dtv Altlas zur Weltgeschichte" a primary source and "unsourced stuff"? There is a famous word spoken by Pope St. Johannes Paul II. under the Brandenburg Gate: "Es gibt keine Freiheit ohne die Wahrheit!" (there is no liberty without the truth)Jäger (talk) 01:17, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

If you provided more concrete information (keywords, etc) about this land reform, I would try to look for the sources other than Rauschning. However, I cannot agree with VM that Rauschning is an unreliable source: I found several reviews on his books that do not question the validity of the facts and opinions presented by him:

1. H. F. P. Percival. Source: Journal of the Royal Institute of International Affairs, Vol. 9, No. 4 (Jul., 1930), p. 556 Published by: Blackwell Publishing on behalf of the Royal Institute of International Affairs
2. Charles E. MerriamSource: The American Political Science Review, Vol. 41, No. 6 (Dec., 1947), pp. 1207-1208.
3. I. M. MasseySource: International Affairs Review Supplement, Vol. 19, No. 6/7 (Dec., 1941 - Mar., 1942),pp. 413-414

With regard to "widely debunked", the Theodor Schieder's book "Hermann Rauschnings "Gesprache mit Hitler" als Geschichtsquell" presents the analysis of Rauschning's writings which demonstrates that Rauschning's "Gesprache", despite some inaccuracies, may serve as a general summing up of Hitler's views in early 1930s. In other words, the book is more or less reliable, so there is no reason to reject other Rauschning's works.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:43, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I found one more source that cites the Rauschning's "Gesprache" as a reliable source (Did Hitler Want a World Dominion? Author(s): Milan Hauner Source: Journal of Contemporary History, Vol. 13, No. 1 (Jan., 1978), pp. 15-32).--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:54, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank You very much! The source for this land reform is not Rauschning, but the "dtv Atlas zur Weltgeschichte" Vol 2, page 155, Bielefeld 1977 (licenced edition of the Bertelsmann-Buch Club). This should be a secondary source.Jäger (talk) 00:11, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

The exact wording is (vol.2 p. 155): "2. Agrarfrage. Die Agrarref. (28.12.1925) vernichtet vor allem den deutschen Großgrundbesitz, behandelt den poln. schonend. Die Agrarfrage bleibt ungelöst."Jäger (talk) 00:10, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

If this agrarian reform happened the way you claim then you should have no problem finding RELIABLE sources on the fact. As for Schieder, the guy himself isn't a reliable source (ex Nazi, intellectual architect of the final solution, etc.) And I cannot put it more explicitly than this [23]. The Jan 1978 source is at best outdate - also the issue is not whether he represented Hitler's views correctly but that he claimed to have had numerous conversations with Hitler (which he did not). The guy is no way reliable.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:21, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

This is really interesting: The "dtv-Atlas zur Weltgeschichte" no reliable source: This book is in constant use on german highschools and universities since 1964. Generations of students have used it (see its article on german wikipedia). Let me quote something from the foreword: "Bei der Auswahl der Fakten haben wir uns nicht von einem bestimmten Geschichtsbild leiten lassen, sondern wollten versuchen, einen möglichst objektiven Überblick zu geben".Jäger (talk) 00:20, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

This discussion is continued on the Hermann Rauschning-talk page.Jäger (talk) 00:26, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Mass killing

Paul, I notice that you haven't edited the sandbox version of the terminology section for MkuCr. Do you intend to do that, or are you waiting for a Mass killing article to be written first?

Speaking of which, what are your thoughts on the scope of a Mass killing article, specifically regarding the overlap with the Mass murder article? Presumably, writing a Mass killing article would also involve reducing the current scope of the Mass murder article.

It seems to me that the difference between the two is primarily one of scale and scope. Mass murder being between individuals and involving relatively small numbers of people (typically single or double digits) and mass killing being between groups however defined and involving relatively large numbers of people (1000 being the lowest RS quantitative definition I have found). I think the first section of the current Mass murder article, "Mass murder by a state" would thus more appropriately fall under "mass killing" than "mass murder". AmateurEditor (talk) 20:29, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I need additional time to think about all of that. If you don't mind, I'll return to this issue in about a week.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:42, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

OK. AmateurEditor (talk) 20:56, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

My preliminary thoughts on that account are as follows:

1. Of course, we can work on MC and MCuCR article independently, however, since the latter is supposed to be a subarticle of the former, it would be easier to write the MC article first. In addition, since MMuCR's karma is so badly damaged during preceding years I anticipate that even minor changes will face significant resistance, and neither I nor you can predict how much efforts will be needed to overcome it. Therefore, I would suggest to do what Toynbee called "withdrawal-and-return": after finishing the Mass killing article we can more easily resolve the MCuCR issue.
2. The difference between mass killing and mass murder is not in scale and scope. Firstly, the latter is a subset of the former. Secondly, the difference has been outlined by, e.g. Wheatcroft, who argued that MM is an indiscriminate destruction of people, and the Holocaust is the most pure example of mass murder: killing of people without even a visibility of legal procedure. By contrast, Stalin's mass executions at least had some traits of legal procedure. To demonstrate this thought, let's compare Baby Yar and Katyn massacres: whereas in Baby Yar the Nazi just took all Jews they were able to capture and killed all of them simply following a general order to kill all Jews, the decision about the Poles was made based on the analysis of their personal data, and it was made by top Soviet leadership personally, the rationale (a possibility that these concrete persons would start counterrevolutionary activity upon their release) looked not absolutely weird, and their perceived personal guilt was more or less clearly articulated. Therefore, according to Wheatcroft, whereas the Holocaust mass killings were mass murders, Soviet mass killings can be more adequately characterised as mass executions.
3. Going back to the MC article, I think we need to start with a general discussion of the terminology, because "genocide", (as well as others "-cides"), Valentino's "mass killing", etc., are absolutely relevant to it. Accordingly, this article can become a mother article for a bunch of WP articles, such as "The Holocaust", "Genocide", "Democide", "Mass murder", "MCuCR", etc. And it would be much more natural to have a detailed discussion of terminology there, not in specialised articles. For instance, Valentino did not propose "Communist mass killings" as a separate concept, he proposed a "mass killing" concept, and then applied it to the MKuCR (and others mass killings). Rummel did not proposed his "democide" as a word describing MCuCR, he just applied this term to these mass killings (and to other mass killings). Lemkin coined the term "genocide" specifically to characterise Nazi crimes in Europe, and only later tried to extend it to Communist mass killings. Therefore, all of that belongs to the MC article.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:14, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I suppose you're too busy with other things right now to get into this, but (for when you have time) I have started to collect specific RS definitions for "mass killing" and "mass murder" here to clarify the differences between them. You may contribute others that you find. There is no rush. I do recognize that the terms are sometimes also used more loosely as synonyms, but such definitions will give us a more firm basis to differentiate them. AmateurEditor (talk) 18:33, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for informing me. You are right, I have no possibility to concentrate on this work right now, however, I am ready for a preliminary discussion about that. For the beginning, can you please comment on my above thoughts? Do you agree with that, or, if not, then what are your counter-arguments?--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:45, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

1. I have little confidence that consensus can be achieved for even small changes to the current article under the new sanctions, so unless specific disruptive editors are blocked or the sanctions are changed, neither of which I see happening any time soon, I think working on a Mass killing article is the best way forward. And since it is something I promised to do with you earlier, I feel obligated. I hope, however, that you don't really want a Mass killing article to be "finished" before working again on Mass killings under Communist regimes. I think a good start in terms of finding the boundaries of the topic and establishing enough for others to easily build from is enough. It is a bit morbid for my taste.
2. I am willing to concede the point here, but I want to see specific definitions from reliable sources. One thing I have noticed from my reading so far is that the terms "mass killing" and "mass murder" are sometimes used interchangeably and fairly loosely. When they are used in a strictly defined context, however, there appears to be a distinction between mass murder being essentially multiple homicide and mass killing being the much larger scale killing of groups by groups, whether those groups are ethnic, political, or simply perceived. I believe that another distinction is that mass murder also carries greater moral weight. Murder is universally acknowledged as a crime, whereas "killing" is less judgmental. This moral weight issue is directly related to some sources insisting on the term "genocide" even where an incident does not meet the specific criteria under the UN definition. I also think that the loose (that is, not specifically defined) use of the term mass murder by sources is really a reflection of the lack of a single consensus term for the large scale killing of noncombatants by a government or group. In that sense, "mass murder" and "mass killing" really are interchangeable. Your point about legal procedure, however thin, differentiating mass murder from mass killing implies a level of legal self-restraint that I don't think really existed in either of those examples, although if it is a point that a reliable source makes, who am I to reject it. It should be incorporated. My effort to list all the specifically spelled-out definitions for "mass murder" and "mass killing" that I can find is an attempt to survey what is out there within reasonable boundaries (far too many sources use the terms loosely), but I am sure there is much more to be included than those few examples listed already.
3. I agree the Mass killing article should be an overview article involving all the various terms for large-scale killing of noncombatants, not just the term "mass killing". However, I think we should be careful about sourcing this, which is why I want to clarify the difference between "mass killing" and "mass murder". As it is currently written, all of the sources cited for the mass murder article are referring to acts of legal homicide by individuals (except for Rummel, who defines mass murder so widely that it can involve the death of just a single individual by a government, although I would hope only as part of a wider phenomenon including the deaths of others spread out over time). AmateurEditor (talk) 20:59, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Might be of interest to you

There is this new article: Rape during the liberation of Poland. In the past you have shown much expertise on the related German events, and I think you may be interested in improving this article as well. It is not within my typical area of interest, so I've just expressed my concerns on the talk page and didn't alter the text. If you have time to review the article in more detail, that would be great. GreyHood ^Talk 17:03, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Besides Naimark, I found no non-Polish and non-Russian literature so far. I continue my search.--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:41, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Appeasement

Hi there Paul. I notice that you're a regular contributor to WW2 articles. I'm very interesting in improving the project's scope on WW2-related articles. I was thinking about tackling the article on Appeasement and thinking of bringing it up to at least GA status. Would you be interested in helping, or could you perhaps recommend somebody who could? I've got a large stack of resources waiting to be used, and I'd really like to utilize them. Jay _{Σεβαστός}^discuss 14:57, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, I will gladly participate.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:21, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the message Paul. I think the first thing to establish is what exactly we want the article titles to be. I personally feel that Appeasement is too broad a title. On the other hand, if we create a new article, say Appeasement 1937–39, then there will be hardly anything left of the current article, Appeasement. The other thing to bear in mind is whether to have the article just documenting British appeasement, or whether it should also include French appeasement, which was also pretty significant. Jay _{Σεβαστός}^discuss 15:28, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

In my opinion, since "Appeasement" generally refers to the policy of Chamberlain's cabinet towards Germany, the article should be more focused on that. However, since the UK and France were very close political and military allies (since pre-WWI times), they conducted essentially the same policy, so it would be correct to joint Anglo-French policy where Britain played a leading role. I need to read the article more carefully, but right now I see that the important thing that is missing there is the discussion of the British vision of her policy towards Germany: in 1920s-early 30s Britain had no well articulated policy towards Germany, and different political groups saw it quite differently.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:51, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

So you think that the article could stand as it is now? Yes, I agree with your point about about Anglo-French Policy and about the British vision of her policy towards Germany. Certainly there were very many varied opinions which in the end came together just before the outbreak of war. Jay _{Σεβαστός}^discuss 17:52, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Although I am not ready to give an answer immediately, I think, since the clearest example of appeacement was the Chamberlain's policy, it would probably be natural to make a greater stress on that. --Paul Siebert (talk) 17:59, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Interesting

[24] [25] If you are going block shopping you really ought to have the decency to mention you are discussing me on another's talk page, your behavior is both cowardly and despicable. Tentontunic (talk) 12:00, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

You just broke the 1r restriction on communist terrorism, please self revert. Tentontunic (talk) 22:08, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Feel free to remove the tag by yourself, because the RSN discussion has demonstrated that the source is reliable, so the tag is not justified. Otherwise, the tag will be removed tomorrow.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:15, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

WP:NPA

Any further personal attacks on my person will result in a complaint being made. Do not call me a liar again. Tentontunic (talk) 20:48, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

What do you mean? I didn't call you a liar, I wrote that your statement was a deliberate lie. You may be an absolutely honest person, in your real life, however, what you post is an absolute and deliberate lie. It is not in my habits to use such words, however, my intellect is unable to give another characteristic to what you are doing. If I am wrong (which is quite possibly), please, explain, how your posts can be explained in a different way.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:01, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Tentontunic should avoid accusing other editors of dishonesty as he did here. It is much better just to say that what another editor has written is wrong, rather than speculate on why it is wrong. If one believes that another editor is deliberately misstating facts, then it is best resolved through editor dispute resolution. TFD (talk) 15:05, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Really? Do you never tire of being wrong? Were in that diff do I accuse Siebert of dishonesty? Honestly, do you never read what your pointing at? I have never in all my life met someone who just posts such random junk such as you do. Tentontunic (talk) 23:42, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Your tone appears to fall below the level of decorum one would expect in order to maintain a collegial atmosphere. TFD (talk) 00:04, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Then do not post something which is so obviously wrong again, as in, there is no accusations of dishonesty in the diff you provided. Next time you wish to throw mud in the hope it will stick try to at least use a diff which will support you. Now you may apologize for saying I had made an accusation of dishonesty when I had not, you may also take your own advice into consideration, your tone and actions also falls well below the levels required for a collaboration project. Tentontunic (talk) 07:44, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Drake

You opened a new section on this source which I have now closed. [26] I had already opened a section on it, I moved your comment to there. Tentontunic (talk) 07:26, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Communist terrorism II

I may be wrong, but I think your recent removal of content breaks the 1r restriction on the article, can you please double check. You did one yesterday at 0300 [27] so doing this one [28] at 20.38 is not quite 24hrs? Should you not have to wait until 0300 today? Tentontunic (talk) 21:26, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

1RR is not as formal thing as you interpret it: it does not imply one has a right to make one revert each 24 hours. Accordingly. I do not think 24 hr is a strict red line in a situation when there is no edit war. However, if you insist on strictly formal reading on this rule I can self-revert. You know my opinion on that, and my argulents, so if you will not address my criticism by 3:00, I'll revert this text again.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:47, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I was not being strict, but some, or one user at least seems to be in the habit of bringing enforcement requests whenever one break this rule, thank you. Tentontunic (talk) 06:54, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Do you mean yourself?--Paul Siebert (talk) 12:39, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

No. Tentontunic (talk) 12:42, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

See here. TFD (talk) 12:59, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

That post was with regard to the question posed above as to the relaxation of the 1RR rule. I think you are far more acquainted with making edit war accusations than I. Collect (talk) 13:25, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Battle of the Bulge‎‎, bulk of German forces in the East / West.

The bulk of German forces were in the west during the invasion of France. (Hohum ^@) 18:17, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Are you sure? According to Glantz, that was not the case (60% in the East by Jan 1, 1945). In addition, if you compare the total strengths of the German forces in Courland pocket, in East Prussia, in Hungary, and Czechoslovakia, Silesia and Pomerania, and near Berlin you will easily see by yourself that that was not the case. During the Vistula-Oder Offensive alone the number of German troops was equal to that in the Battle of the Bulge, and Hitler physically had no possibility to re-deploy anything significant from the West to the East after the Battle of the Bulge started, so these 500,000 troops had already been in the East by the moment the Battle of the Bulge started.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:54, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

The German invasion of France. (Hohum ^@) 21:07, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Do you mean the Battle of France? Of course, that is correct, however, the BoB article means something else, isn't it? From 22 June, 1941 till his death the Eastern front was a primary Hitler's concern, and the place were most Axis (not only German) troops were fighting.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:12, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I was mainly referring to your edit comment ("always"); in the context of the article your edit itself was fine. (Hohum ^@) 23:15, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

...and you were absolutely right (as usually). My comment was not completely accurate and referred only to the period when the Eastern theatre of war existed in Europe. --Paul Siebert (talk) 23:50, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Content control through incidents and enforcement

I am disappointed that while we appear to have a truce of sorts, if that is a proper term for you ceasing to attack me over edits not yet even made, your antagonistic approach continues. Please disengage and reengage more constructively. I do not wish to renege on my statement of my personal position of not pursuing enforcement requests, informing you of my comment here (linked to diff of typo fix, section is otherwise as posted originally). PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 17:17, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

FYI. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 17:23, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

You may be disappointed or not, however, the content has been removed without providing satisfactory explanations. If you want to know my opinion about this your step, just let me know, and I'll tell you what I think about you personally.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:41, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

You've already publicly denigrated my editorial viewpoint as POV pushing essentially originating on another planet and in no manner reflecting Earthly realities. Unless you have something positive to say I regret I'm really not that interested. You characterize me as being out to fill Wikipedia with POV-laden Communist bashing trash. As I only care about reputable sources fairly and accurately represented (and have, in fact, changed long-held opinions based on deeper research), I can only deduce by your offensive accusation that you've crossed the line over to the "expunge anything bad about Communism, Soviet legacy, et al. (or make everyone else to be out as bad or worse when unable to contradict historical facts) on Wikipedia" editorial POV. The first rule of propaganda is to vehemently accuse others of propaganda. Since we are discussing perceptions. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 13:03, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Re "I only care about reputable sources fairly and accurately represented ". Well, since I also care "about reputable sources fairly and accurately represented", and, importantly, always provide them, our goals coincide. In connection to that, let me ask you the following: during more than one week you were a witness of persistent attempts of some user to revert the changes I made to fairly and accurately represent what reliable sources tell; why didn't you raised your voice against that?

Re my editorial POV. Do not deduce anything. If you have any questions about my editorial POV, just ask, and I'll explain it to you, openly and honestly.--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:00, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Your problem was that you took three or four sources to create a narrative to suit your POV. And it was wrong. The fact you did not know of the Viet Minh and had to be informed of them is proof of this, the narrative you wrote was both factually incorrect and synth. As I have said on the article talk page, point out that which you feel is wrong, and then I can correct you. Tentontunic (talk) 14:24, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I do not think this is my problem. I take the best quality sources, as a rule, the peer-reviewed articles written by western scholars that discuss the issue in details (in that case the number of the sources I use does not matter, so your "you took three or four sources " does not work, as you have been explained on the RSN), and I am trying to transmit the main authors' idea. If I have no good quality sources on some subject, I simply do not edit. By contrast, you are cherry-picking the quote, frequently out of context, to support your POV. However, this approach is fruitless, because the scholarly community seems to be more left-oriented than some fraction of the Wikipedians.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:53, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Your continuing personal attacks are duly noted, now I cherry pick sources and misrepresent them. You are trying to transmit your idea, by using excess sources to create a narative whic hwas flawed, why not admit you were wrong. Tentontunic (talk) 19:25, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

It is my talk page, and it was you who posted here your unsolicited comments on my editorial behaviour. You described my problems as you see them, and I in response did the same. In your recent post you also accused me in synthesis. I expect you either to support your accusation with real evidences (the quotes from the sources I use vs the text I add to Wikipedia) or to stop it. I do not expect you to apologise, because I do not believe you are able to do that.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:33, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

If I were wrong I would freely admit it, you know you are wrong yet refuse to, this is quite telling. I need not quote a source in support of the facts, you did not know of the Viet Minh and also thought that the VC began terrorist operations in response to government brutality. So quite simply you were wrong, you dug out three sources to suit your narrative and strung them together. That was the synth, and it was factually wrong. Why not admit you know little of this? I also do not see the comments as unsolicited, there is no doubt at all you were referring to me when you wrote persistent attempts of some user to revert the changes I made to fairly and accurately represent what reliable sources tell (which you got wrong) as such given I was the subject of conversation I fail to see how my comments are "unsolicited" Tentontunic (talk) 21:55, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Re "If I were wrong I would freely admit it" Examples? And, can it be understood as when you do not admit that you are wrong, then you are right?

Re "I need not quote a source in support of the facts, you did not know of the Viet Minh and also thought that the VC began terrorist operations in response to government brutality." Why did you decide that I didn't know about the Vietnamese national independence movement Viet Minh? This Communist led resistance movement fought against Japan during the WWII and then against French authorities. By no means they were terrorists. In 50s, after de facto division of Vietnam and the Sino-Soviet split they switched predominantly to a political struggle, and then, after Diem's repressions started, to the armed insurgence (as Vietcong). You may look how the article published in the journal of the Organization of American Historians describes these events:

"The Vietnamese struggle for independence began with the French colonization of Indochina in the late nineteenth century and gained steam with the rapid development of nationalist movements from the 1920s onward. This effort became a war in August 1945 when the Viet Minh overthrew French and Japanese occupation forces and declared independence. Vietnamese independence was only fully achieved, though, after another thirty years of fighting against the French (1946-1954) and then the Americans (1954-1973). The country was finally unified in 1975 when the northern army rolled into Saigon and toppled the southern regimeThe Vietnam War was, at its core, a civil war greatly exacerbated by foreign intervention. It was a struggle to determine the future of a post-colonial nation; a battle between several factions of Vietnamese nationalists over what type of governmental ideology would best bring about and serve a unified independent Vietnam. The most important of these factions were the Viet Minh (the Communist Party centered in the North), the National Liberation Front (southern allies of the Viet Minh}, and the Republic of Vietnam (the American-sponsored noncommunist government in the South)." (J Chapman. Teaching the Vietnam War from the Vietnamese Perspective - OAH Magazine of History, 2004 - maghis.oxfordjournals.org, p. 33-35)

Note, this article contains practical recommendations on how concretely American school students should be taught about Vietnam war, so it by definition cannot express minority or fringe views. According to the article, Viet cong and Viet Minh were political forces of the same nature an weight as the American-sponsored non-communist government of Vietnam. No mention of "terrorists". Instead, these events starting from 1920s till 1970s were described as struggle for independence. And who, in your opinion, should recognize his mistakes? Who gave you a right to present absolutely ridiculous POV as the mainstream one? And, did you try to stop and to think a little bit: why all what you are trying to write in this article comes in an crying contradiction with most main articles: Terrorism, Vietnam war, Malayan emergency, Left-wing terrorism, Definition of terrorism, etc? I don't think it can be a better opportunity to demonstrate that you are able to concede that you were not right than this case. Please, do that.
Re "Why not admit you know little of this?" IMO, you should do that.

Re " there is no doubt at all you were referring to me when you wrote persistent attempts of some user to revert the changes I made to fairly and accurately represent what reliable sources tell (which you got wrong)" If I was wrong, then why the properly sourced material added by me has been removed, and still is not in the article?
Finally, you know my opinion about the article and your editorial pattern. I suggest you to take into account all what I said and to modify the article accordingly. During next two weeks I'll try not to interfere into this process. Good luck.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:26, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
PS. As a demonstration of my good faith, one free advice. Although I am not a native English speaker (by contrast to you), and my colloquial English is rather poor, I am able to recognise good and bad writing style. Your style is rather poor. Try to avoid, e.g. "X has written that ... ", this is more appropriate for elementary school student's DBQ, not for Wikipedia. Try to read scholarly articles to develop better style.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:44, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

More quotes from the same source:

"Scholars to this day continue to debate the nature of the relationship between the DRV and the NLF. which was founded in South Vietnam in December i960. Some Americans and anticommunist nationalists maintain that the NLF was organized by the Communist Party's Central Committee from the outset, while others claim that it originated in the South in response to Diem's despotic leadership and only sought DRV support to expedite the common goal of unifying Vietnam under a popular government."

In other words, the viewpoint that "the NLF was organized by the Communist Party's Central Committee from the outset" is an American and anti-communist POV, whereas other scholars attribute the start of armed struggle against the Diem's regime to the despotic nature of the latter.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:11, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

For gods sake man, the VC had never disbanded, it does not matter how many sources you present which say they began operations only in response to Diem as they would be wrong. And please do not say I write like a child, the MOS says to write in a manner which all can understand, this is not scholarship you know, even the dunce`s need to be able to understand that which is written. And you actually think being insulting is a show of good faith? Wonderful. Tentontunic (talk) 08:57, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Firstly, as I expected, you failed to recognize you were not right when you wrote that I didn't know about Viet Minh. The fact that VM existed since 1940s, and that it was an internationally recognised national-liberation movement makes your claim that they were just "terrorists" laughable.

Secondly, if some source would be wrong, it doesn't mean that it is in actuality. We have the sources (and I can provide more) that describe Viet Minh as a political force of the same weight and level as the French administration, and which do not describe VM as terrorists. Something suggests that these sources are mainstream. Do you have something to argue on that account? To claim that my sources are wrong is your old trick, and it does not work, as RSN demonstrated. My sources are highly reliable and, as a rule mainstream. If you want, you may try to refute that, however I sustained my burden of evidence.

Thirdly, although WP should be understandable by everyone, it is not an encyclopaedia of kids (try to read this, or this), and it is not correct to write it in a style of "XXX for dummies".

Fourthly, by pointing at your writing style (on my talk page) I haven't insulted you, I just told truth. BTW, I was much more polite than you were on the article's talk page.

You are not able to realise that the only reason why you have not been sanctioned yet is that you are editing the articles that are in the sphere of interests of just few users, and the greater part of them shares you odd POV. Have you tried to push your odd views in more popular articles, the result would be quite different. I give you 2-3 weeks to think about that. If you have any questions, feel free to ask me on this talk page.--Paul Siebert (talk) 12:27, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

@Paul Siebert: I would suggest you stick to sources and stop commenting on editors' inappropriate POV and opining on "why" they have not been sanctioned as a form of veiled threat. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 14:11, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

@ Peters. You should have noticed (and, if you haven't, then I am pointing your attention at that) that it is my talk page, and it was not I who started to post here the unsolicited comments on someone's editorial behaviour. Concretely, I didn't ask Tentontunic to explain me what problems does he see in my behaviour, but, as soon as he started to do that, it was natural to reply in the same vein. In conncetion to that, let me point out that my major point was that I always try to stick to what the most reliable sources tell, and, therefore, I simply do not understand your post. Moreover, since the opposite site persistently refuses to recognize the need to observe NPOV and V policies, and prevents me from doing that, I assume that you simply posted your message on the wrong talk page.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:20, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

PS. As you probably noticed, the user we are talking about accused me in the lack of knowledge about Veit Minh. My response contained a detailed explanation, with sources of what is the commonly accepted viewpoint on that subject. Of course, it would be natural to expect apologies from this user (as normal politeness rules require), however, instead of that I got an absolutely unsubstantiated claim that the source "may be wrong" - and that's it! Do you find that is correct!? Please, avoid posting anything at my talk page in future, unless you give a direct and clear answer on this simple question. I waste my time trying to explain everything to you guys, and as a result you simply ignore my arguments (when you are unable to refute them), and come up with something absolutely new and irrelevant. I do not think I will tolerate that infinitely--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:32, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

How incredibly wrong you continue to be, in the spurious ANI request you took against me as a part of your block shopping you quite clearly said you knew of no other terrorism from before the VC insurgency (which you believe was a response to Diem). I also did not say your source may be wrong, I stated quite categorically that it is wrong. Any source you may present which says VC (AKA VM) terrorism began as a response to the Diem regimes actions are WRONG. So yes, I said you have a lack of knowledge within this area, because you do. Any man who say "I know of no other terrorist actions before the VC" obviously has not got a clue. Either find sources which are correct or find them dismissed again as the junk they so obviously are. Again, any source which says the VC began operations as a response to the Diem regimes actions is WRONG. Tentontunic (talk) 14:11, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Tentontunic's source, Lanning's Inside the VC and NVA says, "The final tactic used by the VC/NVA was terrorism" (p. 185).[29] Lanning dates the origins of the VC to 1961 and claims it was directed by the Vietnamese Communists and "was not a large group of citizens organized to counter the Diem government" (p. 233). So they were formed in order to oppose the Diem dictatorship - why else do you think they were formed? TFD (talk) 03:57, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry? The source you just quoted says "was not a large group of citizens organized to counter the Diem government" how do you get "they were formed" from the "was not"? You guys really need to read up on the history of this conflict, After the french withdrawal the VM were meant to have disbanded given the geneva accords and Ho saying he would. They never did and continued operations. They were renamed VC in the early 60`s. Tentontunic (talk) 08:24, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps you could help

Could you look at my proposal here: [30] --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 17:17, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

BoB

The flag hanging to me is just trivia, of which I am not concerned much. I am more concerned about deletion of simple facts that are easily attributed like number of soldiers and what units were engaged, based on nothing at all. A two or three lines describing in which areas Polish soldiers fought(which can be easily sourced) would be enough for me(nothing like the PL-Wiki section[31]. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 00:48, 28 April 2011 (UTC)