User talk:Buidhe/Archive 27

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Buidhe. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 20

←

Archive 25

Your draft article, Draft:Migrant deaths

Hello, Buidhe. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Migrant deaths".

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

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:08, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

I decided to undelete it. The main thing it needs is expansion. I leave that you. DGG ( talk ) 04:23, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: The Holocaust and the Nakba has been accepted

The Holocaust and the Nakba, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as B-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. This is a fantastic rating for a new article, and places it among the top 4% of accepted submissions — major kudos to you! You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

DGG ( talk ) 04:41, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

In addition, I decided to refrain from detailed copyediting. This does no mean that it's unnecessary, but that te overall editing for conciseness and the avoidance of duplication is more than I can undertakes at the moment.

More important,the title is unsatisfactory: Beginning the title with "The makes it almost unfindable. The key substantive words should be in the title, especially the beginning of the title. I'm not sure wat would be best, but as a first guess I would have moved it to Holocaust and Nakba--a comparison". I leave further action to you.

I am aware of the editing restrictions in this area; I am also aware of the current arb com case. I'm refraining from getting involved at the moment--as I mention on my user talk page, I am dealing with time--consuming medical problems involving a member of my family--I don't want to make the details public, but they will require the majority of both my time and my energy for the indefinite future. I'm trying nonetheless to keep some contact with WP.

I would also rather not mention in public my view of the underlying real world situation, and my general prolitical orientation that has led me to them, Ify ou'd like to discuss, we could do it off wiki. DGG ( talk ) 04:54, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

I hope your family member recovers soon. (t · c) buidhe 05:09, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

ITN recognition for Moses Elisaf

On 23 February 2023, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Moses Elisaf, which you created. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Spencer^T•C 01:32, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Forced anal examinations

Hello, Buidhe. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Forced anal examinations".

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

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:12, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Why did you protect The Citadel (college) from vandalism? It has no history of vandalism.

Title says it all 72.204.121.169 (talk) 02:31, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Elkhanan Elkes

Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, introducing hoaxes, such as Elkhanan Elkes, is considered to be vandalism and is prohibited. If you are interested in how accurate Wikipedia is, a more constructive test method would be to try to find inaccurate statements that are already in Wikipedia—and then to correct them if possible. If you would like to make test edits, please use the sandbox. Under section G3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, the page has been nominated for deletion. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Marcelus (talk) 20:40, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Marcelus The unsourced article created by an IP over the redirect I created indeed needed to go because of the lack of sourcing and non-encyclopedic tone, however, it was certainly not a hoax or vandalism. (t · c) buidhe 23:40, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Ok, sorry about that. I wasn't aware that some user will be tagged as "hoax creator". My point was that these aren't the same people, so we shouldn't create impression they are, especially since many people changed the name during the war. Marcelus (talk) 07:12, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Marcelus redirecting an individual to another article where they are mentioned is common practice, including family members. No one would be confused if they actually read the redirected-to article. There is no policy based reason to oppose such redirects, although in this case the ideal solution would be creating a well sourced article instead. (t · c) buidhe 07:29, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Ok I understand, and I also think that Elkhanan Elkas is notable enough to get his own article. Marcelus (talk) 07:34, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Responsibility for the Holocaust

Hi Buidhe -- hope you are well. Tell me what you make of the substantive edits made on 8 March to the Responsibility for the Holocaust page. My problem with the edits (which I removed and the editor added back) was that it provides something that feels visually misleading and seems to obfuscate the responsibility of other nation states, like France, Ukraine, Poland etc. Am I being too critical? Nonetheless, I changed the formatting of the sources the editor added to match the page, but still feel like the edit should be undone entirely. Respecting your knowledge and opinion accordingly --- thoughts? Obenritter (talk) 00:45, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Obenritter I agree completely that the role of Axis countries (which were certainly not extensions of Germany) should not be understated but imo the table does exactly that.For example it suggests that the Hungarian state had no responsibility for deportation after March 1944. I don't think reliable sources support that pov.In addition not just Romania but arguably Slovakia also implemented most or all of the "steps" (t · c) buidhe 02:00, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

A more problematic issue is that I don't think RS support the attribution of all Holocaust deaths to one specific state actor. In many cases responsibility could be disputed or might fall to multiple parties including non state actors. (t · c) buidhe 02:03, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughts Buidhe. So as to not be interpreted as somebody engaged in an edit war, would you be so kind to take whatever actions you deem fit from here...when you have available time that is. The editor added the "client" state flags, but again, this does not adequately address the role played by those governments and peoples (puppets or not).--Obenritter (talk) 19:41, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Historians by former country

I just saw that you created the category Historians by former country. When you did so did you mean it to be a group of historians from, that is nationals or subjects, of countries that no linger exist (Historians from the Russian Empire, Historians from the Ottoman Empire, Historians from Czechoslovakia, etc.) Or did you mean it to group together historians who studied countries that no longer exist (historians of Phonecia, Historians of the Aztec Empire, Historians of the Byzantine Empire, etc)?John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:52, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Johnpacklambert I meant the latter—see my contributions that day and the other categories created at the same time. Both category trees should exist though. (t · c) buidhe 04:56, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

I think it mainly has the former. It has contents such as . It is also under Category:Scholars by former country which is under Category:People by former country, so if it was meant to be the later it is misdirected. I am thinking Category:Historians from countries that no longer exist, Historians by nationality (defunct country), etc. To me though Category:Historians by country is too ambiguous, and I am coming to see the view that what we want to primarily categorize Historians and most occupations by is the country that the person was a nationsl or subject of. This is what many people mean by "nationality", but not always. I am thinking there are some ambiguous edges, but in the past we have sometimes gotten into debates that we could have avoided if we insisted on first and foremost Categorizing by what political unit a person was a subject or national of. There are also some categories, like Category:Ancient Greek Historians (but what is that category called?), that group people by more a cultural region than a country, so this can be messy.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:14, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

It is Category:Ancient Greek historians, I messed up categorization. We also have Historians of Ancient Greece (hmm, no we do not, at least not by that name). Here the instinctive is clear. However we have hundreds of categories that are x people of y place, where the of basically means the sane as if irmt were from, such as . Some of the cats names are ambiguous, some are potentially ambiguous but not likely. We also have Category:Historians in British India, but this follows an issue that is not seen often. You have people who work as Historians in British India who are in key ways outsiders, and were born elsewhere, but they are still contributing to a collective work in that place. We need some refining at the x occupation people from y country level, but I am not sure that even is well named. This because we have a whole emigration tree which is people where the country is former to them. I know the confusion is unlikely, and there is a desire to be overly pedantic and wordy, but at times were are getting down right confused as to what we mean.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:24, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

SC UPHOLDS VALIDITY OF FCRA

TFA?

Congratulations from the Military History Project

Talk:Union générale des israélites de France

Image review request

Armenian genocide denial scheduled for TFA

World War II and the history of Jews in Poland: Arbitration case opened

ABBYY

TFA

The Holocaust in Greece

Books & Bytes – Issue 55

A barnstar for you!

Talaat Pasha's biography

I saw you reinstated edits in Talaat Pasha article that in the first sentence described him being convicted by Ottoman military tribunal of 1919.

This edit of yours is problematic on multiple grounds:

Per MOS:FIRSTBIO first sentence of an article should avoid subjective and contentious terms, and should only mention were fundamental facts about the notability of a person such as his name, location, nationality, occupation etc. By reinstating that statement, which was criticized by many editors and removed multiple times you are adding a very contentious wording to the first sentence.
Ottoman military tribunal of 1919-20 is widely criticized for its failure to protecting the defendants rights and the pressure applied by the Allied powers to summarily carry out the sentences. Relaying on an unfair trial to portray someone as war criminal only adds to the problematic nature of the text. For more information about why the trial was unfair you can read this article by Maxime Gauin.

95.12.112.173 (talk) 10:46, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

1) It's a fact that he was convicted 2) Gauin is a WP:FRINGE genocide denier and RS don't agree with him. Most convicted Nazi war criminals also start with "X was a ___ and convicted war criminal..." eg. Wilhelm Keitel (t · c) buidhe 16:34, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Gauin is a valuable historian who has written his dissertation on the Armenian committees; it is published by METU, the most respected academic institution in Turkey. Unfortunately, he is target of a smear campaign by the Armenian academics and media for expressing his freedom of expression. If you read his work, you will see he makes valid points and uses authentic material to support his argument such as other academic works, memoirs, and official documents.

I think it is wrong to draw a false parallel between the Armenian massacres and the Jewish genocide. Nazis had a clear intention to eliminate an ethnic community because they belonged to a certain race. Turkey forcibly deported Armenians from their homeland to Syria. The deportation was accompanied by immense suffering of Armenians due to revenge attacks by local population, who resented them for the earlier attacks carried out by Armenian revolutionaries, and harsh conditions of the war such as famine and disease. Nazi academics purposefully distorted history and denied even well-established facts such as the existence of gas-chambers. Turkey recognizes the suffering of Armenian people and occurrence of killings but opposes the legal qualification of events as genocide. President Erdoğan wrote a letter to the Armenian patriarch expressing his condolences for 1915. Turkish prime minister Ahmet Davutoğlu declared the deportations were inhumane.

Policy-wise, I suggest you to take a look at WP:OTHERCONTENT; existence of an information in another article does not justify its existence on another article, especially when the events are unrelated and dissimilar to each other. 95.12.112.173 (talk) 18:21, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Historiography of the Armenian Genocide

Questions

There is a lot of things I do not understand about this case. Could you please clarify some of them to me? This is regarding your interview to Dr. Klein . Is it a complete and full record of your interactions with Dr. Klein? I am asking because interview #2 is not a complete record of her interactions with WMF. Did Dr. Klein explain to you that your conversation will be recorded, published, and used in complaint to WMF and potentially in an arbitration? Did you agree to this? Of course you have no obligation to answer. I just thought that would clarify things. Thank you. My very best wishes (talk) 09:17, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

My very best wishes I am surprised that they published all my comments. I expected to be quoted briefly as part of their research paper, but I did give them permission to publish my ramblings. I have minimal interest in the topic area anymore as I don't care for wiki drama. Obviously I don't agree with all of their arguments. (t · c) buidhe 09:29, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

I don't plan on engaging in the arbitration process. (t · c) buidhe 09:36, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you! If I understand correctly, this is a full record of the interview, you did not sign any written agreements related to this, and you did not expect your conversation to be used in complaints against other people? My very best wishes (talk) 09:40, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

I did put my username on a written agreement, but I thought it was going to be used for research, not campaigning purposes. I do not care enough to check exactly what the wording was. By the way I realized that only a subset of my comments were included in the pdf. (t · c) buidhe 09:45, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

It would be interesting to know what they had omitted if that is of any significance. Thank you. My very best wishes (talk) 09:54, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

"ADULT INFORMED CONSENT TO PARTICIPATE IN RESEARCH" was the title of the form and it just talks about research. Although it does also state "Your interview transcript / email contents will be uploaded to Digital Commons, for the benefit of future studies and research", which I did not realize at the time as I did not read it closely. (t · c) buidhe 10:02, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

If anything, I agree with you that "in practice, content is determined by what the bulk of editors working in a certain area want, rather than the balance of reliable sources." (quotation from the article). I have seen this in all subject areas: WP:CONSENSUS frequently overrides WP:NPOV during RfCs and other discussions, even though NPOV is the most important rule. Actually, this is one of the biggest problems of WP. Consider an RfC or another discussion on any subject matter. Some uninvolved who came to comment do not know the subject at all, beyond occasionally reading something in a newspaper. The attempt to bring a wider circle of uninvolved contributors to achieve consensus frequently backfires. Happy editing! My very best wishes (talk) 14:39, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you! Apparently, Dr. Klein did not tell you and others that they are going to use these interviews for complaint to WMF and potentially arbitration. In my view, things like that should be qualified as unethical research. Speaking on the arbitration, I think that at least a topic ban for VM was probably decided even before all of that started. In any case, not taking any part in this was a good idea, I agree. My very best wishes (talk) 16:50, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Category:Chevaliers of the Order of Merit (Ukraine) has been nominated for discussion

History of the Jews in Dęblin and Irena during World War II

Hi Buidhe, I am planning to submit this evidence to ArbCom. Could you have a look and tell me if I have understood everything correctly or if I have missed something important? Thank you, Gitz (talk) (contribs) 03:33, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

My statement to Klein refers generally to frustrations faced in the topic area especially the rfc on the 2018 law, which seems more egregious to me as there was a lot of scholarly sources that seemed to be rejected by certain editors for no policy based reasons. Iirc that was when I decided to quit editing in the area, I only engaged on the other article because it was my fac and on my watch list. (t · c) buidhe 03:55, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. There is something I don't understand in the t/p discussion on "History of the Jews in Dęblin and Irena". On 12-18 June 2021, editors seem to reach a consensus on inclusion of the citation to Zimmerman page 213, but not page 361. As far as I can see everyone would support p.213 being included. You are reluctant, but accept Z1720's proposition and say I do think its relevant, but if you think it's best to run with just the original page, I guess we can do that. However, Zimmerman, p. 213 is never restored. On 19 June VM replies to Z1720 No, looks good, thanks for all the hard work. This is the text of the article at 19 June 2021 and it doesn't include Zimmerman, p. 213. Zimmerman is listed in the Sources section, but is not used as a source; there's no mention of local ethnic Poles being hostile to Jewish fugitives. Do you understand or remember what happened?

With regard to the 2018 law, I haven't checked that RFC yet and actually don't even know what RFC you're talking about. Can you share a link? (I guess it's Amendment to the Act on the Institute of National Remembrance) I'll have a look to it, but it would probably be more meaningful to Arbs if you or other editors were to present evidence on this, since my contribution could be seen as retaliation and harassment . Gitz (talk) (contribs) 08:31, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Slate article on Wikipedia's coverage of the Holocaust in Poland

Thank you

NPP Redirect Drive

A personal request

RFA

Post-Vac page redirected and removed.

Goodmorning Buidhe, I have a question concerning the removal of the English Post-Vac page. At 06.46, 18 April 2023, you made a revision to the English Post-Vac page and suggested a merge of the article into COVID-19 vaccine. Nearly two hours later, at 08.22, 18 April 2023, you redirected the Post-Vac page to COVID-19. However, you have also deleted the complete page together with all the references and footnotes. I am not sure whether this was your intention.

User Onel5969 reviewed the Post-Vac page on 19 April 2023 and informed me the page was accepted. I contacted him about the MERGE and DELETE of the Post-Vac page. Though I know the subject of Post-Vac side-effects is a very sensitive subject, I thought that there was nothing in the text which could be a reason to reject the complete content. I have written it very carefully so as not to get involved in any political discussion. So far, all my contributions to Wikipedia were non-political, merely literary subjects, art or history, and some pages were on World War II and the horrors of the Holocaust, e.g. in Dutch (and some of them also in English) on the Jodenkamp Havelte, the Sperr-stempel, Hans Mossel, Marek Weber, Frontstalag, Interneringskamp Royallieu, Nuit et Brouillard (a song by Jean Ferrat), Louis (Levie) de Vries, Benny Behr, Jules Dassin and his son, my favourite singer-songwriter Joe Dassin, to name a few. I really thought that the Post-Vac Syndrome page had some encyclopedic value, and that it was non-political. I seriously thought that it would be of help to those people who experience the rare but sometimes very serious side-effects of the COVID-19 vaccines and they feel lost, perhaps even desperate to find help. It is not an article against the COVID-19 vaccines, it is about helping those people who are looking for help and for some form of recognition. There is nothing wrong in that, is there?

Karl Lauterbach, the German Federal Minister of Health, acknowledged on 12 March 2023 the Post-Vac Syndrom during an interview with the German independent public service television broadcaster ZDF. Lauterbach also said that there was no medication or treatment available. He promised financial assistance for the victims. ^[1]

References

[1]
Karl Lauterbach, the German Federal Minister of Health, acknowledged the Post-Vac-Syndrom on national TV (ZDF), 12 March 2023

I would very much appreciate if you would have another look at the Post-Vac page and perhaps you can undelete the deleted text. Looking forward to hearing from you, hanengerdaHanengerda (talk) 06:39, 19 April 2023 (UTC) Hanengerda (talk) 06:39, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Hanengerda I feel that the page is a WP:POVFORK of the adverse effects of vaccination section. Any relevant information about adverse effects of vaccination (such as meets WP:MEDRS, anyway) should be covered in COVID-19 vaccine. Unfortunately I believe that your page was misleading when recent MEDRS sources say things like "There is probably little or no difference between most [COVID-19] vaccines and placebo for serious adverse events." and "Adverse events following immunization for COVID-19 are mostly mild, similar to other previous vaccines. Severe adverse events (SAEs) are rare". Adverse effects of COVID 19 vaccination may be caused in part by the nocebo effect. (t · c) buidhe 07:01, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your quick reponse and for your explanation. If you believe that the English page on Post-Vac was misleading, then I must add that this was never my intention. In that case it is best for me to withdraw from any further discussion as it is too sensitive. Because anyone can add anything to Wikipedia pages, I do not want to be involved in misleading people on such a very serious issue. Hanengerda (talk) 07:27, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Czech brothers

Hi Buidhe,

I see that you reverted the edits I made to connect the info about the Jews who were taken from Theresienstadt by train and killed in Baranavichy here and two other places. I totally get why you reverted the addition.

I have been trying to find some place to mention these 3,000 Jews (sometimes called the "Czech brothers") who were transported to Baranavichy and killed there. Or, better yet, already mentioned somewhere.

It seems there are two options:

Create a separate article about this massacre
Add the info to the Baranavichy article in the history section

.... that is, unless you have any thoughts about that.

What do you think?–CaroleHenson (talk) 23:04, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

P.S. In which case, I would modify the links to the content in the three reverted places - so that instead of going to a section in the Baranavichy Ghetto article, the links would go to the main Baranavichy article or another better suited place. Thanks for your input!–CaroleHenson (talk) 23:08, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

When I get home I'm going to look up the info in a paper specifically about this transport and suggest a different wording. I think that the 3000 figure is wrong but I will check that too. (t · c) buidhe 23:59, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Okay, cool. It's my practice to mention or add a note for differing counts.

It is seeming like the best approach is a separate article, perhaps something like Mass murder of Theresienstadt Jews at Baranavichy or Mass murder of Czech Jews at Baranavichy with a sentence or two in the Baranavichy, Theresienstadt, and other articles that I tried to add the sentence.–CaroleHenson (talk) 00:07, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

The paper that you're looking for is "Der verhängnisvolle Weg des Transportes AAy" or "The Fateful Way of the Transport AAY" by Jakob Tsur, available here, it's on WP:TWL if you have access to that or I can email the German language version to you (it may also be available in Czech). This is another source.

See here for a list of victims. There were only 1000 (also citable to Tsur p. 107, where he discusses the erroneous figure). Bauer reports 999.

The transport and/or massacre does seem notable so a separate article is reasonable. Compare Transport of Białystok children.

However, I am not sure it is due to include an entire sentence in the various articles about Czech Jews, the Holocaust in Bohemia and Moravia, and Theresienstandt. I am inclined to omit entirely from the first (which has to cover >1000 years of history); in the third article it could be mentioned in the sentence that already mentions Kalevi Liiva and Maly Trostinets, given that more Czech Jews were murdered at those locations than at Baranovichy. On the article about Baranovichy Ghetto it could be mentioned the role of Jews in the ghetto in sorting property of Czech Jewish victims (see Bauer). (t · c) buidhe 00:45, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

I've never heard "Czech brothers" for this before today and as you must realize, it's a misnomer. (t · c) buidhe 01:15, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Wow! Thanks for all the research. Lots of good info to look through! I am wondering if there were two events that involved both Theresienstadt and Baranavichy. The one with 1,000 people occurred in July. I thought, but could absolutely be wrong, that 3,000 Jews from Theresienstadt were killed in June 1942 -- but then they would be in the list you provided. I have read that Baranavichy took people from other ghettos for mass extermination - so it is a bit hard to sort out how many people died there and where they all came from.

I will reseach your info and then go back to sources I happened upon, too, I think much of it from memorial museums and Jewish libraries. Thanks for the feedback about the separate article. I am thinking of a stub or start article - without Theresienstandt background that is in the Transport of Białystok children - mostly focusing on the transport, mass murder, and memorial. Thanks so much for your input!–CaroleHenson (talk) 01:44, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure the 3,000 figure is erroneous since there was only one transport from Theresienstadt or anywhere in Czechia with a destination of Baranovichy. And Tsur mentions the erroneous figure from an account quoted from a Soviet war crimes commission. The higher numbers come from rough estimates of Soviet Jews who had not actually seen the transport arrive, and recordkeeping at Theresienstadt was above average so there is little chance the figure could be that far off. This transport departed on 28 July 1942 and the massacre occurred on 31 July in the afternoon. (t · c) buidhe 01:57, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Hey! The puzzle pieces are fitting together in my head now! I will start drafting the article as Draft:Transport of Czech Jews to Baranavichy so that the name can be tweaked when putting it into article space if you've got a better option.–CaroleHenson (talk) 02:02, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I agree about the 3,000 number. There are some explanations about how it could be 3,000 (trains headed for Minsk, but ended up actually going to Baranavichy, etc. But, I am not sure if that's true. Would need more reliable soures.–CaroleHenson (talk) 02:05, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

New Page Patrol – May 2023 Backlog Drive

TFA

May I send you a draft of changes to the article

Hi Buidhe,

I'm rewriting multiple sections to take into account, multiple points you've brought up

1- removal of any primary source

2- I checked some of the parts that were removed such as some parts of the potential etiologies section have been mentioned in tertiary sources + 2 secondary source. Since I didn't write up those parts I assume the tertiary source wasn't mentioned hence it being removed.

3- Is there any policies against use of a table containing WP:MEDRS sources at the end of the article? I'm asking for policies since you've mentions each article should be judged based on its own merit.

If any of these changes are going to be reverted just let me know not to waste time on them.

In case you accept reading the draft before I add it to the article, I'd appreciate knowing how to rewrite/improve parts if needed.

As a courtesy regarding sending the draft it's to prevent you from being blocked for the 3 reversal rule in case it applies.

thanks

FallingPineapple (talk) 20:52, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi FallingPineapple. Thanks for working on the article.

OK
I'm not sure what you mean by a potential etiologies section. There isn't any such section in your version of the article. That said, if I've wrongly removed content that was well sourced according to MEDRS then feel free to restore it.
A "further reading" section is normal. This would just include the bibliographic information of sources (essentially the same thing as citations) that are not cited but contain information that could improve the article, without any quotations and in a list format. For an example see The_Holocaust_in_the_Sudetenland#Further_reading.

Instead of drafting a separate article, I suggest you can post content to the live Wikipedia article incrementally. That way other editors (not just me) can keep track of it. I've been editing Wikipedia for many years without being blocked and have no intention of edit warring over this article. (t · c) buidhe 21:25, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply,

2. Since I wasn't sure if that section complied or not I didn't include it in my version. I recently checked if different potential etiologies were mentioned in the secondary sources and tertiary sources and could find them, you might've correctly have removed them due to the sources not being mentioned, I'll have to read through them to be sure.

3. I wasn't aware of that. Thanks for mentioning it! I'd definitely use that instead of the table.

I'll post it to the live Wikipedia and will ask for your feedback on how to change/improve it!

I assumed WP:3RRis an automatic process (which turns out not to be), didn't want you to get in trouble just for disagreeing with my edits.

many thanks, FallingPineapple (talk) 21:42, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Is Andrea Pető an activist?

Hi, I noticed you edited my edit of the description of Andrea Pető in the article on the anti-gender movement. The question is whether it is correct to call her an activist. While the source cited in the anti-gender movement article does indeed not state that she is an activist, there is a section on her political activism in the article on herself. In one of the sources cited there, she describes some of her activities as activism ("Really, the feminist walk is activism."). Reading about her, I get the impression that to her, her research and her activism are closely intertwined.

What's the difference between a researcher and an activist anyway? I think it's Hume's guillotine: a researcher describes how things are, an activist argues how they ought to be. Of course you can be both and of course your research can lead to activism, and I think is the case with Andrea Pető. Still, calling her only an academic, historian or researcher etc. suggests that she tries to have a neutral stance towards the topic which I think is not the case. -- Shinryuu (talk) 10:02, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Shinryuu I don't think that's the case. I believe it's fair to describe Peto as an activist in some regards, similar to some others who are mentioned in the article. However, it's common for academics to have some social or political opinions/overt activism in the area that they research, and not necessarily the case that a researcher's personal opinions influence their research output. Since the quote provided is analytical and doesn't argue a particular social or political change, I am not sure her activism is relevant even if it is verifiable in other sources. (t · c) buidhe 10:06, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

I agree that her (or any researcher's) activism does not have to influence her research output. However, I am not sure her statement on the anti-gender movement as having been "launched to establish a new world order" is based on her research. It seems to me that it is an expression of her personal feeling towards the subject and itself a form of activism. The statement is a quote taken out of a longer essay in a book chapter which does not go into detail about the origins of that movement, who might have launched it or how she reached that conclusion. To be honest, when I read the phrase "new world order", it reminds me of conspiracy theorists rather than a supposedly serious academic. And I am surprised she does not back up with any evidence in the article.

In short, this looks like an opinion statement to me and I think she is speaking in her capacity as an activist rather than a researcher here. -- Shinryuu (talk) 10:23, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

If this is an activist rather than an analytical statement, then IMO it would not be WP:DUE to mention in the article lead at all (im not saying I entirely agree with your analysis). One could look for other sources about how the anti-gender movement differs from previously existing anti-feminism and transphobia. (t · c) buidhe 10:26, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

To be honest I did not know about WP:DUE and I also know little about the differences between anti-gender, anti-feminism and transphobia. I read the article lead and that statement about a "new world order" struck me as odd and in need of strong evidence. So I read the cited source and the article on Pető and I got the impression she was speaking as an activist rather than a researcher here. If there is a reliable source for the "new world order" claim (which anyway I think is a weird phrase to use because of its connotations), then I'd prefer if that one was used, but otherwise, I think that the statement should be moved to another part of the article, probably the section "Origin theories" which already exists.

Maybe we should transfer this discussion to the article talk page? Someone there might know a better source that could be cited in addition or instead of the Pető article.-- Shinryuu (talk) 11:35, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

ok (t · c) buidhe 14:09, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

GA Nominations Inquiry

Lady beetle FAC

GOCE copy edit at Criminalization of homosexuality

CS1 error on War crimes of the Wehrmacht

Article for deletion?

Reverting changes to Assyrian Genocide page

Somebody is Pov pushing and they undid your edit

Joseph Smith article - upcoming nomination at FAC

Your GA nomination of The Holocaust

GOCE copy edit at The Holocaust

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/World War II and the history of Jews in Poland closed

An arbitration case, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/World War II and the history of Jews in Poland, has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

The Arbitration Committee formally requests that the Wikimedia Foundation develop and promulgate a white paper on the best practices for researchers and authors when writing about Wikipedians. The Committee requests that the white paper convey to researchers the principles of our movement and give specific recommendation for researchers on how to study and write about Wikipedians and their personal information in a way that respects our principles. Upon completion, we request that the white paper be distributed through the Foundation's research networks including email newsletters, social media accounts, and web publications such as the Diff blog.
This request will be sent by the Arbitration Committee to Maggie Dennis, Vice President of Community Resilience & Sustainability with the understanding that the task may be delegated as appropriate.
Remedy 5 of Antisemitism in Poland is superseded by the following restriction:
All articles and edits in the topic area of Polish history during World War II (1933-1945) and the history of Jews in Poland are subject to a "reliable source consensus-required" contentious topic restriction. When a source that is not an article in a peer-reviewed scholarly journal, an academically focused book by a reputable publisher, and/or an article published by a reputable institution is removed from an article, no editor may reinstate the source without first obtaining consensus on the talk page of the article in question or consensus about the reliability of the source in a discussion at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. Administrators may enforce this restriction with page protections, topic bans, or blocks; enforcement decisions should consider not merely the severity of the violation but the general disciplinary record of the editor in violation.
François Robere is topic banned from the areas of World War II in Poland and the History of Jews in Poland, broadly construed. This ban may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
My very best wishes
- is topic banned from the areas of World War II in Poland and the History of Jews in Poland, broadly construed. This ban may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
- Based on their disruptive attempts to defend Piotrus and Volunteer Marek, My very best wishes is subject to a 1-way interaction ban with Piotrus and a 1-way interaction ban with Volunteer Marek, subject to the usual exceptions. This ban may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
Volunteer Marek
- is topic banned from the areas of World War II in Poland and the History of Jews in Poland, broadly construed. This ban may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
- is limited to 1 revert per page and may not revert a second time with-out a consensus for the revert, except for edits in his userspace or obvious vandalism. This restriction may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
François Robere and Volunteer Marek are prohibited from interacting with, or commenting on, posts and comments made by each other, subject to the normal exceptions. This restriction may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
The Arbitration Committee assumes and makes indefinite the temporary interaction ban between Levivich and Volunteer Marek. This restriction may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
Piotrus is reminded that while off-wiki communication is allowed in most circumstances, he has previously used off-wiki communication disruptively. He is reminded to be cautious about how and when to use off-wiki contact in the future, and to avoid future conflict, he should prioritize on-wiki communication.
The Arbitration Committee affirms its January 2022 motion allowing editors to file for Arbitration enforcement at ARCA or Arbitration enforcement noticeboards. In recognition of the overlap of editor interest and activity between this topic area and Eastern Europe, the committee extends this provision to that topic area. It does so by adding the following text in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eastern Europe:
As an alternative to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement, editors may make enforcement requests directly to the Arbitration Committee at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment.
The Arbitration Committee separately rescinds the part of the January 2022 motion allowing transfer of a case from Arbitration Enforcement to ARCA, in recognition of the now-standard provision in Wikipedia:Contentious topics § Referrals from Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard to the full Committee. It does so by striking the following text in its entirety in item number 7:
In addition to the usual processes, a consensus of administrators at AE may refer complex or intractable issues to the Arbitration Committee for resolution at ARCA, at which point the committee may resolve the request by motion or open a case to examine the issue.
[archive / log]
When considering sanctions against editors in the Eastern Europe topic area, uninvolved administrators should consider past sanctions and the findings of fact and remedies issued in this case.

Should any user subject to a restriction in this case violate that restriction, that user may be blocked for up to 1 year. Administrators placing blocks should take into account an editor's overall conduct and Arbitration history and seriously consider increasing the duration of blocks. Any block 3 months or longer should be reported for automatic review either (1) at ARCA or (2) to an arbitrator or clerk who will open a review at ARCA. The committee will consider presented evidence and statements before deciding by motion what, if any, actions are necessary, up to and including a site ban.

For the Arbitration Committee,
~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:56, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/World War II and the history of Jews in Poland closed

		Military history reviewers' award
		On behalf of the Military History Project, I am proud to present the The Milhist reviewing award (1 stripe) for participating in 1 review between October and December 2022. Hawkeye7 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 04:16, 11 March 2023 (UTC) Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste `{{WPMILHIST Review alerts}}` to your user space

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	I was recently thinking that nobody is creating good content in that topic area. And then I saw your recent successful FA. What can I say... good job. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus\| reply here} 15:29, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

New Page Patrol \| May 2023 Backlog Drive
On 1 May, a one-month backlog drive for New Page Patrol will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of redirects patrolled and for maintaining a streak throughout the drive. Article patrolling is not part of the drive. Sign up here! There is a possibility that the drive may not run if there are <20 registered participants. Participants will be notified if this is the case.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

Related Articles