Cannabis Ruderalis

thcscience_admin
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 229: Line 229:
:::::::::::: {{ping|My very best wishes}} Do you think that was from a Sock to that banned user? [[User:Jack90s15|Jack90s15]] ([[User talk:Jack90s15|talk]]) 23:42, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
:::::::::::: {{ping|My very best wishes}} Do you think that was from a Sock to that banned user? [[User:Jack90s15|Jack90s15]] ([[User talk:Jack90s15|talk]]) 23:42, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
::::::::::::Yes, possibly. Someone created an account to make a single edit in an article on a highly contentious subject. As a rule of thumb, you should never restore edits made by such accounts if the edits are removed by other contributors, unless you personally checked the underlying sources and can evaluate their reliability. Otherwise, you are guilty of [[WP:PROXYING]]. [[User:My very best wishes|My very best wishes]] ([[User talk:My very best wishes|talk]]) 23:59, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
::::::::::::Yes, possibly. Someone created an account to make a single edit in an article on a highly contentious subject. As a rule of thumb, you should never restore edits made by such accounts if the edits are removed by other contributors, unless you personally checked the underlying sources and can evaluate their reliability. Otherwise, you are guilty of [[WP:PROXYING]]. [[User:My very best wishes|My very best wishes]] ([[User talk:My very best wishes|talk]]) 23:59, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

If this is about the Aleksvich book then please provide the appropriate page number for the quote - it's not on page 236 and I can't find the quote using searches [https://books.google.com/books?id=H1wpDwAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=War%E2%80%99s+Unwomanly+Face&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjRuqCAtsLkAhVRIqwKHcdxBlkQ6AEwAHoECAAQAg#v=snippet&q=Siberia&f=false].<small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Volunteer Marek|<span style="color:orange;background:blue;font-family:sans-serif;">''' Volunteer Marek '''</span>]]</span></small> 23:59, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Revision as of 23:59, 8 September 2019

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 13 May 2019 and 1 July 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Australyeah (article contribs).

Discourse

The text is difficult to understand, To begin with something, it tells: "The way the rapes have been discussed by Sander and Johr in their "BeFreier und Befreite"[1] has been criticised by several scholars." But what exactly "been discussed by Sander and Johr". Page does not tell it. What exactly has been "criticised"? That does not make any sense. My very best wishes (talk) 01:18, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree the article is in a terrible state. The first problem is it relies heavily on primary sources (memoirs, Alexievich (who is a brilliant writer, but by no mean a scholar), which is not good for WP, it doesn't place the event in a historical context, and it doesn't explain properly a feminist agenda of Sander and Johr. Actually, the idea that rape stories were taboo is not true: they were not taboo in West Germany, this issue was not considered deserving too much attention (mass killing as a result of American bombing, expulsion, poverty, were considered much more serious evil).
It is also should be explained that German woman were neither victims of Nazism nor neutral bystanders: most of them passively (and actively) supported Hitler and benefited a lot from the Third Reich's policy. The Americans considered woman populated cities a legitimate target for strategic bombing, and we should not be too surprised that German woman fell victims of the overall brutality of land warfare (whereas Americans focused on strategic bombing, Soviets took a major brunt of land warfare, but they were not bombing cities massively). I have sources (secondary scholarly sourcses) in support of my claims.
It is necessary to discus the plan, and after that to rewrite it.
--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:31, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's the thing: this page does not tell anything about "a feminist agenda of Sander and Johr", but it "disproves" it. I personally have no idea what is the "feminist agenda of Sander and Johr". I do not suggest to rewrite anything significantly on the page (and not particularly interested in the subject), but just did a minor fix. Citing a book by the Nobel prize winner (Aleksievich) on this page is fine. My very best wishes (talk) 23:28, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A feminist agenda (as Bos and others see it) is an attempt to represent this story as a rape of some generic woman (an innocent victim, by definition) by some generic man (a universal sinner). Totally ahistorical and hypocritical attempt.
By the way, in her film, Sander carefully avoid mention of rapes of Soviet woman by German military, although she herself admits up to 1.5 million children were born in occupied territory of the USSR from German fathers. She refuses to admit that all of that were result of rapes, and she believes the sexual contacts were only partially coercive. She does not apply the same approach to German woman, although the whole statistics of rapes was based on three thousand children allegedly born from Russian fathers. About a million vs three thousand!
With regard to Alexievich, she is not a scholar, she is a writer. Usage of primary sources should be limited in WP. It is our policy.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:40, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever "the feminist agenda" is, it must be described on the page with refs prior to criticizing it. That is assuming such "agenda" belongs to this page. And, no, the books by Aleksievich are secondary sources (yes, they are based on eyewitness accounts, just as many other secondary RS). For example, the well known book by Ales Adamovich [1] is also a secondary source. My very best wishes (talk) 01:08, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I make an understandable version of this section. If want to write it better, please do. My very best wishes (talk) 03:56, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Removed picture accredited to organization closed down in 1939

I removed the picture of the inset box, which was related to suspected rape victims. The picture was ascribed to Sicherpolitzei as photographers. But that organization was reorganized into another Nazi organization in 1939, the year of the start of the war. Thus, this is inappropriate in terms of time sequence, as the present article is regarding actions in the 1945 and subsequent occupation of Germany. This apparent contradiction needs to be resolved before the picture is restored to the article.Dogru144 (talk) 00:32, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"after being thrown out of a first-floor window."

The phrase "after being thrown out of a first-floor window" is confusing. Is it a British English "first floor" ie "second floor" in American English or the "first floor in American English ie the "ground floor" in British English? -- PBS (talk) 23:05, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Revert

I reverted most part of this edit (a single edit of a red-linked account, possibly a sock of user YMB29). No, this is not properly sourced. Two paragraphs were "referenced" to this. The last one was sourced to a book, but without pages, and I could not find cited text. My very best wishes (talk) 03:02, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@My very best wishes: I can look for the Information with the way back machine and what page number that is onJack90s15 (talk) 03:07, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a reference by any reasonable account. Do you agree? Book - we must check what it actually tells, I could not find this claim in the book at all. My very best wishes (talk) 03:13, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@My very best wishes: what I mean is I will look for was stated and find the source for it yes I agree 404 error is not a sourceJack90s15 (talk) 03:22, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I can see that you found correct links, but none of them qualify as RS, but rather as propaganda-style opinion pieces published in newspapers that are much worse than Daily Mail, and most of them by people no one knows about (like Дарья Горчакова, Сергей Турченко, etc.). In particular, these sources do not qualify as RS :[2] [3] [4]. Do you know Russian (all of them are Russian language source), can you evaluate their reliability, and do you insist they qualify as RS? My very best wishes (talk) 17:41, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Also, you titled text referenced to such sources as "studies". Those are not studies. You need strong academic sources to call something "studies". My very best wishes (talk) 17:53, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@My very best wishes: Hello I hope you are having a good night or day wherever you are. I did use a proper translation tool and they are quoting Russian scholars on the Subject and 5 other Sources are using news articles and one of them is using the one that used.Jack90s15 (talk) 18:16, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Are you saying that Дарья Горчакова, Сергей Турченко who signed these opinion pieces are Russian scholars?? Whatever was sourced to BBC is fine - I agree. My very best wishes (talk) 18:19, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The people who Gave their opinions what if we change it to scholarly opinions that way it's in the sources Voice not Wikipedia's. Could we compromise to that so we can have all the sources from different opinions since 5 other Sources are using news articles and one of them is using the one that used.Jack90s15 (talk) 18:28, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, these comments are just personal opinions on the internet by a couple of guys no one knows about. My very best wishes (talk) 19:24, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@My very best wishes: what if we change it to opinions on the subject Since some are news articles on the subject and we only quote two other Russian scholars,Jack90s15 (talk) 18:33, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BOLD,_revert,_discuss_cycle#Discuss,

  • Be ready to compromise: If you browbeat someone into accepting your changes, you are not building consensus, you are making enemies. This cycle is designed to highlight strongly opposing positions,so if you want to get changes to stick both sides will have to bend, possibly even bow. You should be clear about when you are compromising and should expect others to compromise in return, but do not expect it to be exactly even.Jack90s15 (talk) 18:28, 25 August 2019 (UTC))[reply]


  • According to Russia historian A. Dyukov:" The Germans did not experience a fraction of the horror that their soldiers staged in the East. Despite some excesses, which were firmly suppressed by the Command, the Red Army as a whole behaved toward the people of the Reich with humanity". The Russian soldiers are credited with feeding the German population, rescuing children, and helping to restore normal life in the country.[23]


  • Colonel Ivan Busik, Director of Russia's Institute of Military History, cited Soviet Army General Ivan Tretiak, who said there was not a single case of violence committed by men in his regiment. Tretiak said that although he wanted revenge, Stalin's orders on treating the population humanely were implemented, and discipline in the army strengthened.

Tell me what you think how does the edit look to you? Jack90s15 (talk) 18:44, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We are talking about 3 different sources/links (see above), not 5. If there are two more, please tell what they are. Those 3 clearly do not qualify as RS for this page. An opinion by Dykov (if it were reliably sourced, but it is not) might be placed to a page about him, not here, since he is a fringe author. "you are making enemies" is a confrontational comment on your part, sorry. My very best wishes (talk) 19:20, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Jack, you need to take a step back and listen to the editor My very best wishes, she knows RS sources, when it comes to Soviet/Russian material. BBC is okay. If it was added in the past by YMB29 and you have reintroduced it, then it certainly should be reverted. I leave it to the two of you at this point to work out. Kierzek (talk) 19:09, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@My very best wishes: what I trying to say with The BRD page is that I am ready to listen to what you have to say about this and work this out. and Most people would not who know Oleg Rzheshevsky is either. that why I was thinking what if we just quote Makhmut Akhmetovich Gareyev Former Deputy Chief of the General Staff of the Armed Forces of the USSR.?


(According to Former Deputy Chief of the General Staff of the Armed Forces of the USSR Ivan Tretiak, said there was not a single case of violence committed by men in his regiment. Tretiak said that although he wanted revenge, Stalin's orders on treating the population humanely were implemented, and discipline in the army strengthened. Tretiak said that in such a huge military group as that in Germany, there was bound to be cases of sexual misconduct, as men had not seen women in years. However, he explains that sexual relations were not always violent, but often involved mutual consent. The work of Beevor and others alleging mass rape is characterized by Tretiak as "filthy cynicism, because the vast majority of those who have been slandered cannot reply to these liars.)Jack90s15 (talk) 19:42, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]


@My very best wishes: It is showing the reader the opinion of someone of was a higher up in the USSR about the mass rapes what do you think about this? maybe in the Memoirs part of page?Jack90s15 (talk) 19:53, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to quote an opinion by an expert, his opinion should be reliably sourced to secondary RS. It was not. Another question if an opinion by this person qualify as "fringe" or not, and if it really provides an important information about the subject. My very best wishes (talk) 20:02, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify, the war rapes in Berlin and other parts of Germany were well documented and essentially a matter of fact. Any source that flatly deny it (for example, "not a single case of violence") should be viewed as "fringe". The exact numbers and details may be disputable My very best wishes (talk) 20:13, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]


@My very best wishes: Ok I was thinking Since they were memories I can put them in the memory section like this,
  • According to Mahmoud Gareev, Former Deputy Chief of the General Staff of the Armed Forces of the USSR:

he had not heard about sexual violence. He said that after what the Nazis did to Russia, excesses were likely to take place, but that such cases were strongly suppressed and punished, and were not widespread. He notes that the Soviet military leadership on 19 January 1945 signed an executive order calling on the avoidance of a rough relationship with the local .Gareyev said that Beevor copied Goebbel's propaganda about the "aggressive sexuality of our soldier


  • According to General Ivan Tretiak:

there was not a single case of violence committed by men in his regiment. Tretiak said that although he wanted revenge, Stalin's orders on treating the population humanely were implemented, and discipline in the army strengthened. Tretiak said that in such a huge military group as that in Germany, there was bound to be cases of sexual misconduct, as men had not seen women in years. However, he explains that sexual relations were not always violent, but often involved mutual consent. The work of Beevor and others alleging mass rape is characterized by Tretiak as "filthy cynicism, because the vast majority of those who have been slandered cannot reply to these liars.


@My very best wishes: The rapes did happen I do not denial them that I why am asking. If you are ok if I pit the memories in to that part of the page, Since it shows the reader what Higher ups who were there thought about what happened with the RapesJack90s15 (talk) 20:29, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Saying that the subject of Soviet rapes during occupation of Germany is "Goebbel's propaganda" (view by Makhmut Gareev) is a WP:FRINGE view. But in any event you would need a secondary source better than that. My very best wishes (talk) 00:33, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Then what about just quoting the post-war memory and not the secondary opinion they give? that'source is also used on this page besides for those two people.Jack90s15 (talk) 00:39, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]


  • According to Mahmoud Gareev, Former Deputy Chief of the General Staff of the Armed Forces of the USSR:

he had not heard about sexual violence. He said that after what the Nazis did to Russia, excesses were likely to take place, but that such cases were strongly suppressed and punished, and were not widespread. He notes that the Soviet military leadership on 19 January 1945 signed an executive order calling on the avoidance of a rough relationship with the locals


  • According to General Ivan Tretiak:

there was not a single case of violence committed by men in his regiment. Tretiak said that although he wanted revenge, Stalin's orders on treating the population humanely were implemented, and discipline in the army strengthened. Tretiak said that in such a huge military group as that in Germany, there was bound to be cases of sexual misconduct, as men had not seen women in years. However, he explains that sexual relations were not always violent, but often involved mutual consent


@My very best wishes: can we agree on quoting just the memories they give and not the opinion? Since Anthony B is not a post war memory ? in memory's part of pageJack90s15 (talk) 00:47, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@My very best wishes: I see that you did a compromise are you OK with the one I did?Jack90s15 (talk) 00:57, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No, because you create "false balance" -see WP:GEVAL. The view by Gareev might be included (because you insist) only very briefly - as I did. If you want to include more memoirs, I can only support it. But those should be actual memoirs, like here, not the official views by Soviet generals or something censored by Glavlit.My very best wishes (talk) 01:01, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]


@My very best wishes: I removed that one and left the actual memory of a general who was interviewed about it is that one ok?Jack90s15 (talk) 01:08, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No, you did something opposite. You removed a brief summary of his fringe views/opinion, but instead provided long quotation - see WP:GEVAL. That's why we should use scholarly sources on the subject, and this is not Gareev. One could use this article by Mark Solonin who is indeed a Russian scholar on the history of WWII. My very best wishes (talk) 01:14, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@My very best wishes: I did remove Gareev and left the post war memory of Ivan Tretiak if you are not ok with that I will remove it.Jack90s15 (talk) 01:22, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think one should either remove the views by Tretiak and Gareev or describe them very briefly. I can fix it later. My very best wishes (talk) 01:27, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]


@My very best wishes: I did Shorten it, what were you thinking of doing?Jack90s15 (talk) 01:55, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]


  • there was not a single case of violence committed by men in his regiment. Tretiak said that although he wanted revenge, Stalin's orders on treating the population humanely were implemented, and discipline in the army strengthened. Tretiak said that in such a huge military group as that in Germany, there was bound to be cases of sexual misconduct, as men had not seen women in years


  • I did not add this in to make it shorter

(However, he explains that sexual relations were not always violent, but often involved mutual consent)Jack90s15 (talk) 01:54, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Look, you just placed unreliably sourced and completely false claims by Tretiak and Gareev to the page. They either do not belong at all to the page as "fringe" or should be mentioned exactly as I did here, i.e. very briefly per WP:GEVAL. If you want to use "Russian sources", that's fine. Use this article by Mark Solonin. Or you can use these English language books: [5], [6] My very best wishes (talk) 03:39, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]


@My very best wishes: I did say what was in the source it did say that in the source. How would you write it? for the memory's section to keep it Very brief? I did look over the solonin source I would like to see what you would put for the memory's part of page Jack90s15 (talk) 04:13, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@My very best wishes: I found a better source it is from Elinor florence,Jack90s15 (talk) 05:00, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(Elinor Florence grew up on a Saskatchewan grain farm, a former World War Two training airfield near North Battleford.

  • After earning her English degree at the University of Saskatchewan, she studied journalism at Carleton University. She launched her career at her hometown newspaper The Battlefords Advertiser-Post, followed by The Western Producer in Saskatoon, The Red Deer Advocate in Alberta, The Winnipeg Sun in Manitoba, and The Province in Vancouver, British Columbia.
  • Weary of city life, Elinor and her husband moved their young family to the mountain resort town of Invermere, British Columbia. For the next eight years, she was a regular writer for Reader’s Digest.)

and she Interviews people who lived Through world war 2 is this source ok with you?Jack90s15 (talk) 05:00, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]


@My very best wishes: and that probably is a sock puppet they posted the Same stuff I will Report Since you said it may be a banned userJack90s15 (talk) 05:11, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]


My Very Best Wishes, your edits come across as problematic because all you've done is delete material from another point of view. There are allegations of massive, extraordinary sexual violence by Russian soldiers during WW2 but it's an indisputable fact that many people dispute the allegations.
Your insistence that svpressa.ru (Svobodnaya Pressa) is somehow flawed and cannot be used in the article is not something that is held by researchers and experts concentrating on Russia. Svobodnaya Pressa is cited in "Russia’s New Ground Forces: Capabilities, Limitations and Implications for International Security" by Justin Bronk, described as "Research Fellow specialising in combat airpower and technology in the Military Sciences team at RUSI" Bronk cited this article from Svobodnaya Pressa in particular. The contents of the material on svpressa as cited in this article also appears on the web portal of the Russian Writers' Union
Look, you just placed unreliably sourced and completely false claims by Tretiak and Gareev to the page.
They were there and accurately reported what they witnessed, like it or not.
That's why we should use scholarly sources on the subject, and this is not Gareev.

Svetlana Alexeevich is not a scholarly source. You insist on leaving out the observations of Tretiak and Gareev because they dispute the narratives that you endorse, but you're perfectly perfectly cool with leaving intact the non-scholarly content of authors like Alexeevich. That's inconsistent and partisan.Fuzzythroat (talk) 05:31, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A scholar citing an extremely unreliable source X (X could be something like Kavkaz Center or whatever) does not prove X is an RS. This is easy to fix. I will do it later. My very best wishes (talk) 14:39, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]


@My very best wishes: The source I put was from a reliable source for the Memories part of page. were you acknowledging the other person?Jack90s15 (talk) 16:25, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Elinor Florence is an author and journalist. Before publishing her bestselling novel, Bird’s Eye View, she edited several daily newspapers and wrote for many publications, including Reader’s Digest Canada. Elinor lives in Invermere, British Columbia.https://www.dundurn.com/authors/Elinor-FlorenceJack90s15 (talk) 16:51, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, she might be a good author (I have no idea), but the source you cited is blog: [7]. Also, there is a huge number of eyewitness accounts. I do not mind citing a few, but they should be just a few and cited from books by notable authors like Aleksievich (a Nobel prize winner) or historians who wrote multiple books on WWII like Solonin. My very best wishes (talk) 14:16, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@ My Very Best Wishes, you have expressed further partisanship and outright double standards. Essentially, your viewpoint is, "Russians are bad guys who do bad things." My friend, you're perfectly entitled to believe whatever you want, but you can't go around smearing credible sources who've commented on this topic as "unreliable". You're also missing the point completely. Svobodnaya Pressa is not the point at all, the point is that it cites completely credible sources such as Gareev, who has a PHD in history and military science and is the president of Russia's Academy of Military Sciences. Gareev participated in the frickin' war and was in Germany at the time these alleged events happened. He's the author of "M.V. Frunze: military theorist", "The ambiguous pages of the war: essays on the problematic issues of the history of the Great Patriotic War" and also the author of "If War Comes Tomorrow?: The Contours of Future Armed Conflict". The dudeis an accomplished scholar and a war veteran, so I reckon there is probably no one on the planet more qualified to comment on this issue than he.
You have also completely misrepresented what Gareev, Tretiak and other sources said said. Gareev was frickin' there, you weren't there, and you have no authority to smear him as fringe: "Лично я участвовал в освобождении Восточной Пруссии. Говорю как на духу: о сексуальном насилии тогда даже не слышал" - HE DID NOT SAY that not a single case of abuse or violence never took place in occupied Germany!!!!!!!!Fuzzythroat (talk) 04:08, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"your viewpoint is...". No, I do not have such viewpoint. As about Garrev, yes, as you cited, he said "I have never ever even heard about the sexual violence during this time [WWII]]". He contradicts all others and even himself (he tells about orders in the Soviet Army to prevent it). His writings are NOT a credible source about anything. My very best wishes (talk) 14:16, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Article being flagged for copyright problems

Not sure if it's because of quote spam or just out right copy pasting...but it needs to be addressed before someone puts it up for deletion. Pls refer to here for the different copyright concerns.--Moxy 🍁 03:19, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Moxy, that link looks like it copied from the Wikipedia article (specifically this revision), rather than the other way around. – bradv🍁 03:30, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That is possible. ..but there are 7 links to different sites....need to click every example. If you compare it to a copy from last year we don't get such a warning.--Moxy 🍁 03:33, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Moxy, just checked all of them - they're all either quotes or copies from our article. – bradv🍁 03:40, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
So it's quote spamming causing the problem.....should fix the lazy additions since last year as per MOS:Quote. I will take a look.... first we should fix the sourcing problem.... Old topic like this has many academic publications to use.... simply no need for dead websites.--Moxy 🍁 03:46, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Bradv: there was no copyright violation; this is obvious. As about the quotations, see may comments above. This is mostly a sourcing problem. In particular "Sex liberation and erotic myths... " by Сергей Турченко no one knows about is not an appropriate source for this page. This revert [8] made 4 times by user Jack90s15 in violation of 3RR rule) is not fixing a vandalism by an IP, but insertion of poorly sourced content. My very best wishes (talk) 14:33, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@My very best wishes: It was on there for a while and no one seemed to have a problem with soviet field reports the same source is still used on the page that's why I asked for page protection. I am not here to make enemies with people the Copyright problem was here before me I hope we can all work this out.Jack90s15 (talk) 16:30, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No, it was only just a few day ago when you created such section [9]. Regardless, it does not matter for how long the poorly sourced materials were on a page. The longer the worse. My very best wishes (talk) 16:39, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]



@My very best wishes: For the time it was it was a while but I don't want to argue about this I want to work to together on this with you can we? Jack90s15 (talk) 16:53, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. Please find better sources if you want to include this content. My very best wishes (talk) 16:57, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@My very best wishes: I added the war time memory that was from the same Book that is used for the other twoJack90s15 (talk) 22:28, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This text was included in a single edit made by a suspicious red linked account [10]. Unless you can personally check the cited Russian original and confirm translation, this should be removed. I read the book and do not remember it there. My very best wishes (talk) 22:46, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@My very best wishes: Do you think that was from a Sock to that banned user? Jack90s15 (talk) 23:42, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, possibly. Someone created an account to make a single edit in an article on a highly contentious subject. As a rule of thumb, you should never restore edits made by such accounts if the edits are removed by other contributors, unless you personally checked the underlying sources and can evaluate their reliability. Otherwise, you are guilty of WP:PROXYING. My very best wishes (talk) 23:59, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If this is about the Aleksvich book then please provide the appropriate page number for the quote - it's not on page 236 and I can't find the quote using searches [11]. Volunteer Marek 23:59, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special%3ADiff%2F914715334

Leave a Reply