Misplaced Pages

User talk:Kierzek: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 05:57, 4 March 2014 editYMB29 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users4,352 edits Battle of Berlin again: new section← Previous edit Revision as of 14:22, 4 March 2014 edit undoKierzek (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, IP block exemptions, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers53,733 editsm Battle of Berlin againNext edit →
(2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 73: Line 73:
What sentence do you suggest?<br> What sentence do you suggest?<br>
Do you agree with the sentence I recently suggested (''Yelena Senyavskaya and other Russian historians have criticized such statements and argue that while instances of these crimes occurred, they were not widespread.'')? -] (]) 05:57, 4 March 2014 (UTC) Do you agree with the sentence I recently suggested (''Yelena Senyavskaya and other Russian historians have criticized such statements and argue that while instances of these crimes occurred, they were not widespread.'')? -] (]) 05:57, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
:I would take out: "instances of" but otherwise find it the most acceptable proposed sentence which you have put forth thus far. With those 2 words omitted I could agree to the sentence cited to RS sources and your tag of "Attribution needed" in the Aftermath section of the article being removed in light of the detailed footnote therein. However, in the end, ] is the one with whom you must reach an agreement with so there is stability and finality. If that is not reachable in discussion, I would suggest an RFC on the talk page over taking it to ] as you mentioned on the article talk page recently. ] (]) 14:14, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Revision as of 14:22, 4 March 2014


Archives

Template:Multicol1 - April 2009 – August 2011
2 - September 2011 – June 2012
3 - July 2012 – February 2014 Template:Multicol-end


Due to a increased work load, I will be less active on Misplaced Pages but will reply to messages, et cetera when I can. Thank you.

Günther von Reibnitz

A user has come over from the German language Misplaced Pages with new sources, some of them clear and some obscure, but there seems to me to be a lack of objectivity in the air and I would appreciate a little help with keeping the page to its sources. Please see Talk:Günther von Reibnitz. Regards, Moonraker (talk) 01:15, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

I will read it soon. Kierzek (talk) 17:59, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
I read through it and did some ce work on it; I also checked the most recent history and the article seems to have stabilized for now. Cheers, Kierzek (talk) 20:39, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue XCV, February 2014

Full front page of The Bugle Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 23:19, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Need a favor

Hi mate, I was wondering if you could do me a huge favor and delete 2 articles I previously created.

1. Directive No. 21 2. Shosanna Dreyfus

Both are unworthy of independed articles and I would like them deleted. However, I don't have the right to do that, so I was hoping you could help a friend?

Best regards

- Jonas Vinther

I would be glad to help but cannot do what you want done. See Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion for how to nominate them for deletion or ask an admin, such as Diannaa on her talk page as to help in the process. Good luck, Kierzek (talk) 17:34, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks so such friend

- Jonas Vinther

List of Books about Nazi Germany

Kierzek - I saw where you deleted Grey Wolf as a fringe work. Not sure that outright deleting the book was necessary. A footnote or caveat after the book may have sufficed. No? Given its sales, I thought it deserved mention. After all, the most recent forensic studies on this matter have conclusively proven that the skull the former Soviets had - when examined, was not that of der Führer. Likewise, there was an extensive file about this with the FBI. Both Stalin and Zhukov believed Hitler had escaped. Just sayin'. No dog in this fight however, as it is not important by any means. --Obenritter (talk) 22:15, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

No, that book should not be included; it is more fiction than anything else, unfounded speculation and conjecture. I know this subject very well, having brought the Death of Adolf Hitler article up to GA status, along with Diannaa.
You see, different versions of Hitler's fate in the late 1940s especially (through the 1960s) were presented by the Soviet Union according to its political desires. See: Eberle & Uhl (2005), The Hitler Book: The Secret Dossier Prepared for Stalin from the Interrogations of Hitler's Personal Aides, p. 288. At the time of the Potsdam conference in 1945, it was not conclusively known by the western Allies what was the fate of Hitler. The Soviets knew by then, that is the point. That is why Dick White, then head of counter-intelligence in the British sector of Berlin (and later head of MI5 and MI6 in succession) had their agent Hugh Trevor-Roper investigate the matter to counter the Soviet claims. His findings, as you know, were written in a report and published in book form in 1947. Trevor-Roper deserve credit for being the first to write a detailed western account of Hitler's last days (which countered the Soviet propaganda at the time). However, the book lacked information (and insight) of key inner-circle players who were locked up in the east by the Soviets and the book is now is quite dated. The FBI file is OLD; they were only investigating the rumors at that time. I know all about the "skull"; it is a red herring on the matter. The "skull" was from one of the many bodies buried in the Reich Chancellery garden. For example, the jaw and bridge fragments which had been recovered were not tested by the American researchers. So the "skull" does not matter as to the events in question. See:
Kershaw, Ian (2001). Hitler, 1936–1945: Nemesis. London: Penguin. pp. 1038–39. ISBN 978-0-14-027239-0.
Joachimsthaler, Anton (1999) . The Last Days of Hitler: The Legends, The Evidence, The Truth. Brockhampton Press. ISBN 978-1-86019-902-8.
Fischer, Thomas (2008). Soldiers of the Leibstandarte. J.J. Fedorowicz Publishing. ISBN 978-0-921991-91-5.
Linge, Heinz (2009). With Hitler to the End. Frontline Books–Skyhorse Publishing. ISBN 978-1-60239-804-7.

Cheers, Kierzek (talk) 22:40, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Excellent. That pretty much ends that debate. I'll look deeper into the matter using the sources you've been kind enough to share. My expertise (post grad-Ph.D. work) over the Nazi period is really ideological matters and their philosophy about geopolitics and race. Speculation is amusing nonetheless, but not academic as you noted here so its exclusion was the right decision. If you've ever seen the interview over this subject with Traudl Junge, you'd think she was hiding something with her distant gaze. Maybe she was just reflecting back and trying to contain herself from sharing that she knew more than she ever admitted. Anyway - thanks for taking this to task. --Obenritter (talk) 23:09, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
Junge was probably uncomfortable with the subject and reflection on it; having a hard time coming to terms with the past and certainly she had a lot of emotional history and memories, I am sure. Kierzek (talk) 03:05, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

HAPPY WIKIBIRTHDAY!

Happy WikiBirthday friend. I hope everything is going good. I would like to thank you for the kindness you've shown me on Misplaced Pages. Unfortunately I didn't bring a gift.

- Jonas Vinther

Thank you for the kind note. Kierzek (talk) 13:12, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Jacqueline Kennedy

"A large crowd of well-wishers and reporters gathered on the sidewalk outside her apartment." The photo adds to the text. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.102.74.23 (talk) 02:26, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

No, it really doesn't as it is just a photo of five reporters waiting. I also see that someone else has already removed it again. Kierzek (talk) 13:16, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Battle of Berlin again

Earlier you said that a simple sentence can be added to the article that reflects the view of Russian historians.
What sentence do you suggest?
Do you agree with the sentence I recently suggested (Yelena Senyavskaya and other Russian historians have criticized such statements and argue that while instances of these crimes occurred, they were not widespread.)? -YMB29 (talk) 05:57, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

I would take out: "instances of" but otherwise find it the most acceptable proposed sentence which you have put forth thus far. With those 2 words omitted I could agree to the sentence cited to RS sources and your tag of "Attribution needed" in the Aftermath section of the article being removed in light of the detailed footnote therein. However, in the end, PBS is the one with whom you must reach an agreement with so there is stability and finality. If that is not reachable in discussion, I would suggest an RFC on the talk page over taking it to dispute resolution as you mentioned on the article talk page recently. Kierzek (talk) 14:14, 4 March 2014 (UTC)