Thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia, and a Happy New Year to you and yours! ~~~~
Thank you so much! Wishing you a most happy 2022! And thank for all your hard work and contributions around here. Best wishes! -- A.S. Brown ( talk) 07:58, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
- @ A.S. Brown: thank you! -- K.e.coffman ( talk) 16:43, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
I'm not sure how much this topic interests you, but I'm starting to do some improvements at Werner Conze and may move on to Theodor Schieder if I don't burn out or lose interest. The article is still in a pretty atrocious state and I haven't even done anything at Schieder yet, if I ever will. I'm interested in the question of how we can/should present historians with very problematic Nazi pasts who were nevertheless highly significant and influential postwar. I obviously disagree with the approach taken in these articles so far, which is to list everything bad they ever did or said without any structure, and then ignore their postwar careers except when we can find a quote of someone criticizing them for continuing their Nazi ideals in new forms or something.-- Ermenrich ( talk) 15:01, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
- I guess you know "Deutsche Historiker im Nationalsozialismus", edited by Winfried Schulze and Otto Gerhard Oexle. Finished reading that one recently, it's probably a useful source. The authors consider the same questions and avoid the same things you intend to avoid. --
Hob Gadling (
talk) 16:13, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
- @ Ermenrich: I generally create / edit articles on historians that I see in use in the German war effort topic area, including the Holocaust. I'm only vaguely aware of the two that you mentioned, so I probably would not be of much help. But I broadly agree with your approach -- the coverage needs to be balanced. -- K.e.coffman ( talk) 19:16, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
While editing at
Werner Conze I came across the page for his Wehrmacht unit
291st Infantry Division (Wehrmacht). The page manages not to mention the division's participation in the
Liepāja massacres, so I suspect there's some more historical omissions to be found in the text. It also contains some examples of the action-packed writing style you're trying to fight against: After this success, the front settled down into static positions that changed very little for almost two years, but, following his receiving the Knights Cross in mid-October, there was little time for Herzog and his men to catch their breath as they were shifted to 18th Armee's front along the Volkhov River to resist continued efforts by the Russians to break through to besieged Leningrad.
Probably worth a look and rewrite.--
Ermenrich (
talk) 15:55, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
Your feedback at WT:WikiProject Military history#Jewish ghettos or Nazi ghettos? would be appreciated. Thanks, Mathglot ( talk) 04:14, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Hi, here I show you the new link about rechtsextreme Verlage in the Bundeszentrale politische Bildung BpB. Kind regards --
Nordlicht3 (
talk) 23:52, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
[1]
Thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia, and a Happy New Year to you and yours! ~~~~
Thank you so much! Wishing you a most happy 2022! And thank for all your hard work and contributions around here. Best wishes! -- A.S. Brown ( talk) 07:58, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
- @ A.S. Brown: thank you! -- K.e.coffman ( talk) 16:43, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
I'm not sure how much this topic interests you, but I'm starting to do some improvements at Werner Conze and may move on to Theodor Schieder if I don't burn out or lose interest. The article is still in a pretty atrocious state and I haven't even done anything at Schieder yet, if I ever will. I'm interested in the question of how we can/should present historians with very problematic Nazi pasts who were nevertheless highly significant and influential postwar. I obviously disagree with the approach taken in these articles so far, which is to list everything bad they ever did or said without any structure, and then ignore their postwar careers except when we can find a quote of someone criticizing them for continuing their Nazi ideals in new forms or something.-- Ermenrich ( talk) 15:01, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
- I guess you know "Deutsche Historiker im Nationalsozialismus", edited by Winfried Schulze and Otto Gerhard Oexle. Finished reading that one recently, it's probably a useful source. The authors consider the same questions and avoid the same things you intend to avoid. --
Hob Gadling (
talk) 16:13, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
- @ Ermenrich: I generally create / edit articles on historians that I see in use in the German war effort topic area, including the Holocaust. I'm only vaguely aware of the two that you mentioned, so I probably would not be of much help. But I broadly agree with your approach -- the coverage needs to be balanced. -- K.e.coffman ( talk) 19:16, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
While editing at
Werner Conze I came across the page for his Wehrmacht unit
291st Infantry Division (Wehrmacht). The page manages not to mention the division's participation in the
Liepāja massacres, so I suspect there's some more historical omissions to be found in the text. It also contains some examples of the action-packed writing style you're trying to fight against: After this success, the front settled down into static positions that changed very little for almost two years, but, following his receiving the Knights Cross in mid-October, there was little time for Herzog and his men to catch their breath as they were shifted to 18th Armee's front along the Volkhov River to resist continued efforts by the Russians to break through to besieged Leningrad.
Probably worth a look and rewrite.--
Ermenrich (
talk) 15:55, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
Your feedback at WT:WikiProject Military history#Jewish ghettos or Nazi ghettos? would be appreciated. Thanks, Mathglot ( talk) 04:14, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Hi, here I show you the new link about rechtsextreme Verlage in the Bundeszentrale politische Bildung BpB. Kind regards --
Nordlicht3 (
talk) 23:52, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
[1]