User talk:Communicat

Controversial command decisions, World War II

Thanks for your reply to the talk page at Controversial command decisions, World War II. The article is a good idea but I have to say it appears to be only half of what is needed. What it consists of now are the arguments why a decision appeared to be controversial, but there is no substantial rebuttal to the arguments. For example, in the part about Churchill and Stalin's discussion concerning a landing in the west, it mentions Churchill's odd contention that the Germans had "nine divisions" in the west. Churchill may have believed that but it is completely untrue. In 1942, there were 35 divisions in the west and this had increased to 40 by 1943 (Harrison, p. 142.) Any discussion of this possibility would have to identify the numbers of divisions and aircraft on both sides at a given date to realistically assess what the chances of military success might have been. Given the often below-average performance of Allied formations before 1943, a landing in 1942 could well have led to a decisive Allied defeat in France and perhaps even a permanent closure of the western front dictated by an armistice with the Germans. 1943 was also problematic because the Allies were still building troop strength, and even when the invasion took place in 1944, by the time the Allies got to the German border it had become clear that there were not enough infantry divisions as well as serious manpower concerns that compounded the problem. The Germans became rather famous for statements like "if the other side had only pushed hard at this moment ...", but history documents that no matter how hard the Allies (or Soviets) pushed, the Germans were always capable of providing spirited resistance. The morale and cohesion of the German forces did not notably diminish in the west until the Rhine River was crossed in March 1945 and in the east, it remained hard-bitten to the end.
I hope you intend at some point to expand the sections of the articles to bring out all of the pertinent information, because as it is now, the article is lopsided. Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 07:31, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Another example - Western allies were fielding 91 full-strength divisions against 60 weak German divisions whose overall strength was roughly equal to only 26 complete divisions. -- This strength quote is picked from a point in the campaign in which the invasion force has been brought up to full strength in 1945 -- at which point a massive offensive was launched and which did not really stop until Germany was defeated. The article really needs to bring out the rest of the story in these sections, because as it is, the information brought out in it appears to selected in such a way that it supports the notion that there was a controversy of some sort, but does not provide any information that would indicate there were valid reasons for something not to happen, such as the inability of the Allies to push into Germany in late 1944 (they tried that with numerous offensives but all ground down primarily because of logistical and manpower issues.) Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 07:46, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Your comments are noted. I think you really understand little about the western front, "dominant narratives" not withstanding. I just wanted to let you know that the two articles are strongly POV. W. B. Wilson (talk) 16:17, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Request for comment

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment#Controversial_command_decisions.2C_World_War_II may be of interest to you. It is considered, by some at least, good manners to notify involved parties of a RfC, I can only assume that Loosmark simply forgot to notify you. Varsovian (talk) 11:49, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Controversial command decisions, World War II

An article that you have been involved in editing, Controversial command decisions, World War II, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Controversial command decisions, World War II. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Nick-D (talk) 22:30, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Re WWII controversial command article

Hi C - you might want to copy the article tout suite into a user subpage - i.e. create User:Communicat/sandbox - since the discussion seems to be moving towards restoring the older version of the article and deleting that one. You could work on it there undisturbed for quite a while and solicit other editors' opinions about its scope and whether it deserves to be a stand-alone article. I've already committed to improving the Lithuania article; that will take some time; so regrettably cannot commit to improving this one anytime soon, altho I do feel it deserves attention. Good luck and pls post anytime - Novickas (talk) 23:48, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

April 2010

Please do not add non-neutral material such as links to essays at www.truth-hertz.net to Wikipedia articles, as you did to World War II and Strategic bombing during World War II. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy. Thank you. Binksternet (talk) 20:53, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Communist-led resistance

How would you justify the statement that all resistance movements in Europe and Asia during World War II were communist led? Buckshot06 (talk) 08:15, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi, No you got me wrong. I did not say "all" resistance / partisan movements were communist-led. I simply referred to "communist-led resistance movements", so there's no need for me to justify my words. There were of course populist (i.e. non-communist)resistance groups as with Force 136 in Malaya, and a populist group in Greece, and nationalist resistance elsewhere e.g. China, before the split with Mao. Non-communist groups, however, were ineffectual and NOT a fighting force worth considering by comparison with the communist-led groups (which to some extent also had some populist members, and in Italy they also had devout Catholics as members). British SOE cut off arms supplies to the communist-led groups in favour of supplying the populist groups towards the end of the war, with a view to diminishing post-war communist influence in Europe and Far East. The sources that I provided in the disputed article that was reverted are relevant. But there are many other reliable sources on this topic, which I can provide if necessary. Thanks for your interest. Regards. Communicat (talk) 12:52, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I would make sure that you keep in mind that in France (especially Paris), non-communist groups actually were more effective and a fighting force worth considering. --Habap (talk) 16:44, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

World War II

Please do not comment on editors or people groups/nationalities but rather the article at hand.--White Shadows ^{Nobody said it was easy} 01:29, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Surely you do not intend to take this issue to Arbcom? Why involve yourself, me, and the other editors in such a thing? You seem to be the only person here who is making these accusations. On the other side, there are all the people who got this article to GA status in the first place.....Why waste the time? I'm beginning to think that you yourself are trying to make this article biased to be honest....--White Shadows ^{Nobody said it was easy} 01:01, 19 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.)

What exactly do you mean by "revisionist" in Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/World War II (overview article)? Would this be the same as Historiography of the Cold War# Revisionism or are you maybe referring to Historical revisionism (negationism)? -- Petri Krohn (talk) 01:55, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Communicat and fringe-POV pushing

(copied on Talk:World War II and Communicat's talk page. Please primarily respond on Talk:World War II)

Having reviewed the Arbcom case filing and the talk pages here and at the Strategic Bombing article that Communicat also was intensively involved in last month, I am intervening as an uninvolved administrator.

Communicat - It is evident that you are disrupting the article here. It is also clear that you do not understand or will not agree to abide by our policies on neutral point of view (one of our core / pillar values), and to some degree our policy on original research. Out of those flow our policies against overly emphasizing minority viewpoints (WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE). You are steadfastly fighting against normal community application of our reliable sources policy here and attempting to insert fringe viewpoints.

We are not here to post original research or be a battleground or advocacy site for new ideas. We are an encyclopedia. We reflect consensus (in verified, reliably sourced external publications and references) of what the world has already concluded.

Additionally, Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia that anyone can edit. It's an encyclopedia that everyone edits together. We value both our core policies and values of community discussion and working together to improve articles and build a better encyclopedia. Using process and discussion as a stick to attempt to push radical change, ignoring all feedback given and refusing to discuss in good faith, is disruptive activity. It's inherently disrespectful to the rest of the community when you do that.

Nobody has yet complained (that I noticed) on an administrators noticeboard such as WP:ANI, however there's no reason for us to wait for that to happen. The conversations with you have gotten increasingly nasty, you're attempting to use process as a stick (the Arbcom case filing), it's evident that you don't agree with Wikipedia's core values and aren't respecting the community here. The short description for all that is "Disruptive editing". Disruptive editing is a blockable offense here on Wikipedia. We don't do it lightly, and we are particularly aware of not wanting to club minority viewpoints into submission or interfere with content discussions arbitrarily. But there are limits, when things become disruptive.

Communicat - you are nearing or at the limits for acceptable behavior now. I would like to warn you that you need to at least tone down your behavior and reconsider how Wikipedia works, and whether your goals in coming here match our goals and core values of producing a neutral encyclopedia. If you continue down the confrontational course you currently have set, I or another administrator may well block you from editing for disruption. That is not my goal or intention. It would be much preferable if you reconsider on your own, and continue engaging in a less confrontational and more collaborative manner. I don't ask or expect you to change your historical opinions. But you can hold them and edit collaboratively and collegially, cooperating with everyone else here.

If you chose not to, again, this behavior is disruption, and disruption is blockable.

I respect your interest here and want to be honest here. You deserve the chance to stay engaged and do so in a more cooperative manner, and to work with us to understand what our community standards are and how to do so. If you are willing to listen to criticism going forwards you are likely to succeed within Wikipedia.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:47, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

A word of advise

If you feel that Wikipedia is biased, (all language versions are, but in different ways) the wrong approach is to attack the most prominent "main" articles. What you should do is little-by-little work on the more specific articles – using reliable sources. Only when you can establish, that the main article deviates from the more specific articles can you push for change.

Unfortunately this approach requires a lot of hard work. It is best to get started early. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 23:29, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

P.S. – As a concrete example you might start working on Aftermath of World War II, which – at present – is hardly worth the bytes it occupies on Wikimedia servers. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 22:04, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Operation August Storm and reliable sources

When I grew up on Manhattan in the late 1960s and early 1970s every classroom, at least in the better schools where I went, was equipped with the book Red Primer for Children and Diplomats. What a wonderful reading and learning experience! I really learned to appreciate the value of the printed word! (It also helped me understand why “we” had to kill all these gooks in Vietnam.) It would still make a excellent source for much of Wikipedia content – although it may be best to use it only indirectly through reliable secondary sources that either quote it directly or at least use it as a source of inspiration. Anyway, here is an on-line reference, in case you ever need to use it in your Wikipedia work.

• Vashi, Victor. Red Primer for Children and Diplomats (1st ed.). Viewpoint Books. ASIN: B0007EEE3I.

The highlight of the book was its description of Operation August Storm and its causality with the Atomic bombing of Japan. It took me however several years to truly appreciate the insight, as I started to come across loads and loads of commie propaganda.

When I downloaded the book Between The Lies by author Stan Winer, I immediately went to the last chapter on these August 1945 events, titled Atomic Blackmail. This must be the worst concoction of commie lies and propaganda I have seen for years! Interesting though is that I recognized I had just read most of the crap in some other context, possibly even as a reference in some Wikipedia article. The author, Stan Winer seems to have used about the same text in several books. What a sneaky weaner! Is he some kind of master propagandist for the bad guys? -- Petri Krohn (talk) 18:09, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

No personal attacks warning

I understand you're frustrated with the issues on the World War II article, but this edit in particular the comment "when descended upon by the equivalent of a pack of editorial wild dogs", violated Wikipedia community civility standards ( see WP:CIVIL) and our policy against personal attacks.

Please read those policies and don't do that again. I warned everyone on the talk page there to stop being rude to each other. I understand that there was general rudeness previously on all sides. However, just because you see them as all out to get you does not justify continuing to be rude to them. If you keep that up, you will earn a block for personal attacks. Please don't go there. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:59, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Please do not attack other editors. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you.