User talk:Buidhe

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I take requests for image and source reviews on historical topics at A-Class and Featured level. Please post all requests on this page.

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

Title says it all (talk) 02:31, 6 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]

Historians by former country[edit]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]


Here's the source that SC UPHELD VALIDITY OF FCRA [1] Ktdk (talk) 14:19, 10 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]



Hi Buidhe. If you intend to nominate Armenian genocide denial for TFA on 24 April, that period is now accepting nominations. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:20, 10 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thx (t · c) buidhe 21:37, 10 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Congratulations from the Military History Project[edit]

Wiki-stripe1.svg 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)Reply[reply]
Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste {{WPMILHIST Review alerts}} to your user space

Hi Buidhe, would you mind having a quick look at this discussion? I think I am in the right but would appreciate a third-party opinion. —Brigade Piron (talk) 23:00, 11 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Image review request[edit]

Hi Buidhe, do you have any interest doing an image review? Marriage License is second to the bottom at FAC and all it is missing is images. -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 19:32, 12 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Armenian genocide denial scheduled for TFA[edit]

This is to let you know that the Armenian genocide denial article has been scheduled as today's featured article for April 24, 2023. Please check the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page blurb, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/April 24, 2023, but note that a coordinator will trim the lead to around 1000 characters anyway, so you aren't obliged to do so. If you wish to make comments on other matters concerning the scheduling of this article, you can do so at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/April 2023.

I suggest that you watchlist Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors from the day before this appears on Main Page. Thanks and congratulations Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:16, 13 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello Buidhe,

You were recently listed as a party to a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/World War II and the history of Jews in Poland. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/World War II and the history of Jews in Poland/Evidence. Please add your evidence by April 04, 2023, which is when the first evidence phase closes. Submitted evidence will be summarized by Arbitrators and Clerks at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/World War II and the history of Jews in Poland/Evidence/Summary. Owing to the summary style, editors are encouraged to submit evidence in small chunks sooner rather than more complete evidence later.

Details about the summary page, the two phases of evidence, a timeline and other answers to frequently asked questions can be found at the case's FAQ page.

For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration.

For the Arbitration Committee,
~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:39, 13 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


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 [1]. 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)Reply[reply]

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


Hello! Three years ago you deleted the article ABBYY as a result of discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ABBYY.

Since 2020, many changes have taken place - the company moved to the USA, new notable products were developed.

Can you please restore the article to my personal userspace or other appropriate location for revision? Perohanych (talk) 22:30, 14 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I didn't delete the article. (t · c) buidhe 22:31, 14 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Although I am not entirely convinced of notability, nothing is stopping you from recreating the article with different content. (t · c) buidhe 22:34, 14 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
To editor Perohanych: I have placed the text of the deleted draft at User:Perohanych/ABBYY. From a cursory look, I can see why it was deleted. There is too much detail for this modest sized company and much of the information comes from company sources. Small company acquires small company does not meet our notability guidelines. If you reduce it to only the main points and find more third-party sources, it just might be accepted, but that will be a tough hurdle. Personally I think you would be better off reviewing the section about the company in ABBYY FineReader to bring it up to date. Don't expand it more than a few sentences though. Note that readers who click ABBYY will be taken to the FineReader article, so that company information is not being hidden. (Personal remark: If you work for the company, tell them to employ more quality control engineers. I use FineReader every day and have reported many bugs over the years. The bugs get fixed but it is still easy to crash it.) Zerotalk 01:56, 15 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Thak you today for The Holocaust in Greece, another article that needed to be written! -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:06, 15 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Holocaust in Greece[edit]

I have restored the first sentence, using WP:FAOWN. For my TFAs I usually unwatch a couple of days before and come back to them four days after they were on the main page. I then do one big tidy up and reversion of any unhelpful edits, leaving an appropriate edit summary and referencing WP:FAOWN. An example is here. PS I'm not an admin. (I couldn't handle the responsibility.) Gog the Mild (talk) 11:54, 15 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Books & Bytes – Issue 55[edit]


The Wikipedia Library: Books & Bytes
Issue 55, January – February 2023

  • New bundle partners:
    • Fold3
  • 1Lib1Ref January report
  • Spotlight: EDS SmartText Searching

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --12:46, 16 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A barnstar for you![edit]

Tireless Contributor Barnstar Hires.gif 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)Reply[reply]

Talaat Pasha's biography[edit]

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:

  1. 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.
  2. 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. (talk) 10:46, 18 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]
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. (talk) 18:21, 18 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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! 06:27, 19 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Chevaliers of the Order of Merit (Ukraine) has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Baronnet (talk) 13:03, 30 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]
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 [2]. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 08:31, 31 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]