I say, more strength to her elbow - even while understanding the ultimate futility of what she is doing given the nature of what Wikipedia actually is.
"In early November 2015, you will find K.e.coffman in “20 July plot,” an article about the failed plan by German officers to assassinate Hitler. A sentence has jumped out at her. It says that some of the conspirators came to see the plot as “a grand, if futile gesture” that would save “the honour of themselves, their families, the army and Germany.” The claim isn’t supported by any sources. It’s conjecture, hearsay. And to her it seems strangely flattering."
How on earth is this flattering? It is the opposite! There are other examples.
I've never come across a page on Wikipedia organically that I'd rate as pro-Nazi.
It seems that we have another obsessive Wikipedia rewriter (for the good of humanity of course).
It’s flattering because it paints their motives as noble. There was no honor or grandiosity involved, it was a strategic move to end the war early and preserve their wins. Though the alternative version makes for good Holywood stories.
On the “Kurt Knispel” article, a few of the romanticized sentences removed are that he “was the greatest tank ace of all time” and routinely “complained about the treatment of civilians and prisoners of war”, “often didn’t shave and had a rebel attitude”. All without sources of course.
The point is not so much that it's 'flattering', and more about it being based on flimsy primary sources. A surprising amount of content about this whole part of military history had to be removed because it was just taking full-blown regime propaganda at face value - and propaganda that was of no independent interest as such (what they call "fancruft"), so it wouldn't be notable even if one took the time and care to unpack and restate it in more neutral terms. It's disappointing that so much content had to go, but it's ultimately for the better.
