Talk:Artur Phleps/Archive 1

Original article in German
Arthur Phleps war ein Volkdeutscher. Er wurde am 29.11. 1881 in Brithälm geboren, was im damaligen Siebenbürgen lag. Im Frühjahr 1942 betraute man ihn mit der Aufstellung einer Freiwilligen Division aus Volksdeutschen des Südostraums, deren Ergebnis die später in allen Einsätzen am Balkan so bekannte 7. SS Freiwilligen-Gebirgsdivison Prinz Eugen war. Er fiel auf einer Erkundungsfahrt am 21.9. 1944. Phleps wurde post-mortem am 24.11.1944 für die Leistungen als SS Obergruppenführer ausgezeichnet.

Tagged as and translated by me. Tonywalton | Talk 11:24, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

He must have been an imposing figure within the SS -- he even looked much like Adolf Hitler himself even to the mustache!Pbrower2a (talk) 15:07, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Wiking Division
This needs clarifying in the lede its called a panzergrenadier division, then there is a section heading which uses 5th PD and SS Motorised Division Wiking is used in the section itself. I know all names were used a one time or another but a note or other clarification is needed. Jim Sweeney (talk) 22:55, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Well picked up Jim, thanks. The correct title at the time Phleps served with the division was "SS Motorised Division Wiking". I've amended accordingly. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 23:18, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

I suggest replacing Siebenburgen with Transylvania, standard form in English. At least in the repetitions, if not in the whole text. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.119.15.214 (talk) 14:09, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
 * It was the standard name for the area at the time. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 22:17, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Source removed
I removed the source Glaise-Hortenau from the passage regarding the circumstances of Phleps' death as they are not mentioned there (cf. ). Williamson is correct (cf. unfortunately he neglects to mention his source. ÄDA - DÄP VA (talk) 11:02, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

featured article
Why is this a featured article? He was just one of numerous Nazis guilty of war crimes. This seems to be a randomly selected article. Lonepilgrim007 (talk) 16:43, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I assume you mean front page, not FA. They are different things of course. It is not randomly selected. Phleps had a pretty unique background, was associated with controversy around Waldheim's WWII service, and commanded units responsible for numerous war crimes. In what way does that make this article undeserving of being on the front page? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 22:16, 29 November 2013 (UTC)


 * The quality "featured article" says nothing about the subject, but about the quality of its coverage, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:48, 29 November 2013 (UTC)


 * The problem is that it's not terribly comprehensive, cohesive, or well written. If this is the "cream of the crop," that's not good.--23.241.184.183 (talk) 20:50, 29 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Well, his death seems to be an unsolved war crime, too. And that is not even stated very clearly in the article. 130.232.202.233 (talk) 21:36, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Hello IPs. If you have feedback about detail that is not included, how the article's cohesion could be improved, or improvements to the prose, please provide some detail. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 22:16, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

How is the death of a nazi a war crime? Lonepilgrim007 (talk) 23:59, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
 * the killing of any soldier after they have been taken as a prisoner of war and are "out of the fight" is a breach of the international law of war unless they are sentenced to execution for crimes they have committed, and then only after a proper judicial process has been carried out. Regardless of what crimes they may have committed themselves. The killing of a prisoner of war "out of hand" is a war crime. It is a fundamental principle of the law of armed conflict. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 02:03, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

So the execution of Mussolini was a war crime? Lonepilgrim007 (talk) 05:24, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I suggest you read the Third Geneva Convention (1929), which was in force during WWII. You can read it at the ICRC website. Then you will better understand the legal position of Phleps at the time he was killed. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 05:59, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

I understand his legal position..he got exactly what he deserved..there is no such thing a just war...war is the absence of morality and ethics..so the people who start it write laws governing it and expect everyone else to abide by their rules which they routinely break..this person was less than an animal...you may not have a problem with killing an animal..i do..I still don`t understand why this article was ever posted to the front page of Wikipedia in the first place..the article itself is not particularly interesting or informative and the decision to place it out front was in bad taste..people like this are best forgotten...don`t tell me this has anything to do with justice or the law. Lonepilgrim007 (talk) 06:24, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
 * So, it's not important that articles are written about war criminals and bad guys? Or that we understand and learn from the past? We'll just have articles on the "good guys" then? I completely disagree with your philosophy and approach. I think it is short-sighted, unsophisticated, winner-centric and morally objectionable for starters. Nuff said. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 06:39, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

you are defending this person..he never deserved a trial..its not like he gave any to his victims. Lonepilgrim007 (talk) 07:01, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Quite apart from the fact that your suggestion that Peacemaker is defending Phleps is completely wrong-headed, it offers no suggestions for improving the article, which is the sole reason people should be posting here. If all you've got is opinions like this, you're in the wrong place. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:20, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

I don`t see how it can be improved...what is it you want to know about this person? Lonepilgrim007 (talk) 07:38, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I fail to see any benefit for WP in continuing this discussion. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 07:47, 30 November 2013 (UTC)


 * this person was an insignificant Nazi..his picture does not belong on the front page of Wikipedia..there are people in this world who would consider him a role model..if you cannot figure out that a line had been crossed here all you are doing is defending these people. Lonepilgrim007 (talk) 23:34, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

After this latest comment came out of nowhere I have moved the conversation to Lonepilgrims talk page User_talk:Lonepilgrim007 where I have warned him of his increasingly disruptive behavior on talk pages. I think it is time this discussion ends here and either takes place on his talk page or at one of the administrators notice boards. 67.8.42.4 (talk) 03:10, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

How do I do that? How do I suggest to the powers that be that maybe putting the picture of a Nazi on the front page of Wikipedia is perhaps not a great idea?Lonepilgrim007 (talk) 02:14, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
 * LonePilgrim, this comment is not intended to improve the article, it relates to the policy on main page featured articles. Phleps is notable (according to WP criteria, not your personal ones) for a number of reasons, including the war crimes he oversaw. I have never defended him. I wrote this article because he was a significant figure in the fighting in the Balkans during WWII, which is a seriously under-represented subject area on WP. He is significant, he was an SS corps commander who served in several wars and was highly decorated by the Nazis. Your stating of your personal opinions is pointless, the article was on the main page months ago, like thousands of other featured articles. Please take your disruptive rantings elsewhere. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 02:23, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Page ranges for Lopičić
the page ranges for the ref to war crimes are way too wide. Could you narrow it down to the page of the judgement? Also, we don't cite in the lead unless absolutely necessary, and that is not the case here. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 04:44, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Is it better like this? Part of verdict related to Schmidthuber is on pages 26-30, and part of verdict related to Richard Kaserer is on pages 112-113. Schmidthuber is sentenced both for Kriva Reka (Kopaonik, Serbia), and for Lukovo, Granice, Veliki Orah, Praga, Gradačka Poljana, Mokro, Gradac, Šavnik, Dobra Sela, Previš, Godjelji, Mljetičak, Petnica, Pridvorica, Malinsko, Livjerići i Zagrad (all in Montenegro). Kaserer is sentenced for Kriva Reka, and for Sandžak. By the way, this could be a useful tool: konvertor ćirilica-latinica--Gorran (talk) 10:51, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
 * By the way, I have some doubts about insisting on illegally imposed temporary administrative teritorial organization in war - like Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia and Italian governorate of Montenegro. I am well aware it is widely accepted, and it works fine im most cases. But, for example, what about Split, Kotor, and so on? Kingdom of Italy? No one ever recognized this except Axis nations.--Gorran (talk) 10:58, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
 * They all had their different arrangements etc, see Governorate of Dalmatia. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 12:09, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm just not sure where is the difference between this, and Famagusta, Turkish Republic of Cyprus, or Mosul, Islamic... whatsoever, for example. I think I'll start a discussion on sh.wiki first.--Gorran (talk) 12:38, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
 * If we link to the current nation state with its current name etc in an article about WWII (or any other period of time), that is essentially ahistorical. At the time, there were arrangements and boundaries that were peculiar to that territory at that time. What we do is link to what they were called at the time. Serbia is a great example, it has had many different boundaries over centuries. If we look at WWII, "Serbia" was a much truncated version of what it is now, really the pre-1912 boundaries, none of the Balkan Wars additions, none of Backa, and even the Banat was under autonomous administration by the Volksdeutsche. To say that Novi Sad was in Serbia in 1942 is just wrong, it wasn't, it was in Hungarian occupied territory, and in any case, on 5 April 1941, it was actually in the Danube Banovina, because Serbia had not been a subdivision of Yugoslavia since 1929. We don't write that Mihailovic was born in Serbia, he was born in the Kingdom of Serbia. Funny you should mention Famagusta/Gazimagusa, I spent 6 months there as a peacekeeper years ago, the UN insisted we always call it Famagusta, even when dealing with the Turks. But WP is not the UN, and politics is not the issue here, history is. In any case, the links are piped. Just a point, sh wiki doesn't have any suction here, wikis operate independently in most respects. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 23:30, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid it's not that simple. And it is not where the problem lays. As the matter of fact, it is absolutely clear that wiki should deal with "arrangements and boundaries that were peculiar to that territory at that time". But, in many cases there is an issue of facts, not principles. There can be more than one concept competing for that title. For example, Novi Sad. To say it was in Serbia, that is just plain wrong. But, to say that "it was in Hungarian occupied territory" - that even does not contradict to the former. Novi Sad was in Yugoslavia. If what Hungarians were doing was occupation, than it was Yugoslav territory occupied by Hungarian army. But Hungarians didn't think of themselves as occupiers - they pretended to be liberators, and they annexed Bačka. But it would be wrong to say, Novi Sad, Hungary. It would be some kind of recognition of their annexation, and no normal state ever did that. So, in my opinion, it was "Yugoslav territory occupied by Hungarian army". And "Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia" and "Italian governorate of Montenegro" are acceptable, if the explanation is provided that it is in fact part of occupied Yugoslavia. Because Yugoslavia never ceased to exist 1941-1945.
 * But that is relatively simple issue - there are much complex ones. For example, NDH. It is not only illegal, and unrecognized, it is as well unrealistic and pretentious concept. So called state of NDH never had power to control at least 50% of its territory. It was 30% state, 70% fiction. And 100% manipulation. In fact, most of the territory was in state of occupation, by Germany or by Italy. And then it became even more complicated.
 * For example, Tuzla on 1 November 1944. At that time, it was:
 * In Yugoslavia
 * In German occupation zone
 * In NDH
 * Held by partisans - part of liberated territory governed by NKOJ
 * But, in more precise sense, it was not any more occupied, or liberated territory - it was war zone, a zone of operations of 5th SS Corps and 3rd Corps NOVJ. There was also, of course, 2nd NDH Coprs (Zbor), but not as independent factor. It was tactically subordinated to 5th SS Corps, or 69th Reserve Corps.
 * Of course, qualification "part of NDH" is acceptable, provided other points are well explained in "NDH" article. But, even this is limited as . For example I am not sure that anyone ever tried to put for example "Minsk, Reichskommissariat Ostland".--Gorran (talk) 01:30, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
 * We're getting seriously off-topic here, but I think we are generally in agreement. If you haven't already, have a look at the treatment used in Hungarian occupation of Yugoslav territories, which is one of mine. I'd be interested in your feedback. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 01:39, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Source for additional awards
Awards cannot be reliably sourced by an editor identifying them from a photograph and matching them to a source that shows the medals. They need to be sourced to a book which states that Phleps was awarded them. Reverting. Please discuss here. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 00:49, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Additions to article
This is article is FA, and uses sfn citations. If you make additions to it, please use sfn citations and provide full details of the source in the References section. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 07:02, 21 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the suggestion, I will look at that tomorrow. --K.e.coffman (talk) 07:36, 21 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Okay, I've standardized to just one source -- Yale | Avalon | Nuremberg Trial Proceedings, Vol 20 -- but I'm not sure how to proceed further, as this is neither a book nor a journal, and author, pub date, etc are not available. I assume the web repository itself is a reliable source as far as the IMT proceedings are concerned. If you can help me out with the proper referencing, or point me in the right direction, that would be much appreciated. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:12, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Have a look at how I've done it. Using this method means that clicking on the fn takes you to the citation, and clicking on that takes you to the reference. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 22:28, 21 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you! I also appreciate all the other work you've done to improve this section. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:07, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, I have a vested interest in keeping it up to FA scratch. I pretty much wrote it (with help from MisterBee1966). Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 23:30, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Artur Phleps. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://avalon.law.yale.edu/imt/08-06-46.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 12:12, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Roland Kaltenegger and Otto Kumm
This featured article uses Otto Kumm's history of the 7th SS-Mountain Division and Roland Kaltenegger's Totenkopf und Edelweiss (2008) as references. Both are well known apologists of Nazi war crimes. While I assume that SS-Brigadeführer Kumm's role as commander of the "Prinz Eugen" and his later involvement with the HIAG is well known, I may quote how Michael Wedekind, in his study of Nazi occupation of Northern Italy (Nationalsozialistische Besatzungs- und Annexionspolitik in Norditalien 1943-1945, Munich 2003), characterized a Kaltenegger book of 1993: "The explosiveness of this work with its striking proximity to National Socialism lies with the intended downplaying-apologetic defibration of historical events up to a sometimes redundant-episodic degree, thereby overriding central and characteristic aspects of not only the national socialist policy of occupation and annexation, but also of the fight against partisans, which is the central topic. (Die Brisanz der Arbeit mit ihrer auffälligen Nähe zum Nationalsozialismus liegt in der verharmlosend-apologetischen intentionierten Zerfaserung historischer Vorgänge ins bisweilen Redundant-Episodenhafte und damit in der Überspielung zentraler und wesenhafter Aspekte der nationalsozialistischen Okkupations- und Annexionspolitik ebenso wie der thematisch in den Mittelpunkt gerückten Partisanenbekämpfung. (p. 8))

The article does not make use, however, of Thomas Casagrande's PhD thesis: Die volksdeutsche SS-Division "Prinz Eugen". Campus, Frankfurt/M. 2003, or of Paul Milata's: Zwischen Hitler, Stalin und Antonescu: Rumäniendeutsche in der Waffen-SS. Böhlau, Cologne 2007, 2nd ed. 2009. I consider that a serious shortcoming, because Phleps' guidelines and orders and therefore his imminent responsibility for the ruthless warfare his division waged against civillians remain unexplored. Instead, it is claimed, according to no one other than Kumm, that the division killed 2,000 "Partisans" during Case White and another 250 during Case Black, while it is by now a well established fact that the Germans counted civilian victims as partisans. (see, e.g., Casagrande, op. cit., p. 255)--Assayer (talk) 16:31, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Kumm's book (and Kaltenegger's for that matter) is used for unremarkable aspects of Phleps career and basic facts about movements of the division and similar information, and is compared, contrasted and in some cases corroborated by other sources like Lumans. There is nothing remarkable about that. I will see what Partisan sources say about casualties during Case White. Frankly, what you consider a serious shortcoming (here and elsewhere), often based on German-language sources not readily available, is questionable. This is not a dissertation. If you think that there are issues with this article, instead of criticising it, why don't you add those sources and improve it? You know, add content? That's what WP is about, not high-handed carping about the work of others. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:14, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
 * You may not have noticed, but I do add content where I think it might not be controversial, like, e.g., to Kurt Mälzer. By just adding some marginal information to the Panzer ace article, however, I ran into a content dispute already. Besides, I am a not a native English speaker so that, despite some proficiency with the language, I am more hesitant to edit articles than talk pages. I noticed that you mentioned your strong interest in this article and on your user page you state that you are always interested in a serious discussion on any article you have edited. So I figured it would be appropriate and welcome to carry things to the talk page first. Frankly, if I'd just substituted Kaltenegger and Kumm, would you've quietly condoned that? I also think, that it is important to point out the problems of certain literature to raise awareness of its quality. Strangely enough, despite residing in Germany with easy access to a couple of libraries I find it much more difficult to get hold of copies of the German-language books by Kumm, Bergel, and Kaltenegger than of those by Casagrande and Milata. I can even access previews of the latter at google books, which may be different from another country, I don't know. But yes, I consider it to be a serious shortcoming, if Kaltenegger is used, while Casagrande is ignored, even though it's just an FA article of Wikipedia. --Assayer (talk) 18:46, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I edit in multi-language space regarding Yugoslavia most of the time, and I've heard that argument for not editing in article space many times before. I'm sorry, it just doesn't wash with me, if you are here to contribute to the encyclopaedia. In any case, your English is just fine. What that approach often results in is tendentious talk page discussions where one editor points out perceived flaws in an article, yet never even bothers to add material to the article to address the points they raise. People have been justifiably sanctioned for that behaviour in the past. Having been drawn into these things over the years, I refuse to engage in those discussions anymore, so if you want to improve the article, edit in article space like the rest of us. Casagrande isn't "ignored", in fact I'm dismayed that anyone would think that I ignored a reliable source for any reason. I'm not familiar with what he has to say about Phleps, as you are familiar with him, and have access to him, you are at liberty to add all the material you wish from him, so long as it is within the scope of the article, which is Phleps himself. I'll also add that I don't own the article, the community does, and it has to meet community standards, which it was found to meet when it was promoted to FA. Of course there will be German-language sources that haven't been used, but that isn't because they've been "ignored", it is because they are offline and/or I was not aware of them when I wrote the article, or because working from German for prolonged periods hurts my brain and I thought the article was sufficiently comprehensive. Also, what you are failing to recognise is that sources need to be "reliable for the material they are being used to support". Do you have any sources that contradict any of the almost completely unremarkable biographical material sourced to Kumm and Kaltenegger? None of it is exceptional, which would of course require an exceptional source. If not, why would they be unreliable for that information, and why would you remove them or the material they are used for? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:53, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Let me put it this way, I have made my own experiences and heard certain arguments, like "this is not a dissertation", plenty of times before. I am more critical with FAs than with regular ones. I have added some content referenced to Casagrande. The Kosutica massacre is one of the best known war crimes of the Waffen-SS. I brought it up, because it fell within Phleps' responsibility as commander of the V SS Mountain Corps and he was also called upon by Himmler to investigate it. Feel free to do some copy editing. There is more material, but it will take me some time to add that to the article. I have already pointed out where I think that it is particularly problematic to refer to Kumm's divisional history.  From FAs in the German Wikipedia I am also used to bibliographical overviews. You know, what do historians say about the subject? I have also seen that with other FAs in the English Wkipedia, but it does not seem to be common standard. The problem is that If you use Kumm and Kaltenegger like any other source, even if it's only "for almost completely unremarkable biographical material", you invoke the impression that they are as respected as any other source. But in fact, both are strongly biased and historians refer to them only while carefully pointing to their shortcomings.--Assayer (talk) 20:23, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
 * That is exactly the point. Sources are not equal, that is obvious. On WP, they just need to be reliable for what they are being used for. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:29, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Regarding the use of WP:QS sources mentioned above, some of the statements they are supporting are controversial, including:


 * ....despite his disdain for the corruption, intrigue and hypocrisy of the royal court.
 * After (...) publicly calling King Carol a liar when another general tried to twist his words...
 * [Operation Kopaonik] ...ended with little success, as the Chetniks had forewarning of the operation and were able to avoid contact.
 * Otto Kumm claims that the 7th SS Division captured Bihać and Bosanski Petrovac, killed over 2,000 Partisans and captured nearly 400 during Case White,.
 * The division was committed to Case Black in May and June 1943, during which it advanced from the Mostar area into the Italian governorate of Montenegro and killed, according to Kumm, 250 Partisans and captured over 500.

I also believe that WP:FRINGE applies, i.e. statements from fringe sources should be reported only if they are noticed by independent reliable sources. In Kumm's case, I consider his account to be a primary, non-independent source.

Some of the material cited to these sources is (in my definition) "intricate detail", such as:
 * After finishing at the Lutheran Realschule school in Hermannstadt...
 * In November 1940, with the support of the leader of the Volksgruppe in Rumänien (ethnic Germans in Romania), Andreas Schmidt, Phleps had written to the key Waffen-SS recruiting officer SS-Brigadeführer und Generalmajor der Waffen SS (Brigadier) Gottlob Berger offering his services to the Third Reich. Phleps subsequently asked for permission to leave Romania to join the Wehrmacht, and this was approved by the recently installed Romanian Conducător (dictator) General Ion Antonescu.
 * ...was presented to his son, SS-Obersturmführer (First Lieutenant) Dr.med. Reinhart Phleps...
 * One of Phleps' brothers became a doctor, and the other was a professor at the Danzig technical university, now Gdańsk University of Technology.

In this case, I would argue that inclusion of this detail amounts to indiscriminate collection of information -- if a particular development was important, then surely reliable sources would have taken note of that, and questionable publications would not be needed. If no reliable source report these developments, then they could be omitted as not adding much to the article: i.e. is it necessary to include which secondary school and where the subject graduated from?

I thus suggest that such sources be minimized or replaced wherever possible. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:25, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I wondered how long it would be until you showed up. I disagree with both aspects of your comments. I will not be able to respond properly for several days, as I away from a computer. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:31, 14 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes, I've edited this article before and have it on my watch list. I've also questioned the use of Kumm and similar sources before, see for example: Talk:Helmuth von Pannwitz and Talk:Joachim Peiper. Looking forward to a response. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:36, 14 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Now that I am back at a computer, I don't have a whole lot to add. Firstly, your claims about what is and what is not controversial are completely wrong-headed. For example, the 7th SS Div either did or did not capture Bihać, and did or did not advance from Mostar into the Italian governorate of Montenegro. Do you have any evidence they did not? These statements are entirely uncontroversial, and able to be backed up by other sources. If your issue is with casualty figures, in what way are these specific casualty figures controversial? What differing sources do you have for those operations? Secondly, what you refer to as "intricate detail" is pretty standard for a biographical article of this size, and quite unremarkable in terms of the reason for its inclusion. For example, if you look at the (randomly selected) FA biography of George S. Patton you will see information about the month and year of birth of his children, the fact he was home schooled, where he went to school etc, his belief in re-incarnation etc. All quite normal for a bio article on a general, or anyone else with a FA biographical article on en WP. But specific to your points, Phleps was awarded a high award posthumously, so who it was handed to (his son, a serving officer) is definitely relevant to his biography. We Australians would do the same for a VC recipient. The fact that you consider it not to be relevant says more about you than it does about the article. This article and its "intricate detail" was considered by the seven different reviewers when it went through GA, Milhist ACR and FA, and they didn't raise any issues about it. In fact one reviewer asked if there were any more personal details available... Which brings me back to my central thesis with your approach. I've said it before, but I'm afraid it is you who has a strange idea of what constitutes "intricate detail". You have your own rather "unique" way of looking at things, and will not drop the stick regardless of the advice you receive about the death of the horse. That is tendentious behaviour, much like your widespread deletion of material from articles on the basis of removing "intricate detail". I believe this article met the Featured criteria when it was promoted, and believe it continues to do so, whether you personally agree or not. In fact, given your general editing approach, your view on the matter is of no interest to me. As I explained to your colleague above, I have some experience with editors who carp on talk pages and don't edit in article space, and I have little regard for that behaviour. I don't propose to engage with you (beyond a simple acknowledgement) if you don't work in article space. Hopefully we are all here to build an encyclopaedia. In your case, I have well-founded doubts. But you could yet prove me wrong. If we have disagreements in article space, I will obviously use community fora such as RfCs to resolve them. Peacemaker67  (click to talk to me) 05:54, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I've started a discussion at RSN: Reliable_sources/Noticeboard. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:39, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Forcibly retired from the army
The article claims that Phleps was transferred to the reserves in 1940 and "forcibly retired from the service in 1941", after he had criticized King Carol. That's according to Hans Bergel's piece in the ÖBL. Bergel writes, however, "wegen Kritik an Bukarester Verhältnissen wurde er 1940 i. d. Res. versetzt und 1941 auf eigenes Ansuchen aus rumän. Diensten entlassen." The latter means, that he requested to be dismissed from the Romanian service. If there's no further concern I would clear that up.--Assayer (talk) 20:32, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Go right ahead. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:29, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I have now looked up Bergel's piece Würfelspiele des Lebens, and things get a little confusing, I must say. To recall, in the ÖBL Bergel wrote: Wegen Kritik an Bukarester Verhältnissen wurde er 1940 i. d. Res. versetzt. In Würfelspiele des Lebens Bergel more vaguely writes that Phleps's lifetstyle was at odds with the urban lifestyle in Bukarest. (gelassen-unbequem, eckig-unbestechlich, furchtlos vs. flexible, halborientalische Glätte) When he realized that he was being supervised and that his correspondence was being censured, he asked the king for dismissal and was moved to the reserves in 1940. (p. 89) Shortly thereafter Bergel speaks of a state who had shorthandedly removed Phleps from active service (sang- und klanglos) (p. 91). That's contradictory in itself. In 1941 Phleps asked, according to Bergel, to be removed from the list of generals of the reserve  and to be permitted to leave the country. This permission was granted. (p. 92) Bergel only summarily cites his sources at the end of his small book. Kaltenegger almost exclusively relies on this small Bergel-essay. So what would be the correct version?--Assayer (talk) 01:51, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Hard to tell. The best way to deal with contradictory sources is to compare and contrast them, explaining that there are two versions of what happened with his move to the reserves, and citing them to the relevant source. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:12, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
 * The problem is that I see contradictions within Bergel's writings, even in the very same text. Bergel is not a historian, but a well known Transylvanian Saxon writer. His text of 1972 is not a scholarly treatment of Phleps' life and character, nor does it profess to be one. Of all the sources he summarily cites in his small book I might turn to the essay Berühmte Generale der Siebenbürger Sachsen by Austrian military historian Rudolf Kiszling, published in the Südostdeutsche Vierteljahresblätter of 1962. Bergel also had contact to Reinhard and Irmingard Phleps, so the information might come from the family. I'll see what I can do.--Assayer (talk) 14:42, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * So, we explain that. Nothing is black and white. People remember things differently, people repeat what they were told, people transcribe information incorrectly, people have biases, and people (even academics) make mistakes. We just indicate that there is some confusion in the sources about what happened regarding his resignation/retirement and departure for Germany to join the Waffen-SS, and lay it out for the reader in the article. We do this where the final fate of a ship isn't clear from the sources, why would be do anything different here? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:24, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, sometimes it is possible to discern who is mistaken by comparing the sources that we have. In this case the only one suggesting that Phleps was transferred to the reserves is Bergel 1979. According to Bergel 1972, Phleps asked to be transferred to the reserves (see above). Kaltenegger follows Bergel 1972. According to Kiszling 1962, one of the sources Bergel cites, Phleps asked to go into retirement. (Doch das Intrigenspiel, das von der korrupten Umgebung des Königs ausging, verleidete Phleps den Dienst derart, daß er im August 1940 in den Ruhestand trat. p. 235.) No one, however, claims that Phleps "spoke out against the government". There is this episode, related by Bergel 1972, that Phleps had called the king a liar in public, but Bergel 1972 doesn't mention any consequences. As I said, Kaltenegger relies on Bergel 1972. Kiszling 1962 doesn't mention such an incident. There is another interesting thing: According to Kiszling 1962, Phleps went to Arad and was killed there on 21 September, but he says, that the details remain unknown. Where did Bergel get his information that Phleps was shot by the Soviets? Moreover, according to Kiszling 1962, Phleps' grave is not known. According to Bergel 1972 Phleps' and his companions' graves were cared for years after the war. How did he know? Bergel cites more literature that I will look up, if possible. But as you suggested I would propose that those information which can only be traced to one source, namely Bergel, and those, which are contradictory and possibly controversial, should be contrasted and explained.--Assayer (talk) 20:21, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
 * But it is not our job to determine who is mistaken by questioning where different authors drew their information from. That is getting very close to WP:OR. What we do is compare and contrast what the sources say, even if they are contradictory. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:05, 2 December 2016 (UTC)