Talk:Friedrich Eckenfelder

Hitler?
Well? Where's the Hitler portrait? Was it every painted? Can we see it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Derwos (talk • contribs) 19:39, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * It was painted. It hung in the "Wilhelm-Murr-Haus", the local party central of the NSDAP in Balingen and was lost during the occupation of Balingen by french toops in 1945. Either destroyed - target practisses were very popular at the time, as was booting - or taken as souvenir.--Wuselig (talk) 12:11, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Reliance on a single source
From discussions transcluded here from the GA review, and also on the main GA talk page, here, it appears that consensus is unanimous from all parties that this article relies largely on a single source, and therefore a one source tag on the article is appropriate. Please do not revert this tag without adding a second source. -- Ritchie333 (talk)  (cont)   13:00, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Feel free to post more sources. Please stop inserting the nonsense tag. Regards.--Tomcat (7) 13:03, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I infer from that statement that you agree with consensus that the article currently only has a single source. Please do not revert, as you may be subject to blocking via the three revert rule, regardless of whether or not you agree with the content. -- Ritchie333 (talk)  (cont)   13:12, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
 * What do you want exactly? Do you wait until I will get blocked?--Tomcat (7) 13:16, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I was checking in on the article and saw the valid tags were gone, again. Concensus is clear, it has one source and the one source tag is valid. It also does not have a neutral point of view and it does not have inline citations for opinions and it calls the subject an illegitimate child born out of wedlock without citing a source. Removing the valid tags is disruptive when you acknowledge that there are no other sources, yet you will not allow the valid tag to remain until one is found. Its WP:IDHT and borderline WP:POINTY to do so. Your repeated personal attacks against me are also uncivil, argue on the merits of the article instead of calling me an idiot. Seriously, I'm not going to rubber stamp and sign off this article as a GA when you cannot even cite contentious claims. Its not personal, but as you lack the material and the ability to correct them, I'm afraid the valid tags should stay. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:50, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Validity of the tags
Before removing any tag, the correction should be made, and I have made clear that I am challenging Tomcat7's sources as the previous citations added by Tomcat7 were false. As Tomcat7 does not have the source material, I am questioning the factual accuracy of these inline citations and I and another editor have expressed concerns about the close paraphrasing of the article from the book source. Even though translation, this is apparent and qualifies for that tag as such. I am not adding the 'paraphrasing' tag to every paragraph which warrants it. Though it is the majority of the article. According to disputes and WP:BURDEN the material can be challenged and removed, I am doing the interim step with the citation tags. This is to prevent axing a large part of the article. Contentious material must be sourced and all those under WP:LIKELY. As there is clear falsifying of page sources, I am replacing all those tags and marking the previous contentious material as such. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:29, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * You don't need in-line citation for every sentence, this is more than ridiculous. Also do not place banners at the top; instead discuss it here. Regards.--Tomcat (7) 10:51, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Also, why do you want pages if everything is available in the only source? Does not make sense at all.--Tomcat (7) 10:51, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * You need to know the specific page in the book, this is for reference. This is common practice in academia, why? Because it helps combat plagiarism and let's the reader confirm that was is being stated is backed up by the sources. If that is not the case here then it should be done, sourcing correctly and factually is an integral part of the encyclopaedia anyone that can be easily abused. Instead of removing the tags you should be workingto fill them. F course every sentence doesn't need a citation, but contentious ones do. That is why pages are needed, it allows the reader to easily verify whether the claim is backed up bybthevsource, regardless of whether there is only one source. NapHit (talk) 13:14, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Tomcat7, inline citations are required for contentious claims. Let's start with the first paragraph. The prose states that Friedrich Eckenfelder is the second child born out of wedlock. Then when the third child is born the parents are married. He is a legitimate child by marriage at the age of 4. I think that every sentence is contentious ! The next is less, but still states he was discovered and given advanced training. Your source which you added was false the first time and your current source is not helpful, but that is another matter.


 * The second paragraph is even worse. He goes to live with his teacher and the teacher's friend, at the age of 14. That is not 'normal' to most people and should be cited. The part about Marie being 14 years his senior should be cited as it is going to become a problem soon enough. The next sentence is specific and should be cited out of principal. Though Maria becoming pregnant should be cited as this effectively states that a then-17 year old Friedrich and a then 31 year old Marie has sexual relations which resulted in a child. That should be sourced. The next sentence is about how the 'misstep' is concealed, and gives specifics and claims that Friedrich's son goes to Friedrich's parents. Then the one which does seemed properly sourced states that it is traumatizing to learn that the man he thought was his brother is in fact his father.  Do I REALLY need to go on why the tags were valid? It is highly disruptive to remove such tags when you read the claims the sentences make. So yes, a cite for every sentence is not out of the question. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:00, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
 * You must eventually understand that I just translated this article; the main contributor is User:Wuselig, not me. And not every sentence needs an in-line citation, as clearly explained several times to you.--Tomcat (7) 20:39, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
 * You cannot expect to get an article to GA status by just translating it and without even having access to a single source about the topic. A GA needs to be well researched, and it is entirely proper for a reviewer to react to that. This article is simply not GA material and you are not currently equipped to make it so. If the article was creasted by Wuselig and he has acces to the source then he should have nominated it not you. You can't nominate an article that you are not able/willing to improve through doing basic research. The article has problems with sourcing and the tags need to stay untill they are resolved. Every sentence that is challenged by another editor needs an inline citattion, and refusing to provide citations when requested is not helpful and will simply have to result in the material being removed. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 05:08, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

3O request
3O Response: A third opinion was requested for this article, but there are already at least 4 editors involved in this discussion, so 3O is not an appropriate venue. If one or more of you still want outside opinions, try an RFC or the DRN. &mdash;Darkwind (talk) 06:15, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

comment
I saw this listed as a copyright problem. Personally, I doubt there are copyvio problems. This is a fairly rough but not purely mechanical translation from the deWP. acknowledged as such in the page history on August 20, 2012‎. There was discussion on the talk p of whether it was a copypaste--but it was not, for the complete history of the German version up to that time is in the page history. (And it is now indicated on this talk p also.) Any copyvio would therefore be in the German version, from the Schnerring book, but neither the translator nor any of the GA reviewers had a copy of the book; there's the equiv of a GA review on the talk p. of the deWP article, but nobody there raises the question of paraphrase. The challenge is based on a few phrases here that read too much like a book, but this can't be judged without actually seeing the suggested original and matching it against the deWP article. I see nothing obvious in the snippets. DGG ( talk ) 16:28, 10 March 2013 (UTC)