Talk:Friedrich Geisshardt/Archive 1

Requested move 09 June 2016

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: Moved. Support for this move is apparent and the "ss" is used more than the "ß" in the English sources. (closed by a page mover) (non-admin closure).  Anarchyte  ( work  &#124;  talk )   07:25, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Friedrich Geißhardt → Friedrich Geisshardt – ß --> ss, as more convenient for English-language editors and readers – K.e.coffman (talk) 05:57, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
 * This is a contested technical request (permalink). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 14:09, 9 June 2016 (UTC)


 * The article calls him “Geißhart”, as it should, because that’s his name. Readers who can’t type ⟨ß⟩ can use the convenient redirect. Gorobay (talk) 13:54, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Support. The article's only English language source, Spick's Luftwaffe Fighter Aces, uses the proposed form. Gulangyu (talk) 12:36, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment: Editors considering this move might want to look at Manual of Style/Proper names. Usually the MOS guidance on diacritics is vague, but this passage appears to say we should use the unusual character unless another spelling using standard English letters is well-established: "Wikipedia normally retains these special characters, except where there is a well-established English spelling that replaces them with English standard letters" I'm not taking a position on this particular move. EdJohnston (talk) 13:23, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Support. I thought there was a guideline somewhere recommending against using the ß because it can just as correctly be rendered in standard English letters that have no chance of causing confusion. But I can't seem to find anything specific on it anywhere, either for or against. In any case, it appears that the proposed title is the common name in English. Jenks24 (talk) 04:22, 17 June 2016 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Recent edit
agreed so it is only used once familiarize yourself with best practices (diff) -- I'm not able to understand this edit summary. Could the reverting editor please clarify? K.e.coffman (talk) 07:28, 17 February 2017 (UTC)


 * I figure that the above is "Agreed, so it is only used once. Familiarize yourself with best practices". In such case, please point me to these best practices. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:03, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Standardized general information about the Knight's Cross in lead sections
Please see Standardized general information about the Knight's Cross in lead sections discussion in the MilHist archives. The language agreed upon was:
 * The Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross article instead: the Knight's Cross, and its variants were the highest awards in the military and paramilitary forces of Nazi Germany during World War II.

Please let me know if there are any concerns. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:36, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes there are concerns. There is no consensus for this. As you can see from discussion with few people who took part did not arrive to a strong mandate, and the discussion "stalled" as pointed by one editor. Even if there was a concesus, it was for the Desiderius Hampel article and not for all Wikipedia. In other words you have no mandate to remove on other articles, unless you have reliable sources and coherent arguments demonstrating that the decoration was not awarded for what its says there.

Please explain to main editors on this page, particularly to Dapi89 and MisterBee1966 and also Auntieruth55 who passed this article as Good Article why you should replace the lead which says what the Knight's Cross and it's grades were awarded for with what you wrote. Why is wrong in the original form and why is correct in your form? To explain why the KC was awarded and similar awards like Medal of Honor and Victoria Cross is standard practice on Wikipedia. In your words is okay for the Allies articles but not for the Germans articles. We don't use double standards on Wikipedia and you have no right to replace the lead because you don't like it, as this is a Good Article and was passed in this form.

What you propose there is wrong. You wrote: "He was a recipient of the Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross with Oak Leaves. The Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross and its variants, with its higher grade Oak Leaves, were the highest awards in the military and paramilitary forces of Nazi Germany during World War II." This is incoherent. First the Knight's Cross is the Award. The Oakleaves, Swords, Diamonds are not separate awards but progressive grades for the Knight's Cross. Confusing use of language as you wrote there "with its higher grade Oak Leaves, were the highest awards" demonstrates that you don't know nothing about the award itself and that's one clear argument why it should stay in the original form and why it should have a clear definition for what this award was awarded as is more complicated than the Allies highest awards. The German soldiers received decorations for bravery and valor in succession ending up with the highest award the Knight's Cross and for subsequent exemplary bravery and/or success in command the grades to the Knight's Cross. Second, the Knight's Cross and its grades were awarded to military personnel only and not how you wrote there.

I ping @Dapi89, @MisterBee1966 and @Auntieruth55 to discuss whether they agree with coffman to replace the lead on this GA article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.230.139.45 (talk) 21:23, 4 March 2017 (UTC)


 * "Standardized general information about the Knight's Cross in lead sections of articles on recipients" -- this is plural, right? K.e.coffman (talk) 21:47, 4 March 2017 (UTC)


 * I see no mandate to replace. Could you please point out to the consensus that says the original KC description is wrong and should be replaced? Almost everyone who took part in discussion were opposed to replaced it. You have no mandate to remove the KC description on this GA article. I repeat no mandate. Please ping here the people who took part in that MilHist discussion to tell the main contributors on this article and to Auntieruth55 who made this a GA article that the lead is wrong and should be replaced, if you think you're right! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.230.139.45 (talk) 22:03, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Tags
The article is largely sourced to a WP:QS catalog of Knight's Cross winners:



Most of the citations are to a single page from the source (p. 51) so one wonders how the article could be a summary of that one page. In any case, I tagged the article accordingly. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:51, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Wehrmachtbericht
This was not a very helpful edit summary: "You'll need to establish that these two sources are not reliable first." The burden of establishing that the source meets WP:IRS is with those who wish to use the source. --K.e.coffman (talk) 06:25, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * The proposal that achieved consensus was that where the mention was noted as an honour in a reliable source, it could be included. This appeared to me to be such a case, which is why I reverted the deletion. What evidence is there that these sources are unreliable? The appropriate course of action would be to raise the issue on the talk page, linking to the community discussion where it was decided that the source isn't reliable (such as the RSN), not delete the citations leaving the source and other citations in place. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:55, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, where the mention was noted as an honour in a reliable source, it could be included. The source needs to meet WP:IRS / WP:MILMOS to consider inclusion of the Wehrmachtbericht mention. There are no indications that Stockert is such a source. For example, he also published in . --K.e.coffman (talk) 07:06, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * So, link to where it was agreed that either he, this publisher, or the book itself were determined to be unreliable. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:10, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * The burden of establishing that the source meets WP:IRS is with those who wish to use the source. --K.e.coffman (talk) 07:12, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * This approach is too smart by half. You make an ambit claim that a given source is unreliable, without providing any evidence for your claim, and expect people to take you seriously? On what basis have you formed the view it is unreliable? You must have some basis for your claim. To me, Struve-Druck Verlag appears to be a small publisher of historical books, and Prien's work on the Luftwaffe has been positively reviewed in Air Power History. So, Prien looks reliable to me. Stockert's works on Oak Leaves recipients are held by the Bundeswehr University library, and Friedrichshaller Rundblick appears to be another smaller publisher of historical books. Again, nothing that flags it as unreliable to me. Over to you. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:08, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Forget burden of proof. This is a BRD situation. One editor boldly removed cited material claiming the source was not RS, another disputes this and reverted, now we are discussing. The burden of proof is distributed, i.e., whoever proves their case wins. Sources can be challenged, but they do not have to be proved or vetted in advance. Stockert doesn't look particularly reliable to me. He is only cited in specialist works for lay audiences (militaria, e.g. Stackpole and Osprey). He may be an OK reference source for the Oak Leaves, but the Wehrmachtbericht proposal seems to set a higher standard. It requires that a source be capable of discerning whether a mention in the Wehrmachtbericht is an honour or not. Stockert does not seem to be that. See his self-publishing(?) firm here. —Srnec (talk) 03:37, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * However, to be clear, in this case, Stockert's book is not self-published. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:00, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I'll also add that, in accordance with the result of the RfC, we need to see exactly what Stockert (and Prien) say about the mentions in the WB in order to determine whether it meets the standard set. Given the article's main contributors, I would suggest is the person to provide quotes from the sources to establish what exactly they say. Peacemaker67  (click to talk to me) 05:23, 13 December 2018 (UTC)


 * In any case, these obscure sources are likely not sufficient to establish WP:WEIGHT. The RfC does not circumvent our NPOV policy. your reversion added the Wehrmachtbericht itself as a reference; could you explain your reasoning for this? –dlthewave ☎ 15:26, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * How are they obscure? They are specialist books. And in what respect does weight come into it? Once the mention has been established from a reliable source, per the consensus proposal, it makes sense to use the primary source of the WB itself combined with the reliable secondary sources to cite what days they occurred. A questionable source such as the WB can be used as a source for facts about itself per WP:SELFSOURCE, ie that a mention of the person exists for a certain day, but not the text of the report itself. I have added Stockert and Prien to the awards section. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:08, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

RfC Notice
An RfC of interest to this article, "Is Die Eichenlaubträger 1939–1945 a reliable source for mentions in the Wehrmachtbericht? ", has been opened at Reliable Sources Noticeboard. Please join the discussion here. –dlthewave ☎ 05:31, 21 December 2018 (UTC)