Talk:Hans Philipp/Archive 1

WikiProject class rating
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 04:02, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Restoration of pre-existing condition of article
I have restored this article to its pre-existing condition because it was an Milhist A-Class article, and if an editor has significant issues with it, it should be subjected to a Milhist A-Class re-assessment, not subjected to a death by a thousand cuts, which is what is happening now. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:10, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Tags
The article copy largely relies on a WP:QS booklet series featuring RK winner profiles:



Given the questionable nature of the source, the level of detail in the article is WP:UNDUE. I tagged the article accordingly.

Please also see diff for reductions; rationale is included in the edit summary. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:54, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

I removed the tags. The author in questian, historian Gerhard Steinicke, has published a number of books on the history of Meißen, in particular on National Socialism in Meißen. See [http://books.google.de/books?id=CJqg0-Nz-PcC&pg=PA471&lpg=PA471 Beiträge zur politischen Bildungsforschung | Elitenbildung in Sachsen und Preußen – die Landes- und Fürstenschulen von Jonas Flöter | wissenschaftl. Mitarbeit] and. As such, the tagging is unjustified. Cheers MisterBee1966 (talk) 10:34, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

RfC Notice
An RfC of interest to this article, "Is the Ritterkreuzträger Profiles series a reliable source for mentions in the Wehrmachtbericht?", has been opened at Reliable Sources Noticeboard. Please join the discussion here. –dlthewave ☎ 17:43, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I can't find a consensus of any kind using this link. Counting the number of editors for/against it quite clearly isnt a consensus. On that basis you can't delete 20,000 odd characters from the article. Dapi89 (talk) 19:57, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
 * It's been archived. –dlthewave ☎ 20:29, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I checked the archive. Where specifically is this supposed vote? Dapi89 (talk) 22:08, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
 * It is clear that there was not consensus. Dapi89 (talk) 22:10, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Since it was not true that there was a consensus based on the link you provided (opinion was divded) then there is no basis for the deletion of the material. Dapi89 (talk) 22:13, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
 * It is in section #8, "RfC: Ritterkreuzträger Profiles series". It was closed as "There is a weak consensus that the source is not reliable." If you disagree with the close, I would suggest that you either discuss it with the closer or open a new RSN discussion. –dlthewave ☎ 22:15, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
 * No, there were an equal number of people for it and against it. That is not a consensus by any stretch of the imagination. Dapi89 (talk) 22:20, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Pinging who may be able to elaborate on the reasoning behind the close. –dlthewave ☎ 22:45, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I closed it with a weak consensus that it was unreliable over 2 weeks ago, but reading over the RfC again, a few points strike me for why the close: the late influx of users arguing that it was not reliable; the specific points about the lack of editorial oversight. The comment from 2 months ago asking Has the content of the de.wiki article been verified? It appears to be entirely unsourced. went unanswered, and the de.wiki article is still not fully sourced, reducing the weight of the argument that that specific individual author was credible. But, I was sure to note that was a weak consensus, in part because of how divided the discussion was. I hope this answers your questions --DannyS712 (talk) 23:08, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree that the close reflects consensus, and this is a good reminder that we don't assess consensus by counting !votes. A careful reading reveals that two of the comments, by 77.234.46.144 and DiorandI, do not actually discuss the source at all. Peacemaker's "I see no reason why not" vote is not very strong, as a lack of criticism is not an indicator of reliability. This leaves only MisterBee's comment, which seems to be based on the unsourced de.wiki article. The burden is on editors wishing to include the content to establish its reliability, and the "support" arguments are not compelling. I would invite  to open a new RfC if they feel that further discussion would lead to a different conclusion. –dlthewave ☎ 01:55, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

You've got a strange way of quantifying a consensus. I think if you'd actually asked those editors for clarification they'd have spelt it out for you. I see you've also discounted my remarks. If that is a consensus, I'm the Queen of Sheeba. Dapi89 (talk) 16:50, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Current consensus

 * The above is an attempt to reargue a closed discussion. If there's a disagreement about the close, then please start a new one at RSN. Arguing about consensus that's already been established is not helpful. --K.e.coffman (talk) 19:23, 12 March 2019 (UTC)