Talk:List of Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross recipients (Ba–Bm)/Archive 1

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross recipients (Ba–Bm). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101229195453/http://www.bundesarchiv.de/bundesarchiv/dienstorte/freiburg/index.html.en to https://www.bundesarchiv.de/bundesarchiv/dienstorte/freiburg/index.html.en

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 09:07, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Recent edit
I removed two entries from the article, citing article text in the edit summaries:


 * diff #1:     "Unlawful presentation of the Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross to Johannes Barge by the Dönitz Government after 8 May 1945".


 * diff #2: "The nomination was never finalized and was left unfinished by the end of the war."

My rationale is that this article is the list of "Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross recipients" -- the awards must be verifiable, as this is not the article containing the list of recipients according to the AKCR. Otherwise, the article would have been called "List of Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross recipients according to the AKCR". K.e.coffman (talk) 01:11, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Your rationale is not supported by Scherzer. Scherzer states in his book, the German records are incomplete (loss of records), subsequently he concluded that he is not able to positively delist any recipients, including those now removed. He stated that he was only able to indicate where full positive acceptance was established. Fearing false rejections these people are still listed in his book, with a note why a listing is doubtful. Cheers MisterBee1966 (talk) 06:14, 25 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes, I'm not disputing that. But Wikipedia deals with fact; so it the award cannot be confirmed, then the individual does not belong on the list of Recipients. Otherwise, it would be an article about actual recipients and possible recipients and/or recipients according to AKCR, which is a private entity and is not authorised the adjudicate the awards.


 * It's just not encyclopedic to include these questionable awards. I actually think it takes away from the recipients whose awards can be confirmed. These two diffs in particular state that the first presentation was "unlawful" while the second one was "never finalized". The fact that they appear in Scherzer's book does not change that. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:24, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I suggest you check if your rationale is not considered WP:OWN, since you are drawing conclusions the author himself was not able to take MisterBee1966 (talk) 06:30, 25 July 2016 (UTC)


 * How should one interpret: "Unlawful presentation of the Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross" or "The nomination was never finalized"? On another article, editor Peacemaker agreed with the removal in a similar situation.


 * Besides, excluding information does no harm, while including dubious award does. If the author states that he is unable to conclude one way or the other, why does this need to be included in an encyclopedia? K.e.coffman (talk) 06:38, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
 * That is the problem, your are to reflect and repeat what the published books and authors conclude, not what you think a possible conclusion could be. This could be considered research, and Wikipedia is not a forum for your own researchMisterBee1966 (talk) 07:31, 25 July 2016 (UTC)


 * The author states that there is no evidence to substantiate the award; we as editors (not just automatons) decide what to include and what not to include. Including information about the dubious award appears to be indiscriminate. But to begin with, "unlawful award" and "nomination not finalised" is quite cut and dry, no? K.e.coffman (talk) 07:36, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

No discussion at Talk; I will revert per BRD. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:26, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I suggest that you find a source independent from Fellgiebel and Scherzer since neither of the two sources support the delisting. Cheers MisterBee1966 (talk) 13:44, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Does Scherzer positively state that the two subjects in question received the award? K.e.coffman (talk) 04:30, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Baldes and Barge are both listed on page 118! Cheers MisterBee1966 (talk) 06:50, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not disputed that they are "listed". But it appears their names are included along with the statements about "unlawful award" and "nomination not finalised", no? K.e.coffman (talk) 19:18, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I am keen to find out if and  have achieved a consensus position on the changes to this list? If there is a need to tweak the scope of the list (ie the wording of the lead) to include the fact that it includes disputed awards, then I suggest that is a good interim solution until a decision can be made about Kirill's suggestion about creating a separate list for disputed awards. At that point, the disputed ones could be removed from the alpha lists and placed in the new list. Cheers, Peacemaker67  (click to talk to me) 06:57, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi, Scherzer analyzed the German National Archives and found 193 out of 7,321 instances where the available data in the archives does not fully verify the judicial aspect of the presentation. Scherzer himself uses the word questionable (fragwürdig). He goes on to explain why this is the case and refrains from delisting anyone. On page 8 it is stated "Hierzu möchte der Autor nur anmerken, daß er niemandem etwas aberkannt hat. Vielmehr legte er dar, welche Archivalien zu den einzelnen Fällen überliefert sind und in welchem Stadium des Verleihungsprozesses diese Dokumente in den Archiven vorgefunden wurden. [The author just wants to say that he has not denied anyone anything. Rather, he explained, which files to the individual cases have prevailed and at what stage of the award process, these documents were found in the archives.]" Foremost, the German National Archives are incomplete (records were lost, destroyed or not yet returned by Allies). Second, the approval chain after the 20 April 1945 became extremely confusing, I had started illustrating the approval process here, it is not yet finished. In this "confusing phase" a number KC presentations where made, which today are being questioned, nevertheless they have been made and are listed by both Fellgiebel and Scherzer, with an explanation why they need to be considered questionable. Previously, the various KC lists reflected Scherzer's analysis by highlighting these questioned recipients with both a color coding and a ? (question mark) and a comment, this is consistent with Scherzer's approach and presentation style. Since Scherzer did not delist anyone, Wikipedia should not delist anyone. A delisting would have to be supported by another independent source. Cheers MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:01, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Misterbee certainly does have consensus on the way this list is presented. He has passed numerous FA lists on that basis. They way in which controversies are handled and where they are mentioned seems entirely logical. I have no idea why an award that might not be officially granted should be removed. I'm not all that convinced by another seperate article to cover the matter, though I appreciate Peacemaker/Krill's suggestion. The deletions deplete the quality of this article dramatically, so much so it could threaten its nomination. Dapi89 (talk) 10:58, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Ernst-Günther Krätschmer
I undid this edit (diff) that added Ernst-Günther Krätschmer to Further reading. This work is non RS, being published by extreme right-wing publisher Nation Europa Verlag. The fact that Scherzer mentions it in his book is not a reason to add it to the article; we don't include books in Further reading just because it's used in the source. Please let me know if there are any concerns. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:47, 20 January 2017 (UTC)