Talk:List of Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross recipients (Sa–Schr)

Recent edit
What is the "encyclopedic reason" for keeping this information? The subject does not appear to be notable (no article) and, according to the source provided, he did not receive the award:

The entry was:


 * Schaefer, Karl?


 * Karl Schäfer (pilot)'s nomination by his unit was processed by the Oberkommando der Luftwaffe/Auszeichnung und Disziplin (OKL/AuD—Air Force High Command/Award and Discipline) on 15 April 1945. This nomination, now recommending approval, was forwarded on 16 April with a Luftwaffenpersonalamt-Verleihungsvorschlag (LPA-VV—Air Force Staff Office Nomination Recommendation) Nr. 1575 to the adjutancy of Hermann Göring. The nomination was never finalized and remained pending at the end of the war. A presentation of the Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross cannot be verified. The presentation date stated by Walther-Peer Fellgiebel is the forwarding date to the adjutancy of the Reichsmarschall.

The fact that KC Holder association considers the award "presented" is not encyclopedic, since it's the source not independent of the subject (i.e. awarding of the KC adjudicated by the KC's Holder Association, of which Walther-Peer Fellgiebel was the president). K.e.coffman (talk) 00:54, 19 July 2016 (UTC)


 * per BRD, please advise. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:28, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Before I begin, his individual notability is irrelevant. This is a list of recipients of a notable award, the subject (recipients of Knight's Crosses) is what needs to be notable, and it is. However, I appear to have misread the note - there is no evidence of presentation. Given this is supposed to be a list of recipients, he obviously does not belong. My apologies. I will revert myself. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:34, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

This revert was not substantiated by evidence of policy or guideline. Two editors have now removed this material; I believe that it should stay out. This appears to be similar WP:OWN behaviour as at Erich von Manstein. I suggest letting it go. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:23, 28 July 2016 (UTC)


 * What is a "de facto" recipient? K.e.coffman (talk) 03:34, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Scherzer differentiates between de facto and de jure recipients. A de facto recipient is a actual presentation of the award. Two examples, Erwin von Witzleben and Hermann Fegelein actually received the award (de facto) but later due to judicial circumstances their award was revoked (de jure) MisterBee1966 (talk) 05:40, 1 August 2016 (UTC)


 * How was the subject presented the award if the "nomination was never finalized"? K.e.coffman (talk) 06:22, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Lead and opening sections
The article claims: ''Scherzer wrote his book in cooperation with the German Federal Archives. The book was chosen by Prof. Dr. Franz W. Seidler for the library of the Bundeswehr University Munich and Deutsche Dienststelle (WASt) and is considered an accepted reference there.'' On the first issue, while I do not doubt that the German Federal Archives assisted Scherzer with his research, as they assist other researchers, I would not say that they "cooperated" with him. That sounds like being equals, as if the relation between Scherzer and the Federal Archives has been somehow official. If it was official, that claim should be corrobated by RS. Instead this and the other claims are referenced to Scherzer's own webpage and the "cover" of the 2007 edition. Since he is also the publisher, I would not qualify that as a reliable source. We are not talking about published reviews, but about Scherzer himself quoting from private correspondence. As to the WASt, that is the opinion of one Mr. Betten, no first name given. The same with Seidler, who did not "choose" the book for the library, but wanted to ensure the author that the library would buy it. One just might as well quote Ulrich, *Butz* or "Doktor Krollspell", no last names given, praising the work on the internet. Without saying anything about the quality of the work in question, I deem these statements to be promotional. It seems as if the text has been used for each and every list, but I might as well start this discussion here.--Assayer (talk) 03:57, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I'd suggest raising it at Military history talk and linking to this thread at a minimum. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:52, 26 October 2016 (UTC)


 * I'll revisit @ MilHist with a link here. Overall, the intros in this and related articles are overly detailed for a list article, since the background is covered at the main article on the Knight's cross. My suggestion for the intro is as follows:


 * The Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross and its variants were the highest awards in the military and paramilitary forces of Nazi Germany during World War II. The Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross was awarded for a wide range of reasons and across all ranks, from a senior commander for skilled leadership of his troops in battle to a low-ranking soldier for a single act of extreme battlefiled bravery. Over 7,000 awards were made since its first presentation on 30 September 1939. Presentations were made to members of the three military branches of the Wehrmacht—the Heer (Army), Kriegsmarine (Navy) and Luftwaffe (Air Force)—as well as the Waffen-SS, the Reichsarbeitsdienst (RAD—Reich Labour Service) and the Volkssturm (German national militia).


 * Listed here are the Knight's Cross recipients whose last name starts with "[__]". They are ordered alphabetically by last name. The rank listed is the recipient's rank at the time the Knight's Cross was awarded.


 * This would avoid other POV issues, such as AKCR's "order commission" being piped to Blue-ribbon panel; uses of Third Reich instead of Nazi Germany; etc. I propose that the section on Background can be dispensed with as well as excessive intricate detail covered in the main article. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:43, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree with K.e.coffman's suggestion above; for reason's of concision and to avoid any possible pov issues. Kierzek (talk) 19:12, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I disagree with the Background section being removed, as it is not excessive detail. It is necessary to explain the different grades and when they were authorised in each list, and the Background section serves that purpose. Expecting readers to click on the main article to find out that information is unnecessary. It is basic information about the KC and its higher grades which is integral to any list of recipients. BTW, conducting this discussion here, where it is unlikely to be seen except by those that watchlist all of these lists is inappropriate. It should be conducted centrally where the community can have its say, either on the Milhist talk page or on the KC talk page. If you persist, so far as I am concerned, outcomes of discussion held here applies only to this list. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:14, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

I moved the discussion to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history for wider input. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:28, 7 November 2016 (UTC)