Talk:Ludwig Kübler

Recent revert
Was this tag perhaps missed by the reverting editor?

I believe "en WP does biographical articles" based on WP:RS, no?

K.e.coffman (talk) 02:31, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I didn't miss it. Tagging articles is one thing. Wholesale deletion of information is another. Do you have any evidence whatsoever that the information is incorrect? You have displayed a pattern of removing all pre-war biographical information from a number of articles. That is what I am referring to. Biographical articles should include information about the whole of the life of the subject, not just (in the case of military biographies), their military service. There is a German-language biographical book about this chap held by the German National Library, and biographical information about his military career also available online here. I found them within five or six clicks. You have apparently no interest in adding to Wikipedia, only in pushing your own agenda, which is apparently reductionism of Nazi Germany-related articles to the point of absurdity, and deletionism. This man was a war criminal executed by Yugoslavia (which is my interest in him), but there was more to his life than that, he also played a significant role in the development of mountain troops in the German Army, and commanded an army corps and an army. Descriptions of those parts of his life and his upbringing are all part of what should be in this article. You claim to be offended by my statement that you are on a "campaign", but your actions speak a lot louder than your words. Have you even tried to locate reliable sources for this article? Obviously not, or you would have found some. Your agenda is something entirely different, and I don't think you are here to build the encyclopedia. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:03, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

If the subject is so important, why have not the the article been improved in 4 years? The article has been tagged in 2012; so someone also took issue with the article.

The link that was provided includes the following:

Etc.
 * 26/10/1908 cadet corporal,
 * 10/23/1910 Lieutenant,
 * 21.09.1914 regimental adjutant at the 15th Bavarian Infantry Regiment,
 * 09/07/1915 lieutenant,
 * 08/18/1918 Captain,
 * 1/8/1928 Major,

How does this amount to "significant coverage in independent reliable source", or tells us anything interesting about the subject's career? What is the encyclopedic reason to include uncited information such as "In 1895 he enrolled in elementary school in Forstenried which he left after three years, he then attended the Gymnasium..."?

I don't believe the revert was done in good faith; the tone of the edit summary suggest that it's more of a case of WP:JDL. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:28, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Of course it was done in good faith, a person's schooling is relevant to their biography. Just look at biographies that are FA. And stop with the wikilawyering and pointy behaviour, I've been dealing with similar behaviour for years, it doesn't impress me. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:31, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Elementary school, too? Separately, please see WP:BURDEN: "All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution."

K.e.coffman (talk) 03:39, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Yet more wikilawyering and pointy behaviour. Being able to point at an essay or even a guideline doesn't make you a contributor to WP. People get around to improving articles as they feel like it, everyone here is a volunteer. I'm interested in Kubler (for his war crimes and Yugoslav connection, as identified above), yet the main biographical sources appear to be in German, which I am not very fluent in. No doubt there will be some information in Serbo-Croat, which I am also not very fluent in. So when I get access to the sources and feel like doing some translating, I'll probably get to it. There's no rush, and I won't have my editing priorities determined by someone who doesn't appear to have any interest in adding to the knowledge WP represents. You have no evidence that anything in this article is false, so what is your motive for removing it? You obviously have no interest in building the encyclopedia, you are just deleting information that was probably put in the article in good faith many years ago by someone who didn't know how to cite, or couldn't be bothered to. Where is your good faith? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:50, 28 July 2016 (UTC)


 * This appears to be the case of the teapot calling the kettle black. Here's a self-admitted "POINTY" revert from prior interactions, which restored a book by a self-proclaimed neo-Nazi author to Further reading. I was not up to my "wikilawyering" ways back then, so I did not know that I could invoke WP:FURTHER (more wikilawyering :-) ). The tag team of editors MisterBee and Peacemaker ensured that the book was kept.


 * Separately, WP:Burden is part of Verifiability which is a policy, and not an essay or a guideline. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:02, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't have anything to add. I have no regard for your approach to WP, so where you delete information from articles on my watchlist, you can expect a similar reaction. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:20, 28 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes, this appears to be typical behaviour, similar to an interaction on a different article; the editor who acknowledges that the material is "uncited or poorly cited", but states that if I "take this sort of action [remove uncited material] on articles on my watchlist, expect to be reverted and asked to provide reliable sources that contradict what is in the article" — because that's not a completely impossible task to do.


 * I plan to submit this disagreement to WP:3O. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:16, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Here is the revert in question: ""Stop removing completely legitimate biographical information, please familiarsise yourself with how en WP does biographical articles." Submission to 3O is here. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:27, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

I find your reasoning regarding your edits, K.e.coffman, somewhat inconsistent as you made only light edits to the wholly uncited paragraphs on his WW2 service, but completely eliminated all mention of his family and early life and heavily condensed his WW1 service when you could have legitimately blanked practically the entire article for being uncited. Perhaps this was an effort to compromise and retain what you clearly thought was more valuable information, I don't know. My belief is that biographical articles should focus on those aspects of a person's life that made him or her notable and the details of his early career are clearly relevant to his later success as a military commander. I would, however, severely question the need for information on his elementary school, as I tend to believe that only high school-era education is possibly important, and even then, not usually so. MrBee, who I believe wrote all that bit, tends to load in as much information as possible into his articles and we've had disagreements over this sort of stuff before.

I find your mention that no one had worked on the article in four years rather puzzling as you've been repeatedly informed about WP:IMPATIENT; the simple fact that it hadn't seen an edit in that long time has no bearing on how important the article is or isn't. It is merely a function of editorial interest and very few people appear to have been interested in this general. That fact, in and of itself, has no bearing on the relevancy or importance of the article itself, contrary to your apparent belief.

I would be very careful with your use of WP:UNSOURCED as it is a very blunt tool, as you may have found out here, and tends to generate more heat than light in discussions when it is applied to articles, and by extension, to the work of editors. You made a decision not to removed all of the unsourced information and that makes you legitimately vulnerable for not having applied it consistently. I know editors who monitor other editors and delete all of their work that is not immediately provided with a cite. Nevermind any issues with time or real life that might interfere with adding the cite. Frankly it's far better to slather an article with cn tags than to delete material, IMO, but it can be used as a tool in a vendetta and I'd prefer that we not go there.

Fundamentally, I think that we have here is not a failure to communicate (cue Cool Hand Luke), but difference in style (notable in what was deleted or compressed and what wasn't) and beliefs about how to handle Nazi-era German military biographies in Wikipedia. We need a consensus on how to do that, but one RfC on KC winner biographies was unable to reach any sort of consensus, which does not bode well for any attempt for more comprehensive discussions, or for equivalent discussions about HSU winners.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:58, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Discrepancy of dates
The article currently states that Kubler was appointed to command security forces behind Army Group Centre in Sept 1943. According to this source link, he was appointed as commander of Army Group Centre Rear Area on 22 July 1943:

I believe the current source to be lacking, and plan to replace with Pohl. It also makes more sense, since Kubler's predecessor died on 6 July, and Pohl does not indicate any other commander in between. Please let me know if there are any concerns. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:42, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I have a copy of the relevant pages of Thomas and Wegner. Against dates of 22 July 1943 until 4 September, they state "mit der Wahrnehmung der Geschäfte des Kommandierenden General der Sicherungs-Truppen und Befehlshaber im Heeresgebiet Mitte beauftragt" then from 5–30 September 1943 "Kommandierender General der Sicherungs-Truppen und Befehlshaber im Heeresgebiet Mitte". My German is pretty crap, but that seems to indicate that he was performing the role of Commanding General of Security Troops for Army Group Centre in some sort of acting capacity from 22 July until 4 September and was formally appointed to the same role the following day. Is that consistent with your reading of it? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:00, 27 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Yes, this makes sense. Commander of the "Sicherungs-Truppen, Heeresgebiet Mitte" is the same as commander of Army Group Centre Rear Area, as the security troops in question are the security divisions subordinated to the commander of the Army Group Rear Area. Should the citation be updated to Pohl? K.e.coffman (talk) 18:29, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I think that it should probably be Thomas and Wegner, unless Pohl actually makes the distinction about the "acting" position. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:42, 28 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Pohl uses the same language: "mit der Wahrnehmung der Geschäfte" = "Md W. d. G. b." (in Pohl), which means "Acting" (see de.wiki: Md W. d. G. b.. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:35, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
 * In that case, it doesn't matter which source is used. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:24, 31 March 2017 (UTC)