Talk:Paul Maitla

WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Tag & Assess 2008
Article reassessed and graded as start class. --dashiellx (talk) 20:13, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Recent edit
Much of the content was uncited (diff); pls see WP:BURDEN. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:10, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Most of the article is uncited, your deletions are somewhat arbitrary, claiming "intricate detail". Since this article is a biography why do you insist on deleting biographical information about his early life and his service in the Estonian and Soviet militaries? As far as I know, the 45th regiment was a Waffen-SS regiment, so I don't understand your deletion of the image caption with the comment "clearly shown in W-SS uniform." --Nug (talk) 09:39, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I remove both uncited sections. Re: "W-SS uniform" was in reference to the removal from the lead the mention (diff) that Maitla served in the Waffen-SS, which he clearly did. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:55, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Your reply contradicts your earlier edit comment: "shown in Waffen-SS uniform; uncited nickname" I've added several sources in the bibliography section, please indicate with inline tags which parts you think require cites. --Nug (talk) 10:56, 2 January 2017 (UTC)


 * All of them -- the article has been tagged since July 2016; pls see WP:BURDEN. K.e.coffman (talk) 16:11, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
 * According to WP:BURDEN: "In some cases, editors may object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references; consider adding a citation needed tag as an interim step." This article does not fall under WP:BLP, so there is no need to immediately delete text. --Nug (talk) 08:29, 5 January 2017 (UTC)


 * There is no dispute, K.e.coffman's WP:3O request is bizarre. I've already added four sources to the article, I asked K.e.coffman if he could indicate with inline tags which parts require an inline cite, being mindful of WP:CITECLUTTER. --Nug (talk) 01:50, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Would it be possible to tag the different sections of the article to the different sources? The normal thing here is to have a source for each sentence or paragraph, not to just list the sources at the bottom. As it stands right now, there is only one inline citation, which is insufficient. Even the direct quote at the bottom has no source listed. Brad  v  01:56, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * It certainly would be possible to add inline citations, but do we really need a cite to support the paragraph that Maitla served in the German armed forces when the photo clearly shows him in a German uniform? Hence my request that he places appropriate inline tags where he thinks they need to go, but for some reason K.e.coffman doesn't appear to want to assist in this way, rather instead seems to prefer to immediately delete all the text as if this article was a WP:BLP. --Nug (talk) 08:05, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Refimprove template
I'm surprised that editor Nug is not familiar with how the refimprove template is supposed to work. To avoid "citation bombing", the template can and should be placed at the top of the article if the article is largely uncited, as was the case at the time of the content disagreement and the WP:3O request: Jan 1 version. As the article only contained one citation, the uncited material had been "challenged and removed", in accordance with existing guidelines and policies.

In any case, I see that editor Jaan has added several citations. However, this still leaves portions of the article uncided. To accommodate editor Nug's request, I re-added the cn tags within the article. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:55, 6 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I've removed the refimprove from this talk page (it's specifically for articles), and put it back on the article. The tag should stay up for now until there is consensus that the article is properly sourced. Brad  v  22:06, 6 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Thank you for re-adding the refimprove template; I've also found that it was removed inappropriately diff. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:09, 6 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Every single paragraph has now been referenced, so the refimprove template is now redundant and hence removed. --Nug (talk) 22:12, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Infobox
I removed the non-notable units from the infobox, as the Service/branch section within outlines Maitla's allegiance by year:


 * Estonian Army (1938–1940)
 * Red Army (1940-1941)
 * Wehrmacht (1941-1943)
 * Waffen-SS (1943–1945)

K.e.coffman (talk) 02:22, 7 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I disagree that the units are not notable, the fact that Maitla served in multiple units of the opposing armies is unique and notable, and they should remain. The infobox template doc (which represents established consensus) explicitly allows company size and above to be listed. Given that this is a biography article there is no reason not to list all the units the person served in. --Nug (talk) 02:45, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Is kool.ee RS?
Is www.kool.ee a reliable source? The home page lists sections:


 * Financial Education. money School
 * Sexual Health school
 * School food, etc.

What makes this site RS for WW2 bio info? K.e.coffman (talk) 10:18, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Unreliable sources tag
The article contains 3 citations to http://wehrmacht.rindeleht.ee/fotod/maitla/maitla.html. This is not a reliable source -- more of a fan page. I tagged the article accordingly. The same applies to the citation to http://www.eestileegion.com/. The source www.delfi.ee also looks suspect, appearing to be a blog.

Rather than tagging each instance of this citation, I put the tag at the top of the article. The tags applies to all instances of where the unreliable sources are used. Please let me know if there are any concerns. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:11, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
 * delfi.ee is a news portal. Should be reliable enough for a relatively uncontroversial fact.--Staberinde (talk) 12:42, 12 February 2017 (UTC)


 * I've removed the first two, while keeping the www.delfi.ee source for now. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:59, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Unreliable primary source
Two paras are cited to 1944 newspaper, which is by its nature is unreliable wartime propaganda. The source may be suitable to confirm the date of the award, but not much else, especially in Wikipedia's voice.

I tagged the article accordingly: diff. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:59, 23 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Nonsense. Primary sources are accounts written by people directly involved, like diaries for example, the author of that article was obviously not involved in the battle. --Nug (talk) 08:49, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
 * The correct tag would be NPOV-inline, with explanation in talk page. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:07, 27 February 2017 (UTC)