Talk:Radu Korne

Sourcing tags
User Anonimu: Please refrain from adding all those (dozen or more) sourcing tags to an article you have not contributed anything except these annoying, disruptive, multiple tags that do not add an iota to the substance of the article, and only distract from the subject matter. As I explained in my edit comment, most of these sources are standard in articles about Romanian Land Forces Generals, with some of them used in dozens or articles (for at least a decade). Having all these challenges all of a sudden to this article that I brought pretty much single-handedly from stub level to C-level is unwarranted, not even-handed, and an overkill, in my opinion. If you have a specific question about a source, please discuss on this talk page, instead of reverting my edit, with a rather abusive comment, such as "sourcing vandalism". Turgidson (talk) 00:48, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:RS. Using unreliable sources degrades WP quality, the fact such sources were introduced in the past in low-traffic articles is not an excuse to continue propagating them. Thanks.Anonimu (talk) 01:19, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Low-traffic articles? Check out the 140 articles on Category:Romanian Land Forces generals, I am pretty sure more than half (maybe three quarters) use Generals.dk as a source, sometimes (especially stubs such as this one) as the only source. Ditto for Worldwar2.ro, which is an excellent compendium of published sources which are not easily accessible otherwise. And what's wrong with citing David Glantz's book for context on the First Battle of Târgu Frumos, where, as I said in my summary, that citation referring to Korne's role comes from? And what's wrong with citing Michael Bennighof's piece in Avalanche Press, where he clearly researched carefully the subject (even showing lots of relevant photos of Korne, such as the one on top of a tank at that battle where you questioned his presence at, supposedly for lack of sourcing, which I then amply provided) for a game he developed, where the subject is precisely the battle involving Korne's division? Just invoking WP:RS to dismiss all sorts of valid and relevant sources sounds dubious to me; are you the ultimate arbiter of what's reliable and what's not? Why all of a sudden pick on this, well-developed and well-sourced article? Try to develop consensus, instead. Maybe you'd like to consider adding substance, or perhaps better references to an article, instead of just slapping tags, and calling editors who actually contribute to Wikipedia, "vandals". Just a suggestion. Turgidson (talk) 02:04, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Please understand that self-published sources by people without academic credentials in the subject matter are not reliable, as there is no peer review or editorial oversight. Whatever you opinion on one or another self-published website, they don’t pass the threshold for reliability by Wikipedia standards. Benninghof is a game designer, and games are designed to be played with different results based on the player; since games are not generally peer reviewed by academics, there is no requirement for fact checking. To the contrary, there’s an incentive to make the game interesting, the story extraordinary, etc, thus making a game booklet as reliable as a tabloid article. Korne is never mentioned by Glantz, attributing to Glantz the position of Korne is fake sourcing, i.e. vandalism.Anonimu (talk) 08:12, 11 January 2021 (UTC)