Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross recipients (Ba–Bm)/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by The Rambling Man via FACBot (talk) 23:31, 25 January 2017 (UTC).

List of Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross recipients (Ba–Bm)

 * Nominator(s): MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:40, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

I am nominating the List of Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross recipients (Ba–Bm) in the same format and layout as List of Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross recipients (A) and List of Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross recipients (C), which after numerous reviews at peer review, and at WikiProject Military history A-class review, have evolved into featured lists. I am actively reaching out to, , , , , , users who have participated in previous reviews of this topic. I am also reaching out to who feels that the current lead, background and choice of sources to be inappropriate. The “Background” section of this list is driven by requirements 2, 3 and 4 of Featured list criteria. This abstract gives the reader the historical and legal background to better understand who qualifies to be listed here. Second, to better understand my choice of sources (Fellgiebel and Scherzer), I have to be a bit more elaborate here as it might guide you in making recommendation to the lead. As of today, there is no “official” list of KC recipients. Nazi Germany has seized to exist and Federal Republic of Germany has no interest in publishing such a list either (my assumption). To my knowledge, we have to rely on the opinions of various authors. As of today, three authors have tried to tackle this topic, Gerhard Von Seemen in 1976, Walther-Peer Fellgiebel in 1986 (a second edition was published in 2000) and most recently Veit Scherzer in 2007. It should be noted that various other others have published books on subgroups of this holistic listing (examples include Rainer Busch and Hans-Joachim Röll who have written a book on U-boat war). Simplifying the issue, Fellgiebel defines the upper threshold (in terms of who is listed), while Scherzer defines the lower threshold. However, neither Von Seemen, Fellgiebel nor Scherzer claim to have published an “official” list, it just does not exist. For that reason, and because the prevailing literature and online media is based on these two books, I chose Fellgiebel and Scherzer as the primary sources for this (and the other lists as well). To the best of my ability I tried to reflect in Wikipedia how and where they differ, you will see this in the number of footnotes associated to this topic. I want to mention that Fellgiebel, as its former president, is associated with Association of Knight’s Cross Recipients (AKCR). In 1999, German Minister of Defense Rudolf Scharping banned any official contacts between the Bundeswehr and the AKCR, stating that it and many of its members shared neo-Nazi and revanchistic ideas which were not in conformity with the German constitution and Germany's postwar policies. Scherzer based his book on the analysis of the Federal Archives of Germany. Again simplifying the topic, Scherzer concluded that every recipient listed by Fellgiebel up to 20 April 1945 can be confirmed by information held in the Federal Archives, despite the fact that in some instances specific details, such a date of presentation, rank, unit, etc. differ. Scherzer goes on to explain why this is so. The deteriorating state of Nazi Germany, confusing orders issued by Hitler, breakdown in communication, you name it, caused issues with some recipients named by Fellgiebel after 20 April 1945. Scherzer refers to these listings as “questionable” as the records of the Federal Archives do not support a listing. However, Scherzer also points out that he cannot positively delist them either. When creating these lists, as a Wikipedia editor should, I tried to balance these two views equally, without placing undue weight of one source over the other. Please join in and comment on how this list can be improved. Cheers MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:40, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Please refer to my comments here also.

Comments by Dapi89

 * For a foreign language speaker, Misterbee1966 has done a commendable job with this list, limited though he is, by the availability of sources. I have read his comments and the article carefully, and am satisfied there are no obvious concerns over translations and I cannot see what harm there is in compiling a list from different sources. That the sources he mentioned are supported by the Freiburg archives (at least to 20 April 1945) and Scherzer has applied some water-tight analysis to the subject using this wartime documentation, allay any issues over reliability. There is an extensive list of notes at the bottom, which is unfortunate, but cannot be avoided if the article is to be maintained as a "list".
 * Also, there seems to be a desire for some (or one) editors to shorten the article even further to exclude those personnel Scherzer has assessed as questionable. I see no reason to do that since it cannot be shown whether the award was not officially (I prefer that word to lawful) authorised. There is no need for another list with those (193?) men. Fragmenting Ba-Bm's etc, which you'd have to extend to the other lists, may only serve to confuse people. It makes sense to have it one place.
 * For a subject that requires a lot of explanation the article is concise, with a clear and well-written introduction. I'm also please the German translations are given and I think that's an effective way to communicate in German-related articles. Such a format educates a reader instantly. It conforms to policy and Misterbee's approach has been used on other successful nominations over the years, and I don't think we should deviate from it because of the objection of one editor in 10 or so years. Dapi89 (talk) 16:19, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Comments by Auntieruth55
Support
 * Comments.
 * Comprehensive I have read the list, reviewed the sources, and I've followed the discussion of the veracity and possible bias of the sources. I'm satisfied that this list is a verified as it can be given today's available sources.  As a professional historian of the history of Germany, I do appreciate the problems connected with WWII articles.  My attitude has usually been to test  secondary sources against primary ones.  This list meets that test.  I see no reason to exclude the personnel Scherzer thinks questionable, since their "questionability" is dealt with through a clear explanation in the list text, and followed up with copious footnoting and clarification.  Color coding the over all list, instead of fragmenting the list into a subgroup of "Scherzer" approved individuals, is an excellent solution to the challenge.   It must be noted, furthermore, that sources are never perfect; we must always "read against the source" to extract information&mdash;that is extract from the source information it didn't necessarily intend to provide&mdash;that is what historians do. For example, baptism lists were always simply a list of babies who were christened, yet historians use it to provide information on family size, mortality, social relationships (through god parenting, see for example David Sabean's notable works); even contemporaneous uses provided draft lists for the state. The lead and text establishes the controversy surrounding these lists.  It is possible, furthermore, for a reader to identify those whose award might be questionable. What I find most useful about this list is the clarification not only of the men who received the award, but of the problems surrounding its awarding, and the subsequent controversies.  It is a list, not a magnum opus, and we must let it be what it is, and that it is within the confines of the information presently available.
 * Structure The list is sortable on all categories, which is a useful feature.
 * Lead and prose The lead  describes the award, eligible personnel. The prose is correct and easy to follow in the lead, the background section, and throughout the list itself.
 * Style the Style is clear and appealing.  I'll leave it to someone else to verify image usage.
 * Stability This list and associated lists, have been extensively discussed in the military history project.  It complies with the standards identified there, and should not be the subject of any edit wars.

I reiterate my support for this excellent list and look forward to reading the comments of other reviewers. auntieruth (talk) 15:35, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Comments by AustralianRupert
Comments/suggestions: G'day, as always, I'm not great with lists so please feel free to ignore my suggestions if they don't make any sense. I looked mainly at the notes: AustralianRupert (talk) 12:43, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I suggest removing the self pointing redirect links (these are highlighted in green if you install the User:Anomie/linkclassifier.js script
 * done MisterBee1966 (talk) 10:34, 16 January 2017 (UTC)


 * "The Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross and its higher grades were based on four separate enactments." --> "The establishment of the Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross and its higher grades was based on four separate enactments"?
 * done MisterBee1966 (talk) 14:09, 11 January 2017 (UTC)


 * "received by 1st squadron of P5..." (what is P5?)
 * added commentary MisterBee1966 (talk) 14:03, 11 January 2017 (UTC)


 * grammar: "contacted the 9th Volksgrenadier-Division by teleprinter message on 5 March the 7th Army because..." (not quite sure about this sentence: can you please try to refine it?)
 * reworded MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:31, 12 January 2017 (UTC)


 * "when Major Domaschk reminded..." (just Domaschk on second mention)
 * done MisterBee1966 (talk) 13:55, 11 January 2017 (UTC)


 * grammar: "A file card for approved or rejected presentation was not created" --> "A file card for an approved or rejected presentation was not created."
 * done MisterBee1966 (talk) 13:55, 11 January 2017 (UTC)


 * "The entry dated of 25 January 1945 which..." --> "The entry date of 25 January 1945 which..."
 * done MisterBee1966 (talk) 13:55, 11 January 2017 (UTC)


 * grammar: "On 21 April 1945 the nomination arrived at the time relocating 1. Squadron of the HPA..." --> "On 21 April 1945 the nomination arrived at the time 1. Squadron of the HPA was relocating"?
 * done MisterBee1966 (talk) 14:09, 11 January 2017 (UTC)


 * grammar: "This statement was either never sent, may have gotten stuck or lost, at least it does not exist anymore." --> "This statement was either never sent, may have gotten stuck or lost, or at least does not exist anymore". (Not sure about what "stuck" means here also, so it might be best to remove this word and replace it with something else);
 * done, replaced "stuck" with "delayed" MisterBee1966 (talk) 14:09, 11 January 2017 (UTC)


 * "His personal file contains a letter..." --> "His personnel file contains a letter..."? (Suggest also joining this sentence to the previous sentence with the conjunction "although")
 * done MisterBee1966 (talk) 14:03, 11 January 2017 (UTC)


 * "In a file of the German Minenräumdienst dated just after the capitulation is an entry "Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross with Oak Leaves" without indicating a date of the award." --> "Further, a German Minenräumdienst file dated just after the capitulation contains an entry reading "Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross with Oak Leaves", but does not indicate a date of the award"
 * done MisterBee1966 (talk) 14:16, 11 January 2017 (UTC)


 * suggest linking "German Minenräumdienst", perhaps to German Mine Sweeping Administration;
 * done MisterBee1966 (talk) 14:12, 11 January 2017 (UTC)


 * "Cross yes, 28 April 1945", Friedrich Blond was a member of the AKCR" --> "Cross yes, 28 April 1945". Friedrich Blond was a member of the AKCR";
 * done MisterBee1966 (talk) 14:03, 11 January 2017 (UTC)


 * suggest putting the citations and possibly the notes into two columns to reduce whitespace;
 * Citations changed to MisterBee1966 (talk) 14:24, 11 January 2017 (UTC)


 * inconsistent presentiation: compare "Williamson and Bujeiro 2004" v. "Thomas & Wegmann 1987"
 * done MisterBee1966 (talk) 14:03, 11 January 2017 (UTC)


 * "1986 edition of Walther-Peer Fellgiebel's book, Die Träger des Ritterkreuzes des Eisernen Kreuzes 1939–1945 — Die Inhaber der höchsten Auszeichnung des Zweiten Weltkrieges aller Wehrmachtteile — The Bearers of the Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross 1939–1945 — The Owners of the Highest Award of the Second World War of all Wehrmacht Branches." I suggest putting the English translation in brackets rather than repeat the emdash, for example: "...1986 edition of Walther-Peer Fellgiebel's book, Die Träger des Ritterkreuzes des Eisernen Kreuzes 1939–1945 — Die Inhaber der höchsten Auszeichnung des Zweiten Weltkrieges aller Wehrmachtteile (The Bearers of the Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross 1939–1945 — The Owners of the Highest Award of the Second World War of all Wehrmacht Branches)."
 * done MisterBee1966 (talk) 14:16, 11 January 2017 (UTC)


 * "For many years Fellgiebel's book was considered the main reference work on this topic, and it has...." --> "For many years Fellgiebel's book was considered the main reference work on this topic, but it has..."
 * done MisterBee1966 (talk) 14:12, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your efforts. All my comments have been addressed, and I see a lot of other improvements. I also believe that the list conforms with the standards established for many similar lists – such as those shown here. As such, I support the list's promotion to FL. That said, I encourage you to continue to address the comments below where they are outstanding, or discuss where you disagree with them, as there are no doubt still some improvements that could be made (which is something that can be said about pretty much all articles/lists, even featured ones). In this regard, I have a few more suggestions, none of which impact upon my support (please feel free to ignore them if you wish):
 * Regarding the issue with the order commission/blue ribbon commission link, I'd suggest probably just delinking it altogether, unless something more suitable can be found. I had a look at committee, but that didn't seem quite right either. Potentially something is being lost in translation...?
 * done unlinked MisterBee1966 (talk) 10:09, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Regarding the concerns about "Scherzer wrote his book in cooperation with the German Federal Archives", perhaps "Scherzer's book was compiled from documents held by the German Federal Archives" or something similar?
 * done MisterBee1966 (talk) 14:21, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * "A total of 7,321 awards were made between its first presentation on 30 September 1939 and its last bestowal on 17 June 1945.[Note 1] This number is based on the analysis and acceptance of the order commission of the Association of Knight's Cross Recipients (AKCR)." Suggest moving this to the start of the second paragraph of the lead, to (potentially) help the narrative flow> Potentially also, instead of "A total of 7,321..." it should possibly be "Up to 7,321..." due to the disputed ones?;
 * done MisterBee1966 (talk) 09:24, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I wonder if this might be worked on: "...having received the award in 1945, when the deteriorating situation of the Third Reich during the final days of World War II left a number of nominations incomplete and pending in various stages of the approval process". Potentially, something like this: "...having received the award during the final days of World War II, when Germany's deteriorating war situation interrupted the processing of a number of nominations, while others were subsequently approved without reference to the proper authority"?
 * I implemented Peacemakers suggestion, see below MisterBee1966 (talk) 10:09, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Regarding the concerns about having too many notes, perhaps these could be rationalized by removing them where the information is largely the same as that which is already in the table. For instance, it is probably not necessary to have this footnote: "According to Scherzer as Hauptmann (war officer) and Staffelkapitän of the 6./Schlachtgeschwader 2 "Immelmann"." when the note says pretty much the same thing, e.g.: "Staffelkapitän of the 6. and leader of the II./Schlachtgeschwader 2 "Immelmann".
 * A suggestion for discussion, I broke out the notes into three sections. The first section are explanatory notes, the second contains notes regarding the dispute by Scherzer, and the third contains the notes regarding the discrepancies in information. Alternatively, I could present Scherzer's opinion first and Fellgiebel's view second. Let me know what you think of the layout. Cheers MisterBee1966 (talk) 14:48, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I had a quick look at the images, but soon found myself out of my depth, sorry. Perhaps may be free? Anyway, that's it from me. Good luck with taking the article further. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 13:14, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Comments by K.e.coffman
Oppose, for several reasons:
 * Neutrality: Per discussion at MilHist archives: Knight's Cross Holders List articles: Lead and opening section. To summarise comments from and myself:
 * Copy can be perceived as promotional for Scherzer's work: 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". (...) This and the other claims are referenced to Scherzer's own webpage and the "cover" of the 2007 edition. (...) Without saying anything about the quality of the work in question, I deem these statements to be promotional. More at the link above.


 * Perhaps, but given the continued assaults on his qualifications, I think that MisterBee has perhaps gone a bit overboard on showing that his work has academic acceptance.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:15, 14 January 2017 (UTC)


 * POV language: AKCR's "order commission" is being misleadingly piped to the article on Blue-ribbon panel; use of Third Reich instead of more neutral Nazi Germany.
 * good point on Third Reich, changed to Nazi Germany. MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:31, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Scherzer is described as "author and historian", while I could not find sources to corroborate this: "Veit Scherzer" historiker.
 * Another failure of due diligence: Schzerer has written histories of the 46th and 113th Infantry Divisions so I think that it's fair to say that he qualifies as a historian.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:15, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
 * No, it's not. This qualifies him as an author, but not as a historian. What is his educational background, career, etc? Has he trained or worked as a historian? Definition from m-w.com: "a student or writer of history; especially: one who produces a scholarly synthesis". It has not been shown that Schzerer is known for producing works of "scholarly synthesis". K.e.coffman (talk) 22:04, 21 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Prose: The section Background, also discussed at the link above, is difficult to read due to excessive italics and foreign language terms; sample:
 * (Ritterkreuz des Eisernen Kreuzes mit goldenem Eichenlaub, Schwertern und Brillanten), based on the enactment Reichsgesetzblatt 1945 I S. 11 of 29 December 1944, became the final variant of the Knight's Cross authorized.


 * Note: These issues appeared to have been resolved following the discussion at MilHist resulting version, but have been reverted. Thus, I don't believe the article currently meets the WP:NPOV requirement.


 * Sources: The article is cited to Walther-Peer Fellgiebel and Veit Scherzer. The former was a long-term head of the Order Commission of the Association of Knight's Cross recipients, and his book is not independent of the subject (awarding of the Knight's Cross). Scherzer's work is published through his publishing house, which I assume means it's a self-published work. Fellgiebel and Scherzer both agree on the recipients up to 20 April 1945, so I don't see an issue in using either for these recipients. Nonetheless, given that WWII is probably the most studied period in German military history, the fact that this work was not published by an independent publisher (or the work undertaken by a professional historian), suggests to me that the interest in the topic of the Knight's Cross recipients is a specialized one, while Wikipedia is written for the general public.
 * I emphatically reject the last sentence of this argument. Wikipedia is not just for the general public; it is for everyone, even specialists. The caveat is that it needs to be comprehensible for everyone. The in-depth articles in WP:MED are often used by medical students and even doctors as quick references and dumbing them down as Coffmann seems to think appropriate would take away quite a bit of their utility from an audience that requires that level of detail.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:36, 14 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Excessive amount of notes: The minute differences between Fellgiebel and Scherzer -- i.e. "as Hauptmann of the Reserves" (Fellgiebel) or "as Hauptmann" (Scherzer) -- seem immaterial and trivia not of interest to the general reader. I'd expect them to be interested in learning whether or not the subject was a lawful recipient (if at all), and not in this intricate detail. For simplicity, I would suggest going with Scherzer as the more up-to-date and independent source, who compiled his materials based on the documents from the German Federal Archives. Likewise, the "A" recipients article states: "For many years Fellgiebel's book was considered the main reference work on this topic, and it has now been superseded by Scherzer's work". If archival documents say "Hauptmann" I don't see a reason to "compare and contrast" with Fellgiebel, as it's unclear what data his book is based on.


 * For discussion on Fellgiebel and Scherzer, please also see 2013: Recent deletions of unreliable sources.

In summary, I do not see this list representing Wikipedia's very best work due to POV issues and excessive amount of detail based on two sources with each having its own challenges.

My attempted editing of the article was primarily driven by the outcome of the discussion at Notability:People on notability of Knight's Cross recipients: permalink. As a result, certain recipients were deemed non notable, and their articles are being redirected to this and other alphabetical lists. I feel the readers would benefit from more neutral language, avoidance of perceived promotionalism and simpler presentation than currently available in the article.

With that in mind, I'd also like to ping the participants of the last phase of the discussion ("Notability in Knight's Cross Holder Articles") to see if we could get wider community input. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:00, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Kmhkmh & Iazyges

 * Not quite sure why I was pinged at least I can't recall participating on discussions of the list nor do I usually participate in featured article or list discussions. But since i'm here anyway, I'd say I roughly agree K.e.coffman's assessment.


 * Formal criteria aside, I find these extensive nazi Germany hagiographic stuff rather questionable in general. Most of it usually based on often questionable sources which are at best borderline acceptable anyhow.--Kmhkmh (talk) 03:22, 12 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I also agree with K.e.coffman's assessment. I will also note that the footnotes should be made into EFN's to avoid confusion. Iazyges   Consermonor   Opus meum  03:51, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Hydronium Hydroxide

 * Suggestions/Comments/Questions - ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 09:15, 12 January 2017 (UTC):
 * Lead:
 * Should the English-language title of Fellgiebel's book be in brackets rather than separated with an em dash?
 * done MisterBee1966 (talk) 10:15, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Can the subtitle of Fellgeibel's book be omitted from the body of the text?
 * done MisterBee1966 (talk) 10:15, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Change "Author and historian Veit Scherzer has challenged the validity..." to "Scherzer has challenged the validity..." to eliminate duplication.
 * done MisterBee1966 (talk) 14:58, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Change "had received the award" to "were listed as having received the award", given the doubt/dispute.
 * done MisterBee1966 (talk) 12:34, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Change "hand out" to "presentation"
 * done MisterBee1966 (talk) 10:11, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * That the lists are based on the work of Fellgeibel and Scheizer should be briefly stated, however the bulk of text should be moved to the Background.
 * Peacemaker presented an alternative lead which in parts contradicts this request. Please advise MisterBee1966 (talk) 06:47, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
 * This and the next two points are connected. I'm not going to push further if you prefer the current sequence, but even after modification, I find the structure of the lead awkward. It's currently roughly:
 * Para 1. Nature of the KC > Count > Dispute (Note 1) > Sourcing > Recipients
 * Para 2. Sourcing > Dispute > Sourcing
 * Para 3. List > (Dispute) > List
 * Not saying what's proposed below is perfect but IMO the sequencing is cleaner (and its para 4 might be cleaner if the last couple of sentences were made a hatnote):
 * Para 1. Nature of the KC > Recipients.
 * Para 2. (+Sourcing) > Count > Sourcing
 * Para 3. Dispute (including Note 1)
 * Para 4. List > (Dispute) > List
 * ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 11:30, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Understood, good suggestion, please check MisterBee1966 (talk) 09:16, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks. That feels clearer. ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 10:28, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * There are three paragraphs in the lead, and the topic of "dispute" is in Note 1 for the first para, and in the body of the second and third paragraph.
 * restructured lead, see above MisterBee1966 (talk) 09:16, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Perhaps the paragraphs should be restructured along the lines of:


 * The Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross (German: Ritterkreuz des Eisernen Kreuzes) and its variants were the highest awards in the military of the Third Reich 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 gallantry. 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), the Volkssturm (German national militia), and to 43 recipients in allied military forces.


 * There is currently no official German Government list of KC recipients. Analysis and acceptance of the order commission of the Association of Knight's Cross Recipients (AKCR) indicates that a total of 7,321 awards were made between its first presentation on 30 September 1939 and its last bestowal on 17 June 1945.  For many years the main reference work on this topic was the 1986 and 2000 editions of Die Träger des Ritterkreuzes des Eisernen Kreuzes 1939–1945 (The Bearers of the Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross 1939–1945) by Walter Peer Fellgiebel, the former chairman and head of the order commission of the AKCR. This has been superseded by the 2007 Die Ritterkreuzträger 1939–1945 (The Knight's Cross Bearers 1939-1945) by Vert Scherzer.


 * 11 of the recipients listed in Fellgeibel's first edition were delisted in 1986 in his second edition, while Scherzer casts doubt on a further 193 listings. The majority of the disputed recipients were listed as having received the award in 1945, when the deteriorating situation of the Third Reich during the final days of World War II left a number of nominations incomplete and pending in various stages of the approval process. Großadmiral and President of Germany Karl Dönitz, Hitler's successor as Head of State and Supreme Commander of the Armed Forces, ordered the cessation of all promotions and awards as of 11 May 1945.  Consequently, subsquent awards of the Knights Cross made up until 17 June 1945 must be considered de facto but not de jure presentations.


 * Listed here are the 368 Knight's Cross recipients of the Wehrmacht and Waffen-SS whose last name is in the range "Ba–Bm". Scherzer has challenged the validity of 13 of these listings. This is the first of two lists of 725 Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross recipients whose last name starts with "B". Recipients whose last name is in the range "Bn–Bz" are listed at List of Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross recipients (Bn–Bz).

• Oak Leaves: 25 February 1942 • Swords: 18 July 1942
 * Background:
 * Omit explicit naming of the second and subsequent enactments (but keep the date). Readers who care can always look at the main article for the exact decree.
 * done although the names of the various enactments have been deleted from the Knight's Cross article MisterBee1966 (talk) 15:22, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Expand on Fellgeibel and Scherzer's works here.
 * To reduce the quantity of italics, for the higher grades perhaps either elide the Ritterkreuz des Eisernen Kreuzes text in the German translation, eg: "(...mit Eichenlaub)", or omit the translation entirely (they're at the main article).
 * implemented first suggestion MisterBee1966 (talk) 10:25, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Recipients:
 * Were lists not kept for the Reichsarbeitsdienst, the Volkssturm, and the foreign recipients? If they were but they're just inapplicable for this list, then the sentence can be simplified further, and "Other: 0  0" should be added to the box. Otherwise, change "lists, one for each of the three military branches, Heer (Army), Kriegsmarine (Navy), Luftwaffe (Air Force) and for the Waffen-SS." to "lists for each of the three military branches and for the Waffen-SS.", as it repeats the lead and is obvious from context.
 * Can the "According to Scherzer as" boilerplate be cut down to "(Scherzer)" at the end? Why isn't Scherzer main and Fellgeibel secondary?
 * see my commentary on the top of this review request MisterBee1966 (talk) 06:47, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
 * done MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:33, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Can the serial for the Oak Leaves, etc, be removed?
 * I prefer not to. First, number is part of the official citation, second, it helps the interested reader navigate to the right entry in the respective listing MisterBee1966 (talk) 12:31, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Move text from the lead re name sorting and rank listed here.
 * done MisterBee1966 (talk) 10:27, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Is there a way to reduce the width of the Date column? There's a lot of dead space.
 * no action taken MisterBee1966 (talk) 06:47, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Units are written in German. Should these use English translations where possible, particularly where the en-wiki article uses a translated name (eg: 4th Army, 6th Panzer Division)? If you do keep the German naming convention (and it adds friction to reading if you do), then the text of Note 2 should instead appear above the list.
 * Please advise, currently we have a mixed bag of articles on Wikipedia, some using their German names, such as Nachtjagdgeschwader 1, and some use the English translation, such as 6th Panzer Division. Previously, uniformity was required, I can do either. MisterBee1966 (talk) 06:47, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
 * WP:COMMONNAME applies and consistency matters to some degree, both across articles and within. Currently the latter is met but not the former. As a lay reader I find it a bit of an irritant (I missed the Note 2 location on my way down). Question: given that WP can't be used as more than a pointer to sources, what benefit/advantage is there in using the German form? Again, not going to push, but if it does happen to be retained, it should be as a deliberate choice. ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 11:30, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Where there are higher awards, can these be put in the Date column instead of Notes? Eg:
 * 30 September 1939
 * I think this might impact sorting by date of the presentation. I would prefer to leave this in the Notes column MisterBee1966 (talk) 15:03, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Ah, fair enough (if they were to have been incorporated then 25 February 1942 (Oak Leaves) would have been better) ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 11:30, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Ref K.e.coffman's post, although it would be better if there were an independent source for Prof Seidler's quote or equivalent endorsement(s), presumably he hasn't repudiated the claim, and the endorsement is an expert one.

Comments by Aoziwe
Not 100% sure why the ping but no matter at all. My earlier comments re KCs were in regard to permanent micro stubs for otherwise completely non notable recipients which I believe must only be redirects to encyclopedic lists like this one. So if that is now happening then excellent.

I have only skimmed the paragraphs and put up front that I have no knowledge of the subject, but yes they do possibly give the appearance of some slight POV. Certainly at least the statement For many years Fellgiebel's book was considered the main reference work on this topic, but it has now been superseded by Scherzer's work. would appear to definitely need an independent (of all parties) reliable informed and researched secondary source to back it up. If this cannot be done then perhaps some more serious issues but I just do not know.

Aoziwe (talk) 12:41, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Comments by otr500

 * Oppose: At this time without extensive corrections.
 * Comments: The comments by K.e.coffman are logical, in-depth, and I agree with them. I am not as concerned with "official" or "lawful" listings as I am accurate, or as accurately presented as possible by reliable sources, following Wikipedia policies and guidelines, including NPOV.
 * 1)- A list being inclusive of every name found, that includes names where there is "sketchy", as well as questionable information, even from the sources listed, does not serve a real purpose.
 * 2)- All the blue links; that redirect back to the same list, as possibly reasoning to not have a page full of red links, is unnecessary and a distraction. Highlight the names but not redirect a name on a list ---back to the same list. This serves no purpose at all for non-notable subjects and especially for subjects being included when the source admits the names are questionable.


 * 3)- Red links: If there is a possibility that a future article will be created on a subject then red links serve a purpose. If there are red links, awaiting a redirect back to this list, and there is more than a remote possibility that the subject will never have a stand-alone article, more especially if a name is one of those "questionable", take the red link out. It serves no purpose.


 * 4)- As for as including questionable names: The article states; "This along with the ? (question mark) indicates that historian Veit Scherzer has expressed doubt regarding the veracity and formal correctness of the listing.", yet he included the questionable names anyway. This is clear evidence that at the very least these names should not be "in the list" but maybe placed in a subsection, in prose, stating the accuracy of inclusion is questioned by the source. Other than that option, there is no reason to include the names in the list, that the source questions, just because that source decided not to exclude them. There are names on a list, that might have been included falsely, but because a source decides to include them anyway is not justification that we should follow suit.
 * I disagree. Because these names are listed in various sources on KC winners, they need to be dealt with here. They may or may not be worthy of a separate article, but the lists are the appropriate place to discuss the "unofficial" awardees and the circumstances of the award.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:53, 14 January 2017 (UTC)


 * 5)- "Notes" that all state either: According to Thomas and Wegmann, According to Scherzer or, According to Fellgiebel, serves what purpose? It looks bad. If the content is attributed to a reliable source, not being a direct quote, then there is an abundance of repeated attribution that is just clutter. If there is some mandate I am not aware of, or some consensus rationale that these words ("According to") have to be added to every single entry, I have an issue with this. Unless there is some reasoning to use this as some presented evidence that it is not OR, which is not at all needed, then it should not be included. Hell, if that is something so important to keep stating these things, put notes attributing that all the content is derived from the sources listed so are "According to" those references. Whew! It was stated ''"There is an extensive list of notes at the bottom, which is unfortunate, but cannot be avoided if the article is to be maintained as a "list". This just seems far and away "overkill". This justification is questionable. Otr500 (talk) 12:09, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Note by Giants2008

 * Director note – I can't say that I'm an expert about what sources for Nazis are reliable, but I do know something about Wikipedia discussions and this looks like canvassing for opposition to this FLC. K.e.coffman, please consider removing that from the RS noticeboard, because if you don't, us closers will have to make some difficult decisions about whether to discount any opposes that might come after that message was posted. Also, and this should go without saying, please refrain from making any such posts in the future. If you're doing notifications, it's better to make them to more people; for example, you could contact the Military WikiProject and ask for somebody there to comment on the sources. They're quite active, so there's a good chance someone will come here. Giants2008  ( Talk ) 16:31, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I removed it diff. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:42, 14 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Objection: I am not part of any possible Removal campaign, certainly not part of ANY intended or unintended canvassing actually advocating for this list, as the Germans should have just as much right to have hero's as the rest of the world, and my concerns are valid. If this article is to be elevated it should deserve it, and as it is I do not feel this has been accomplished. If there are comments concerning my reasoning then this would be the place for those, not a place to make it appear I am part of a conspiracy, even if by accident.
 * To me this is serious (although the point is valid), so please move this entire discussion to some other area, unless there is some intended implication concerning me. If this "just happened" then move it, and with my permission someone can move this objection with the comments and hide it. Thanks, Otr500 (talk) 11:38, 20 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I object the notion of a campaign or even a "conspiracy", that is being ventilated here, altogether. This appears to be a way to delegitimate concerns by commenting on the contributors instead on the content. For matters of precision, we are talking about the heroes of Nazi Germany. The Germans do have "heroes" nowadays, but it happens to be that those are not the KC recipients.--Assayer (talk) 13:40, 21 January 2017 (UTC)


 * My comments were not about anything you did, Otr or Assayer, and I have no issue if Pres decides to put them on the FLC's talk page (I'd probably be considered involved at this point). Please AGF about my comments, which were meant to protect FLC as a whole from issues that can lead to a bad reputation. Obviously, we don't want to discourage comments from a wide base of editors; I wish the rest of the FLCs had this much activity, as it would make our jobs easier. I just didn't believe that was the best way to bring in participants. Since the original issue was resolved a while back, please continue debating the article's merits, while I go off to take in some football (American, that is). Giants2008  ( Talk ) 22:19, 22 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Thank you for separating your comments from mine. As for assuming good faith I did that times 10. I could see no reason why such comments would be "attached" to mine, under a heading Comments by otr500, that certainly seem to indicate I was at least one object of the comments. Twice I used words like "even if by accident" and "If this "just happened". It still caused consternation as I searched for reasoning as to what I may have done. Otr500 (talk) 03:47, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Image review
 * File:Franz_Bäke.jpgshould use one of the Bundesarchiv tags
 * done MisterBee1966 (talk) 11:25, 18 January 2017 (UTC)


 * File:BmRKEL.jpg should include a tag for the original work as well as the photo. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:26, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Auntieruth55 (2)
Thank you Giants2008, for the vote of confidence in the Milhist coordinators. I have reviewed the sources cited in this article, and in other articles. As a MilHist coordinator, I've participated in and/or watched the discussion of these sources over time. As a professional historian, I know that sources are not "pure".... records are established by the powers that be, maintained for one reason or another, and are notoriously uneven, especially during wartime or moments of human, meteorological, and other disaster. Sometimes we have to read "against" the source, which means using a source to extract information it was not originally intended to provide. Sometimes the source does not provide as much information as we would like. Sometimes the information the sources provide is uneven. Sometimes the sources disagree. I find the original objections to Thomas, Scherzer and Fellgeibel bordering on spurious and consequently counter productive to the smooth operation of Wikipedia, and the Milhist project. These sources examined the information that was available and made reasonable extractions of data. Their work in a federal archive was sponsored by or accepted by federal agencies that, if they were British, Australian, Canadian or American, would be accepted, widely disseminated, and viewed as positive contributions to historical understanding of the period. As for overkill on notations, this stems, I believe, from one reviewer's (IMO) biased objection to the subject, awards which he/she has in the past called hagiography. (Just a note here: if we reject all articles based on the notion of hagiography, then we should omit most of the Napoleonic awards, and the entire catalog of saints.) Subsequent annotations by MrB were, I believe, his conscientious effort to meet with kecoffman's demands. We have had this discussion ad infinitum in Milhist. Articles were adjusted to the satisfaction of the milhist coordinators by the editor(s). One editor continues to revert the articles to a version of history that fits his or her own world view. In my view, this is obstructionist and in defiance of Wikipedia standards. As a project, we have tried to understand, and adapt to one reviewer's demands--these were demands, not suggestions. Sturmvogel pointed out above an example of this (the use of the ? to represent the names one source suggests might be questionable). There are some issues re smooth text, but I believe these stem from the editor's efforts to meet unreasonable and escalating demands. I will be happy to work with Mr.B to resolve these issues, but the sources stand. auntieruth (talk) 16:12, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I would gladly accept your support and input, Thanks MisterBee1966 (talk) 11:14, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Leaving aside the commonplaces about sources there are a few issues here which prompt some questions.
 * These sources examined the information that was available and made reasonable extractions of data. It is well established among historians that any information to be gained depends upon the questions asked and that these questions are never neutral. Thus, to come to a proper assessment of the value of Thomas, Scherzer and Fellgiebel as sources we need to know what their questions and intentions were. Otherwise it it not possible to describe either their strengths or their shortcomings. Isn't it true that they based their works mainly, if not exclusively on certain German official documents such as personal files and files directly related to the award? How do you know that the "information that was available" was examined and that the extractions were "reasonable"? Wouldn't it be fair to assume that Thomas, Scherzer and Fellgiebel edited just the sources they felt to be useful to answer their particular questions and that it is therefore of vital importance to describe their, in Wikipedian terms, POV? Christian Hartmann, e.g., one of the most respected German military historians, spoke of these works as "galleries of heroes" (Heldengalerien) and thought they were useful for prosopograpy.
 * Their work in a federal archive was sponsored by or accepted by federal agencies that, if they were British, Australian, Canadian or American, would be accepted, widely disseminated, and viewed as positive contributions to historical understanding of the period. That comment really struck me and raised a couple of questions: Which federal agencies "sponsored" or otherwise actively supported the work of these authors in a federal archive and how? What kind of evidence do you have for that claim? There may be a misunderstanding, but does "they were British,..." refer to Thomas, Scherzer and Fellgiebel or to the federal agencies? In any case, what does nationality have to do with that? Would you suggest that Hartmann's judgement is somehow shaped by his national outlook and not by his critical reading of heroic myths and hero worshipping (which he supports with a reference to a British historian working on T.E. Lawrence)?
 * On a side note if we reject all articles based on the notion of hagiography, then we should omit most of the Napoleonic awards, and the entire catalog of saints. That statement confuses the popular usage of the term describing an utterly positive, uncriticial description of a person with the mainly medieval genre of hagiography. Of course not every biography of a saint needs to be hagiographic by popular definition, whereas any biography can degenerate to such a hagiography if it becomes uncritical.--Assayer (talk) 16:58, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
 * of course it's ridiculous re the strict notion of hagiography. That is the point. If these individuals were not part of the Third Reich, we wouldn't be having this discuss.  The hagiography argument has been levied at this list up and down the line.  I think it's an illegitimate argument
 * Nationality has everything to do with the argument over these sources, at least it was so raised and/or implied during other discussions. The point was that Thomas Scherzer and Fellgiebel were looking at German sources, specifically relating to the Nazi period, and a reviewer objected to using them to build a hagiographic structure to the awards given to men during in World War II.
 * It seems to me that the important points are these:
 * the sources for Thomas, Scherzer and Fellgiebel exist in a Federal archive and are governed by Law on the Preservation and Use of Federal Archival Documents (Bundesarchivgesetz - BArchG) of 6 January 1988 (BGBl. I S. 62), as amended at last by the Freedom of Information Law of 5 September 2005 (BGBl. I S. 2722). Applicants wishing to use these archives must provide a written and detailed description of what, how, when, why, etc.
 * Consequently, research in a German federal archive is regulated that is, you have to sign various permissions and obtain approvals to conduct research in an archive, pursuant to (Bundesarchiv-Benutzungsverordnung - BArchBV) of 29th October, 1993 (German Federal Law Gazette I p. 1857)
 * One of the problems with examining the Nazi era are still associated with the atrocities committed. This list is simply a list of people who received a specific award.  The secondary sources examine the primary sources that provide that information.  Some of the information, particularly toward the end of the war when the Germany was falling apart, is murky.  The secondary sources tried to cut through some of the murkiness; the list is, as the secondary sources have said, as complete and reliable as the primary sources allow. auntieruth (talk) 14:58, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your reply. The German Federal Archives are open to the public. Everyone has the right to examine files archived at the Federal Archives. It is true that you have to file a request, but it is a short form and not much different from what you are required to do if you want to register at the US National Archives. In that respect research in any archive is regulated. As in the US certain files are restricted and classified in Germany (under the BArchG), particularly personal files (for 30 years after the death of a person or 110 years after birth, if the date of death is not known). If you plan to use those files, you have to file a seperate request. (see the BArch homepage for details) That's all. If that's what you mean by "sponsored" or "accepted", then about every research in the German Federal Archives dealing with German history from at least the Weimar Republic onwards is "sponsored"  or "accepted" by some "federal agencies". That seems pointless to me. The issue is still mentioned in the introductions of further lists:  Scherzer wrote his book in cooperation with the German Federal Archives.
 * Some of the secondary sources mentioned did not only list the people who received a specific award (particularly Thomas/Wegmann), but ventured to provide biographical information and pictures. So they can be both hagiographic (e.g., Franz Thomas & Erwin Lenfeld: Die Eichenlaubträger, 1983) and reliable on certain issues at the same time, but above you were referring to articles based on the notion of hagiography. Speaking of this list I find it troubling, however, to heap indiscriminate praise on the sources ("masterpiece", see below) or list clearly uncritical, even propagandistic works as "Further reading" (see question regarding Krätschmer below)--Assayer (talk) 13:49, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Peacemaker67

 * Support I strongly disagree with pretty much everything that has been said in criticism of this list (and the rest of these lists), and am in agreement with auntieruth and Sturmvogel 66's comments. This list (and the others) are comprehensive and have the right level of detail. They compare and contrast the two main sources in such a way as to ensure that details are not lost. Other than some tweaking of the notes for concision (in ways already identified above, which isn't a significant issue IMO), the only real issue I can see that is worthy of a partial rewording is the second paragraph of the lead. It should be written in a way that doesn't weigh the sources in Wikipedia's voice, but still explains the historiography of these award lists, supported by direct quotations from the people who have been mentioned as praising Scherzer's work. You'll need to check my translations, but I suggest something along these lines:

"These recipients are listed in the 1986 edition of Walther-Peer Fellgiebel's book, Die Träger des Ritterkreuzes des Eisernen Kreuzes 1939–1945 [The Bearers of the Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross 1939–1945]. Fellgiebel was a recipient of the Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross, and was also the former chairman and head of the order commission of the AKCR. In 1996, a second edition of this book was published with an addendum delisting 11 of the recipients. In 2007, Veit Scherzer published his Die Ritterkreuzträger 1939–1945 Die Inhaber des Ritterkreuzes des Eisernen Kreuzes 1939 von Heer, Luftwaffe, Kriegsmarine, Waffen-SS, Volkssturm sowie mit Deutschland verbündeter Streitkräfte nach den Unterlagen des Bundesarchives [The Knight's Cross Bearers 1939–1945 The Holders of the Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross 1939 by Army, Air Force, Navy, Waffen-SS, Volkssturm and Allied Forces with Germany According to the Documents of the Federal Archives]. Scherzer's book was compiled from documents held by the German Federal Archives, and cast doubt on 193 of the listings in Fellgiebel's 1996 book. The majority of the disputed recipients were listed as having received the award in 1945, when the deteriorating situation of the Third Reich during the final days of World War II left a number of nominations incomplete and pending in various stages of the approval process. Scherzer's book has been described as a "masterpiece" by Prof. Dr. Franz W. Seidler of the Bundeswehr University Munich, and as an "indispensable reference book" by a section head of the Deutsche Dienststelle (WASt), the Wehrmacht records repository." Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:59, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * good suggestion, done with minor change. MisterBee1966 (talk) 09:24, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Since you strongly disagree with pretty much everything that has been said in criticism of this list I may reiterate my criticism that Scherzer's work cannot be evaluated by a selection of quotes from private letters put together by the author himself (who also happens to be the publisher) to promote his book. Could you please explain why you discard that criticism in respect to WP:RS and WP:NPOV and why you support the inclusion of such quotes ("masterpiece")? Would you, on the other hand, support the inclusion of some information about Seidler, who has a certain reputation among historian's in the field? --Assayer (talk) 17:05, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
 * That would be inappropriate. What would be appropriate (for balance) would be a review of Scherzer's book that actually criticised it on substantive grounds. I haven't seen that here, though. Including criticism of a reviewer of a book used as a source is nothing short of "mission creep" aimed at undermining the source without actually contributing to the list or the discussion. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:39, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Anotherclown
Wikipedia's review processes (and MILHIST's for that matter) are by no means perfect, relying on a range of circumstances / conditions to be met if they are to be effective (e.g. the availability of knowledgeable editors willing to volunteer their time etc). As such any additional scrutiny of our articles is a welcome thing and usually results in their overall improvement. To be sure the recent attention articles / lists like this have received has allowed a number of potential issues to be identified and addressed which might otherwise not been picked up by non-specialists such as myself. That said I am concerned that the systematic way this scrutiny has been applied only to a subset of our articles may have a detrimental effect, potentially implying that this is not a valid field / topic of study when the opposite is true. We of course need articles on both "good" and "bad" people in equal measure (not that one can generalise and say all German service personnel of a certain era fell into one or other category anyway). Whilst I think some of the criticism listed above is valid, much of it is not and arguably represents the personal standards of the reviewer and not the FA criteria. In regards to this list:
 * 1) I do not think it is hagiographic.
 * 2) The awards identified as being in doubt should remain on the list for completeness of record. It has not been established beyond doubt that they were not made, and there does not appear to be consensus in the sources (which seem to list the awards anyway). As such all we can do is list them also and acknowledge any discrepancies where they exist (as the list currently does). It is not up to us to say that one source is right and another is wrong, as long as both meet the requirements of WP:RS (unless of course they are obviously out of date, and the state of the historiography can be shown by other RS to have moved on since publication etc). No doubt many of our readers would be looking for these names anyway, and their inclusion here with an explanation of the discrepancy seems of obvious value to anyone interested in the topic.
 * 3) The original wording used in the opening paragraphs did need some work (along the lines of PeaceMaker’s suggestions, AustralianRupert and others); however, these changes mostly seem to have occurred now.
 * 4) At any rate some of the issues identified seem likely to have been due to compromises required in order to address previous critiques, and to me MB has had a very difficult task reconciling what is often conflicting / contradictory advice from many different editors (given in good faith).
 * 5) My only criticism is that already identified in regards to the overuse of the phrase "according to X" in the notes. These could be re-written for brevity and to remove repetitive prose etc.
 * 6) Support -  overall, this is a comprehensive, well reference, and well presented list. Anotherclown (talk) 02:27, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
 * addressed criticism "according to X" as suggested by Hydronium Hydroxide thank you for the review MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:36, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Question regarding Ernst-Günther Krätschmer
This removal raises a question on how to present controversial information and sources (see also Talk:List of Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross recipients (Ba–Bm). Ernst-Günther Krätschmer was a former SS-Obersturmführer and author of Die Ritterkreuzträger der Waffen-SS [The Knight's Cross Bearers of the Waffen-SS]. The book was published with Nation Europa Verlag, a right wing publisher. Scherzer in his analysis of the recipients of KC also consulted this reference. You will find reference to how Scherzer used this book in the disputed commentary on Friedrich Blond. My question, is it legitimate to point the readers of Wikipedia to this book? MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:57, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I am not sure, whether User:Dapi89 wanted to comment on Krätschmer or on the list, so I'll squeeze my comment in between. Krätschmer was a regular contributor to the magazine of the HIAG. His book, first published in 1955 with a preface by Paul Hausser and still in print, is mainly based upon Nazi sources. It is still used and cited by historians, but renowned for its apologetic and uncritical approach. I would not recommend that for further reading. --Assayer (talk) 13:43, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Dapi89 (2)

 * 1) Support. As per my first post and subsequent comments from those supportive of promotion.  Dapi89 (talk) 18:31, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Comments by K.e.coffman (2)

 * Regarding the overall tone of the discourse, I do not find mentioning of me by name, while not addressing comments by other contributors who have voiced similar concerns, to be helpful. Furthermore, invoking consensus within one particular project is not conducive to smooth running of the overall project (Wikipedia). I believe that such WP:LOCALCONSENSUS-based arguments should be discounted by the FL project coordinators. Related to that, the edits I have implemented in the past re: this and other lists have been rejected specifically because the discussion had taken place within the MilHist project: "As a general note, a discussion at a wikiproject does not supersede consensus on an article itself for content issues" (link) I concur with this sentiment. Often issues like this get clarified when they are brought in front of non-specialist editors.


 * "Sometimes we have to read "against" the source…" — This statement seems to describe WP:OR: "analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources". As I understand it, Wikipedia is a not a place to publish original research by “extracting information the source has not intended to provide”. WP:RS and WP:MILMOS guidelines specify that the articles should be based on reliable sources so that “that no original research is needed to extract the content.”
 * In this case, the nom states that three sources have attempted to address the topic. One (not under consideration here) is Seemen which pre-dates Fellgiebel. Fellgiebel is not independent of the topic and represents the current view of the Association of the Knight’s Cross Recipients. The last source is Scherzer (for which I actually advocated above to be the primary source in this article), but it’s still a self-published source.
 * So we have a combination of “not-quite-there” sources and non-notable names (over 75%), which to me amounts to indiscriminate amount of information based on original research, if editor AntiRuth suggests this is what’s happening here. I would also note that de.wiki does not have such lists, only a list of the Oak Leaves recipients, the higher grade award. The issue would probably be easier to resolve if sister projects have had such lists. The KC recipients have been actively discussed on de.wiki (for example here: "Self-published source"), so I assume de.wiki doesn't have such lists not because they have simply not got around to it.
 * Also of note is that the format of the lists evolved under the assumption that all Knight's Cross recipients were notable. The expectation was (I assume, due to the red links originally present in the article) that pages for all of them would eventually be created, or that perhaps some amount of OR was acceptable. Per the outcome of the discussion at Notability:People on notability of Knight's Cross recipients (permalink), certain recipients were deemed non-notable and WP:SOLDIER has been modified accordingly: diff. Thus the project-specific consensus on how the list information should be presented may be dated itself.


 * "As for overkill on notations, this stems, I believe, from one reviewer's (IMO) biased objection to the subject (…) Subsequent annotations by MrB were, I believe, his conscientious effort to meet with kecoffman's demands.": This statement does not appear to be accurate as the format for this and other lists had been set before I became an editor in late 2015. For example, the next list in the series, "Bn-Bz", underwent a MilHist A-class review in 2014, and is currently in the same format as the list under discussion when it was nominated (reviewed version). Unless “one reviewer” is someone other than myself—? Re: “Kecoffman’s demands”, please help me understand which demands are being discussed here.


 * "Their work in a federal archive was sponsored by or accepted by federal agencies…" — Sources that describe the work by Fellgiebel and Scherzer to have been accepted by federal agencies would be useful. If this is indeed the case, then I might reevaluate. The article states nothing on this re Fellgiebel, while mentioning that Scherzer's work was based on archival documents, but not "sponsored" or "accepted". Being included in a library of a research institution is nothing unusual. The article then states that Fellgiebel’s list is based on the acceptance of the AKCR’s “order commission”, without providing details on this entity. As of yet, it’s not been clarified whether or not the commission had any official status or that the results of its work have been accepted by federal agencies, to what extend, in which timeframe and whether this acceptance is still on-going. More clarity here will be helpful.


 * Similarly, "academic acceptance" — No sources to this effect have been provided, apart for the self-cited endorsement by "Prof. Dr. Franz W. Seidler of the Bundeswehr University Munich". The article does not mention that, by the time Scherzer's work came out, Seidler had been retired from the University for 9 year. The endorsement is a somewhat dubious distinction as Seidler, following his retirement in 1998, began publishing works of a revisionist nature in extreme right-wing publishers such as, “distancing himself from serious historical research”.  The PDF linked below offers similar endorsements, including from an anon user of the internet forum www.das-ritterkreuz.de, identified as "Ulrich": "I think it will be a Bible, in the best sense!" Etc.
 * If Seidler's is the best endorsement that Scherzer was able to secure, this again speaks to a low interest in the topic of the Knight’s Cross recipients from German historians, and hence the general public, and the correspondingly contradictory sources so that we have to "read against them".


 * "As a project, we have tried to understand, and adapt to one reviewer's demands--these were demands, not suggestions" — could the editor please clarify what this is referring to? Is this about me, or another editor? This statement is unclear to me as I’ve not participated in reviews of KC lists before this one.


 * Many substantive comments and concerns remain unaddressed, such as:
 * Why is Fellgiebel primary, and Scherzer secondary? Is Fellgiebel's data superior? If so, how?
 * If Scherzer's work is based on archival records, what is the purpose of "comparing-and-contrasting" with Fellgiebel for minute details such "Commander of SS-Panzergrenadier-Regiment 6 "Theodor Eicke"" vs "Commander of SS-Panzergrenadier-Regiment "Theodor Eicke""
 * Likewise, what is the purpose of having two citations where both sources agree on the information?
 * Copy is still promotional for Scherzer's work, with self-cited praise and an endorsement from an anon "department head".
 * Notes continue to be excessive (please also see for additional suggestions below).

Add'l suggestions/comments"
 * Suggest that the “Who-killed-JFK”-style notes in the Notes section be streamlined. As currently in the article:
 * "No evidence of the award can be found in the German Federal Archives. Von Seeman stated that the tradition club of the 9. Panzer-Division informed him of the presentation of the Knight's Cross to Ludwig Bauer in 1954. (...) The receipt of a nomination by his unit with the Heerespersonalamt (HPA—Army Staff Office) or the Außenstelle of the Heerespersonalamt (HPA/A—Branch of the Army Staff Office) cannot be verified. (...) Also, the responsible official at the time would have deferred the nomination from Heeresgruppe B after its capitulation after 17 April according to AHA 44 Ziff. 572. (...) A statement provided by the first scribe of the 9. Panzer-Division from 1957 to the Association of Knight's Cross Recipients (AKCR) is inconclusive..."


 * Does Scherzer goes much further than this in the book, or are these verbatim notes as they appear in Scherzer’s book?
 * Suggest rewording along these lines:
 * "No evidence of the award can be found in the German Federal Archives. A lawful presentation was unlikely as the nomination remained unprocessed with the N Army. However, Association of Knight's Cross Recipients accepted X as a recipient".
 * Where a lawful presentation is possible, this can be stated as:
 * No evidence of the award can be found in the German Federal Archives. However, a lawful presentation was possible through the chain of command of the N Army. Association of Knight's Cross Recipients accepted X as a recipient".
 * One brief paragraph should be sufficient.


 * Suggest removing copy & note relating to the "last bestowal" since this is disputed: "...on 17 June 1945. Großadmiral and President of Germany Karl Dönitz, Hitler's successor as Head of State (Staatsoberhaupt) and Supreme Commander of the Armed Forces, had ordered the cessation of all promotions and awards as of 11 May 1945 (Dönitz-decree..." etc. This can be addressed in the main article.
 * Wrong Karl Barth and Joachim Bauer are being linked.
 * done MisterBee1966 (talk) 10:03, 22 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Suggest removing the honorifics as superfluous. This will also reduce the amounts of notes, such as:
 * The brackets around the doctor title [Dr.] denotes that the academic title was attained after the Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross was awarded.
 * not done as they reflect Scherzer's presentation style MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:34, 23 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Suggest removing translations throughout as they are still distracting; interested readers can click on the link:
 * Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross with Oak Leaves, Swords and Diamonds (... mit Eichenlaub, Schwertern und Brillanten)
 * implemented suggestion made by Hydronium Hydroxide MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:34, 23 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Suggest rewording "Up to 7,321 awards were made..." to " Up to 7,321 awards may have been made..." due to the absence of an official list. Alternatively, this can be phrased as: "More than 7,000 awards were made..."
 * done "Up to 7,321 awards may have been made..." MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:34, 23 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Similar to Hydronium Hydroxide, suggest removing the numerical numbers for the Oak Leaves and related discussion, for consideration of concision. Likewise, suggest moving the discussion of sources into the Background section, if it's needed at all.


 * K.e.coffman (talk) 20:31, 21 January 2017 (UTC)


 * A minor issue that I mention for matters of clarification: I assume de.wiki doesn't have such lists not because they have simply not got around to it. That's not the case. There are six such lists, most notable are de:Liste der Träger des Ritterkreuzes des Eisernen Kreuzes der U-Boot-Waffe and de:Liste der Träger des Ritterkreuzes des Eisernen Kreuzes der Jagdflieger. The issue is still controversial, but so far those lists have not been nominated for deletion. The latter was nominated for promotion, but that did not come about, mainly indeed because of the sources used. These lists were compiled almost exclusively by a single editor who has been blocked indefinitely some time later, because his work was in general problematic and not up to the standards of Wikipedia. Noone has cared to resume his lists. --Assayer (talk) 00:48, 22 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the clarification. I meant that de.wiki does not have the flat, alphabetical lists for all 7,000+ recipients. In addition to the series, of which the list under consideration is a part of, en.wiki has many other KC recipient lists, 65 in total. Please see: Category:Lists of Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross recipients. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:04, 22 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Of course you won't find the comments about you helpful to your cause, K.e.Coffman.
 * Some editors, including you, feel they are the gate keeper on Wikipedia. The problem that five/six or so editors have with your actions and comments here is that you appear to be going out of your way to make it impossible for this article to achieve promotion. Having gone through this latest list of objections, they seem, as ever, rooted in assumption and opinion. As noted by three others, it seems to be another list of unreasonable demands. Dapi89 (talk) 13:31, 22 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Thank you Dapi89. Much of what has been discussed here is a regurgitation of a previously resolved conversation on Milhist regarding this (and similar lists) and the sources.  Most of us have a wealth of things to do re wikipedia and other concerns, and would prefer not to rehash the old argument.  Again, I support this nomination. auntieruth (talk) 15:19, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Comment by The Rambling Man
Comment as far as this delegate can tell, actionable comments have been actioned, and there's a consensus to promote this. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:24, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Comments by K.e.coffman (3)
I believe that this review is being closed prematurely.

Re: ”a regurgitation of a previously resolved conversation on Milhist”; "As a project, we have tried to understand, and adapt to one reviewer's demands--these were demands, not suggestions…" — please point these past discussions out so that reviewers can understand what this past consensus was based on.

Separately, the editor appears to conflate me with another reviewer who took part in past reviews, and then dismiss comments at this review because (I paraphrase) “we have been through this before”. I don’t believe that’s how the reviews, especially at a Featured level, are supposed to work. Moreover, as I pointed out, this consensus (if any) is (1) project-specific; (2) dated; and (3) the matter does not appear to be resolved going by the comments above.

To reiterate, many substantive questions, relating to WP:RS, WP:NPOV and WP:OR, remain unaddressed. For easier response, I’ve summarised them below. These questions are pretty straightforward, so it should not take that much time by the nom and / or the support voters to respond:


 * 1) Why is Fellgiebel primary, and Scherzer secondary? Is Fellgiebel's data superior? If so, how?
 * 2) What is the AKCR’s “order commission”? Has it had any official status?
 * 3) Has Scherzer’s and/or Fellgiebel’s work been accepted by federal agencies, to what extent, in which timeframe and is this acceptance (if any) still on-going?
 * 4) Since Scherzer's work is based on archival records, what is the purpose of "comparing-and-contrasting" with Fellgiebel / Thomas & Wegman / Seemen for minute details such "Commander of SS-Panzergrenadier-Regiment 6 "Theodor Eicke"" vs "Commander of SS-Panzergrenadier-Regiment "Theodor Eicke”?
 * 5) Content in the section Disputed by Scherzer should be streamlined. The “who-killed-JFK” style notes are excessive detail outside of the scope of an encyclopedia article. A related question: does Scherzer goes much further than this in the book, or are these verbatim notes as they appear in Scherzer’s book?
 * 6) What is the purpose of the section Discrepancies in sources? This appears immaterial and / or original research based on less-than-reliable sources that are being “read against". This looks problematic, and questions about such notes have not bee addressed.
 * 7) Likewise, what is the purpose of having two citations where both sources agree on the information?
 * 8) Do the nom and the support voters consider it appropriate to include self-cited praise from a retired professor with a questionable POV (“masterpiece”) and an anonymous “section head"? Should the article then include praise from anon forum users (“Bible!”) which also appears in Scherzer’s PDF?

Some additional comments are still open above, but these are the key questions that remain unaddressed either by the nom or the support voters.

I do not see that actionable comments have been addressed and that consensus has been achieved. I'm also concerned about what could be perceived as a coordinated action in re: support for this list; please see this discussion: "We need to deal with this".

K.e.coffman (talk) 15:59, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 * It's hard to count here, because this is a somewhat messy FLC with the vast amount of commentary and it's easy to miss a bolded support or oppose vote. From my count, there were five supporters and two opposers at the time of promotion. It's a borderline case either way, and I trust TRM to deliver a reasonable decision; I'm not inclined to overturn his promotion of the list. Regarding your last sentence, it seems like they're complaining about an issue in whatever dispute you have going on, not canvassing for support here. If you want to discuss this further, feel free to post at FLC talk; the bot will come around to close this FLC soon, and no edits should be made here after that happens. We really shouldn't be editing here now, but I saw this after coming home from work and thought it merited a quick response. Giants2008  ( Talk ) 22:17, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.