Jump to content

Talk:Hans Philipp/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 04:02, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Restoration of pre-existing condition of article

I have restored this article to its pre-existing condition because it was an Milhist A-Class article, and if an editor has significant issues with it, it should be subjected to a Milhist A-Class re-assessment, not subjected to a death by a thousand cuts, which is what is happening now. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:10, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Tags

The article copy largely relies on a WP:QS booklet series featuring RK winner profiles:

  • Steinecke, Gerhard (2012). Ritterkreuzträger Profile Nr. 11 Hans Philipp — Einer von Vielen (in German). UNITEC-Medienvertrieb. OCLC 802538281. ASIN B008AIT9Z6  (4 January 2013). {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help); Unknown parameter |trans_title= ignored (|trans-title= suggested) (help)

Given the questionable nature of the source, the level of detail in the article is WP:UNDUE. I tagged the article accordingly.

Please also see diff for reductions; rationale is included in the edit summary. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:54, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

I removed the tags. The author in questian, historian Gerhard Steinicke ([1], [2], [3]), has published a number of books on the history of Meißen, in particular on National Socialism in Meißen. See Beiträge zur politischen Bildungsforschung | Elitenbildung in Sachsen und Preußen – die Landes- und Fürstenschulen von Jonas Flöter | wissenschaftl. Mitarbeit and Literature by and about Hans Philipp/Archive 1 in the German National Library catalogue. As such, the tagging is unjustified. Cheers MisterBee1966 (talk) 10:34, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

RfC Notice

An RfC of interest to this article, "Is the Ritterkreuzträger Profiles series a reliable source for mentions in the Wehrmachtbericht?", has been opened at Reliable Sources Noticeboard. Please join the discussion here. –dlthewave ☎ 17:43, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

I can't find a consensus of any kind using this link. Counting the number of editors for/against it quite clearly isnt a consensus. On that basis you can't delete 20,000 odd characters from the article. Dapi89 (talk) 19:57, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
It's been archived. –dlthewave ☎ 20:29, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
I checked the archive. Where specifically is this supposed vote? Dapi89 (talk) 22:08, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
It is clear that there was not consensus. Dapi89 (talk) 22:10, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
Since it was not true that there was a consensus based on the link you provided (opinion was divded) then there is no basis for the deletion of the material. Dapi89 (talk) 22:13, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
It is in section #8, "RfC: Ritterkreuzträger Profiles series". It was closed as "There is a weak consensus that the source is not reliable." If you disagree with the close, I would suggest that you either discuss it with the closer or open a new RSN discussion. –dlthewave ☎ 22:15, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
No, there were an equal number of people for it and against it. That is not a consensus by any stretch of the imagination. Dapi89 (talk) 22:20, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
Pinging DannyS712 who may be able to elaborate on the reasoning behind the close. –dlthewave ☎ 22:45, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
@Dlthewave: I closed it with a weak consensus that it was unreliable over 2 weeks ago, but reading over the RfC again, a few points strike me for why the close: the late influx of users arguing that it was not reliable; the specific points about the lack of editorial oversight. The comment from 2 months ago asking Has the content of the de.wiki article been verified? It appears to be entirely unsourced. went unanswered, and the de.wiki article is still not fully sourced, reducing the weight of the argument that that specific individual author was credible. But, I was sure to note that was a weak consensus, in part because of how divided the discussion was. I hope this answers your questions --DannyS712 (talk) 23:08, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
I agree that the close reflects consensus, and this is a good reminder that we don't assess consensus by counting !votes. A careful reading reveals that two of the comments, by 77.234.46.144 and DiorandI, do not actually discuss the source at all. Peacemaker's "I see no reason why not" vote is not very strong, as a lack of criticism is not an indicator of reliability. This leaves only MisterBee's comment, which seems to be based on the unsourced de.wiki article. The burden is on editors wishing to include the content to establish its reliability, and the "support" arguments are not compelling. I would invite Dapi89 to open a new RfC if they feel that further discussion would lead to a different conclusion. –dlthewave ☎ 01:55, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

You've got a strange way of quantifying a consensus. I think if you'd actually asked those editors for clarification they'd have spelt it out for you. I see you've also discounted my remarks. If that is a consensus, I'm the Queen of Sheeba. Dapi89 (talk) 16:50, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Current consensus

  • The above is an attempt to reargue a closed discussion. If there's a disagreement about the close, then please start a new one at RSN. Arguing about consensus that's already been established is not helpful. --K.e.coffman (talk) 19:23, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

The result is Delist. There is consensus that the article fails GA2 (verifiability) due to the use of unreliable sources, and these concerns were not resolved during the course of the reassessment. –dlthewave ☎ 18:20, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Hans Philipp/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

This article relies heavily on "Schumann, Ralf; Westerwelle, Wolfgang (2010). Ritterkreuzträger Profile Nr. 8 Joachim Müncheberg – Der Jäger von Malta [Knight's Cross Profiles Nr. 8 Joachim Müncheberg – The Hunter of Malta]" Steinecke, Gerhard (2012). Ritterkreuzträger Profile Nr. 11 Hans Philipp — Einer von Vielen [Knight's Cross Profiles Nr. 11 Hans Philipp — One of Many] (in German). UNITEC-Medienvertrieb. OCLC 802538281. ASIN B008AIT9Z6 (4 January 2013). (used at Hans Philipp) which, per a recent RfC, is not a reliable source. Because of this it fails GA criteria 2B. –dlthewave ☎ 12:03, 11 March 2019 (UTC) Corrected source –dlthewave ☎ 17:06, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

should the original statement have said "... Steinecke, Gerhard [in German] (2012). Ritterkreuzträger Profile Nr. 11 Hans Philipp — Einer von Vielen [Knight's Cross Profiles Nr. 11 Hans Philipp — One of Many] (in German). UNITEC-Medienvertrieb. OCLC 802538281. ASIN B008AIT9Z6  (4 January 2013). {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)…" -because that is the Ritterkreuzträger Profile that is used as a reference in the article? This looks like a simple cut and paste error, but I believe the RFC was about the series of books rather than the individual book. (I am not commenting either way otherwise on the arguments for delisting).Nigel Ish (talk) 12:37, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
Yes, thank you, I did mean Steinecke 2012. Corrected. –dlthewave ☎ 17:07, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
The discussion at RSN seems to have been scoped as referring to its use for mentions of the Wehrmachtbericht. Is everybody sure that the "weak consensus" applied to the book's use as a more general biographical reference, particularly as the author seems to be a historian.Nigel Ish (talk) 00:01, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
Although the RfC was framed (by yours truly) as a question about mentions in the Wehrmachtbericht, comments such as "Obscure publication with no evidence that it receives the editorial oversight required to be considered an RS" seem to indicate general unreliability. For what it's worth, the source is used to souce several Wehrmachtbericht mentions in this article. –dlthewave ☎ 03:06, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Delist: does not meet the current GA requirements for NPOV and sourcing reliability. --K.e.coffman (talk) 23:49, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep: The charge that reviews can't be found = "general unreliability" is not logical. Also, the Nazi communiqué report has already been established as a military award by academics that participants to this discussion regard as reliable. Dapi89 (talk) 16:56, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Delist. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 17:12, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Delist per my comment above. ——SerialNumber54129 17:20, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment Another relevant RfC has established that mentions in the Wehrmachtbericht may be included when a reliable secondary source that "focuses on the mentioned person or unit specifically states that the mention was an honour." All except one of the mentions currently fail this requirement since they are sourced to Steinecke 2012 or the Wehrmachtbericht itself. The comment that "...the Nazi communiqué report has already been established as a military award by academics that participants to this discussion regard as reliable. also goes against this consensus, since the source must specifically refer to the subject and cannot be an overall blanket statement about the Wehrmachtbericht. –dlthewave ☎ 17:53, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
Quite. Although it might make the claim that A-class is "almost" FAC-quality ring slightly hollow if it's short even of GA  ;) ——SerialNumber54129 20:59, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hans_Philipp/Archive_1&oldid=1020446137"