Talk:Peter Hohmann, Edler of Hohenthal

Which Wallendorf

HHaeckel, things in articles require sources, whether you started the article or not. Your substitution of Wallendorf in Lichte for Wallendorf, Saxony-Anhalt (de:Wallendorf (Luppe)) is being challenged at [the discussion page on the German article]. Find a source listing Lichte-Wallendorf among his holdings. Otherwise it must be assumed to be incorrect. The other one is sourced. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:28, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have now once more asserted that it was Lichte-Wallendorf, without citing a source. Elsewhere (on your de.wikipedia talkpage and in edit summaries) you are claiming the following source:

Von der Köhlerhütte zum Industriestandort ... nach amtlichen Quellen 1937 - 1939 von Albert Brödel; veröffentlicht durch W. Brödel; Kulmbach, 7.3.1997 III. Lichte und seine Umgebung im 16. und 17. Jahrhundert 4. Die Entstehung des Rittergutes Wallendorf

However, only one book by that author is listed at the German National Library and at OCLC Worldcat. Its title is different: Geschichte der Orte Unterschöbling und Lichta bei Königsee (Thür.) : Nach amtl. Quellen. It is only 112 pages long, and published in 1936. And what is 7.3.1997? Are you in fact using a journal article? If so, in what journal? The source needs to be verifiable and reliable to be used. Please explain exactly what it is. If it is acceptable, it then needs to be put into the article in a footnote, between <ref> and </ref>. Why are you not doing this? You are even omitting references when you translate an article. I see an editor telling you repeatedly on your de.wikipedia talk page that you must cite sources for anything that may be challenged, and that you need to do so as footnotes or at a minimum in the Sources section of the article, not in an edit summary or on your personal talk page. (Also, please do not translate titles of books. It is a falsification.)

In any case, it is clear from the sentence in the German article that if Lichte-Wallendorf was a place Hohmann became lord of, it was only one of many. Mentioning only that one place is ridiculously overbalanced, especially if it is not listed in works that talk about Hohmann rather than specifically about Lichte. Between the inability to find the Brödel book listed in the largest bibliographic sources available and the similarity of names between the two Wallendorfs, I suspect Brödel made an error. Is it listed in the other source the de.wikipedia article uses as a reference there? And if so, can you find any other independent evidence that Lichte-Wallendorf was an important part of Hohmann's holdings? Otherwise it needs to be mentioned only as part of a long list - or left out if Brödel's book is not a reliable source. Yngvadottir (talk) 15:18, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your putting the reference in, but it must not be translated; the title is not in English! And I do not think this is a reliable source. Can you find anywhere listing its publication? If it is self-published, it does not meet Wikipedia's standards. More importantly, if he was lord of Lichte-Wallendorf, it was one among several other possessions. It should not be added alone. Yngvadottir (talk) 14:58, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

HHaeckel: Once more - the Brödel source is not good. It is self-published and I can find no record of the book's existence. It does not matter where you were born or for that matter where Brödel was born; he could still be wrong. The state archive source is much better but because it is not accessible, you should quote from it if you really want to include this piece of information. It is in fact what is called coatracking on en.wikipedia: you are using the article on this person to get more info on Lichte into Wikipedia. This is unbalanced and I have therefore put in the list of (better attested) manors that you left out when you translated the article. Articles must be balanced and not give undue weight to things that personally interest you. Starting an article does not change that - none of us owns articles here. They are collaboratively written for a general readership. Also, information needs to be accurate - and that includes not changing the spelling of people's names or the language of titles of publications. Please read some of the policy pages you have been referred to, either on en.wikipedia or on de.wikipedia. And please realize that the place for discussion is on a talk page, not in an edit summary. Edit summaries are not for your messages to me personally or to editors at large. (And for that reason they are not signed with ~~~~, as you have been told already on de.wikipedia.) Yngvadottir (talk) 18:42, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Which Charles?

Hello. I've changed the reference to the German Emperor who gave the Title of Knight to Peter Hohmann. Obviously, the right Emperor was Archduke Charles VI, not Charles IV, who lived three centuries before. EAF — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.139.144.177 (talk) 12:13, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I was not signed to Wikipedia when writting the previous. EAF — Preceding unsigned comment added by GedeonMcHale (talk • contribs) 12:20, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I checked the dates and you are undoubtedly right, thanks! I've taken the liberty of moving this to the bottom since it is the newest section on the page. Yngvadottir (talk) 15:46, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]