Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/2019/Kept

Kept

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.

Article still meets A-Class criteria - Peacemaker67 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 06:20, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hans Philipp

Nominator(s): Dlthewave (talk)

I am nominating this article to be delisted from A-Class because it recently failed a GA reassessment due to verifiability and neutrality issues. Steinecke 2012, which is considered unreliable per a recent RfC, is still used as a source throughout the article. This means that it probably does not meet A-Class criteria A1. –dlthewave ☎ 19:13, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delist: a demoted GA, where the issues identified during GAR have not been addressed, is very unlikely to meet the A-class's stringent criteria. --K.e.coffman (talk) 19:50, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delist per nom. Parsecboy (talk) 18:54, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per MisterBee1966's comments below. Neutral for now. I find the RfC arguments against Steinecke unconvincing. All of the substantive posts seem to have been in favour of his being a RS. The GAR was, reasonably, a straight implementation of the RfC. I await possible further comments here before deciding which, if either, side of the fence to get off on. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:05, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Looking through the RfC, all of the longer responses are either off-topic arguments in favor of including Wehrmachtbericht references in general, an editor who assumes that the source is reliable due to a perceived lack of evidence otherwise, and MisterBee's comment which is based on an unsourced dewiki article. I assume that the closer took these factors into account and discarded the non-policy-based commets. –dlthewave ☎ 11:47, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am regurgitating my comment from the RfC, the author de:Gerhard Steinecke who wrote Ritterkreuzträger Profile Nr. 11 Hans Philipp — Einer von Vielen [Knight's Cross Profiles Nr. 11 Hans Philipp — One of Many]. According to his German Wiki article, Steinecke studied history in Berlin from 1965 to 1970. He was the museum director of de:Schloss Kuckuckstein and later in Nossen. In 1984, he was released out of political reasons (not stated which) by East Germany. Following the German reunification, he wrote a variety of books about the history of Meißen, Philipp was born in Meißen, and other history related topics, see also Literature by and about Gehard Steinicke in the German National Library catalogue. Professor Jonas Flöter, in his book Eliten-Bildung in Sachsen und Preussen: die Fürsten- und Landesschulen Grimma, Meissen, Joachimsthal und Pforta (1868-1933) [Elite Education in Saxony and Prussia: the Prince and Country Schools Grimma, Meissen, Joachimsthal and Pforta (1868-1933)], thanked Steinecke for his contribution, see pages 11, 470, 471. In addition to my earlier comment, I want to point out that Steinecke is predominantly used to reference Philipp's early life, his role in Meißen at the time, and less so with respect to his military career which, where appropriate, is seconded by other sources. Cheers MisterBee1966 (talk) 09:32, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The following article "Einer von vielen" was published on 18 March 2017 in the Sächsische Zeitung, a regional German daily newspaper. According to the English Wikipedia article, the Sächsische Zeitung has close ties to the Social Democratic Party of Germany (SPD). The SPD has no political far-right nor even right affiliation. This article states the following about historian Gerhard Steinecke and his book on Hans Philipp: "Gerhard Steinecke ist es zu verdanken, den in sich widerspruchsvollen Menschen hinter der verzerrenden Aufzählung militärischer Erfolge sichtbar gemacht zu haben. [It is thanks to Gerhard Steinecke who made the self-contradictory man behind the distorting list of military successes visible.]" This assessement by the Sächsische Zeitung (Peter Anderson), does not match the conclusions drawn in the RfC. Cheers MisterBee1966 (talk) 13:23, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There seems to be no basis in the idea that the sources of this article are unreliable. A publication with reputable links to the Sächsische Zeitung certainly is reliable. The author of one of the principal sources is a reputable historian. I didn't agree with the delisting from GA; I considered it part of a broad wiki-wide bias against articles on the Luftwaffe pilots. I certainly don't agree with delisting this article from MH A class. Just because an article hasn't passed GA doesn't mean it does not meet the project's criterion for A class. auntieruth (talk) 14:56, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I stand with the keepers for the reasons already given. I'm not impressed with Dlthewave or his friends. That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. Dapi89 (talk) 16:37, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

and yes, I invoked Hitchens's razor. Dapi89 (talk) 16:39, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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.

Article still meets A-Class criteria - TomStar81 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 06:20, 27 April 2019 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Hans Waldmann (fighter pilot)

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (talk)

I am nominating this article for A-Class re-assessment because it was recently delisted in this GAR for the heavy use of a source written by an alleged right-wing extremist, Bracke. Pinging original ACR nominator (MisterBee1966, and ACR reviewers @Ed!, AustralianRupert, and Ian Rose: (Anotherclown is retired). Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:38, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments The perceived unreliability of the source is based on who the author was and who published the work. The book is not being evaluated on its content nor research which went into its creation. Subsequently, I am under the impression that there is nothing I can do to change that perception now. Any recommendations on content of the article, I can address. Cheers MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:26, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Any source must be assessed on the reliability of the author, publisher and the source itself. All three are important. I have not seen any suggestions so far that the assertions in the source itself are unreliable/inaccurate, the issues have been that the author is unreliable (due to extremist views), and some questions about the reliability of the publisher (although I don't think they have been properly made out at this stage, and are more "unreliability by association" than anything else). Hope that helps. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:12, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. First of all Peacemaker67 you need to tell as what’s the problem with Bracke. The GAR doesn’t say anything (the nominator only calls it a dubious source without proof) and it was done in hasty fashion. This is very important information because remember, the aim is not to delist the article, but to fix it. So we need to know what information used in Waldmann article and cited to Bracker are false, unreliable or inaccurate. Bracker is used for plain information about his birth, what school he went and what he did when he was young, what he did when the war broke out and some military stats (units he was part, airplane he flew etc). If someone can demonstrate here that the information sourced by Becker is unreliable I will change my vote to delist. Second, there are multiple GA or FA reassessments on Luftwaffe pilots who are done at the same time and in hurried fashion, like the GA above where people can’t even take part or discuss as it’s done in a swift way with the same editors working together: K.e.coffman and buidhe. The same thing happened to Hartmann article where the contributor fixed the problem and it was still delisted. Remember, Good article reassessment page says that you need to notify major contributors to the article and the relevant Wikiprojects. The aim is not to delist the article, but to fix it. DiorandI

Assayer is best placed to explain the evidence that Bracke is an alleged right-wing extremist, but there is a thread two above the GAR (under the heading "Tags") which alludes to the issues with Bracke. This brings into question the author's reliability. It is not just the content of the book itself that needs to be reliable, but also the publisher and the author. All three must be reliable for a source to be considered reliable, per WP:RS. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:45, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delist The discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 240#Gerhard Bracke makes it clear that anything written by Mr Bracke cannot be considered a reliable source. Nick-D (talk) 22:29, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
keep. I don't see any reliable evidence brought up at the GAR or through that link Nick. It doesn't seem to matter now anyhow. Erich Hartmann's article was delisted even though, as was noted, the issues were resolved. It says a lot about the complainant. Dapi89 (talk) 13:01, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delist: a demoted GA, where the issues identified during GAR have not been addressed, is very unlikely to me A-class criteria. --K.e.coffman (talk) 19:27, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@WP:MILHIST coordinators: I've advertised this on the main page, but I think it is important for the project that we get a consensus here one way or the other. Any suggestions on how to generate more interest? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:36, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delist - per Nick. Parsecboy (talk) 09:08, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Bracke's biography of Melitta von Stauffenberg is cited by German historian Ralf Blank in Germany and the Second World War and by Peter Hoffmann in Stauffenberg: A Family History, 1905-1944. Kges1901 (talk) 12:29, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I haven't seen any evidence that the information cited in the source is unreliable or biased. Bracke's work seems to be cited widely among reputable German writers on WWII. If someone can present something that indicates bias in the information cited, please do so. Otherwise, keep. auntieruth (talk) 15:19, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DiorandI. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:48, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Just for clarity, this was a procedural nomination due to the GA delist, I haven't formed a view about this nomination. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:17, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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.