Talk:Hans Hanke

Recent edit

I don't believe these edits are controversial; what was the reason for the revert? K.e.coffman (talk) 23:26, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't believe your editing of these articles is being done in good faith, you continue to act as if you have consensus for the removal of all these awards where the Bundesarchiv doesn't hold the records, perhaps you could point me to the discussion where you achieved consensus for these removals? Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:35, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

The article text (cited to Lepre) stated that the subject may have received the award:

• "Just prior to the end of World War II in Europe he may also have been awarded the Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross."

References

The infobox and the lead were not in agreement with the article body. I corrected the inconsistency.

On the sources to confirm the award, I started a discussion at MilHist: KC sourcing, to which there was no response, which I interpret as tacit consensus.

What is controversial about removing publications, some of which are being described as Neo-Nazi, when they are not used for citations? K.e.coffman (talk) 23:53, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Tacit approval isn't good enough for edits of this nature. You are PRODing multiple articles (the PRODing of some of them is completely fatuous, especially those on general officers), and you are also removing the "alleged recipients" from the relevant lists, most if not all of which are Milhist A-Class lists, which were reviewed by the Milhist community. But you claim you are not "on a mission or campaign". What's next in your "mission"? Actions speak louder than words. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:03, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm not aware that I PRODed a general officer article. Which one is that? K.e.coffman (talk) 00:33, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Hans Voigt per this. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:47, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Voigt was a bad call on my part; you were right to remove the PROD. But I can assure you that I edited this article in good faith. Here's what I did:

• Adjusted sections for better flow and fewer levels
• Removed books not used for citations, which were also questionable and could be considered REFSPAM
• Aligned lead and infobox to match the cited material within the article (per Lepre)
• Removed intricate detail about the subject "surviving the war" and which POW camp he was held at, which was also specifically challenged since 2012 (and of course he survived the war, as the article has a post-war section :-) )
• Condensed material describing opinions by Ordensgemeinschaft authors (this is a term I'm sure you are familiar with) to the much simpler statement that "evidence of the award cannot be found in archives" per Scherzer

As can be seen I did not attempt to tag or PROD this article, because parts of the article were well cited.

Perhaps we have a different understanding of good faith re: unconfirmed recipients. I personally believe that it's unnecessary for Wikipedia articles to reflect the positions of Ordensgemeinschaft on this matter.

So I hope you would reconsider my edits to the article from this standpoint.K.e.coffman (talk) 05:43, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

I think we have established elsewhere that we disagree about what constitutes "intricate detail" in military biographies, and the appropriate structure for biography articles in general, and military biographies in particular. I'm afraid that you, as a relative virtual-SPA newcomer with no known military biography FAs or even GAs (to my knowledge, and with this account) to your credit, have a long way to go before you understand what the Milhist and wider WP community expects from a biography article at any level. What evidence do you have that particular source has been added to many articles by the same author(s) to improve SEO or similar? Because that is what REFSPAM actually is. Addition of sources can be done for a few reasons, one being that the person adding it used the source to expand the article, but didn't know how to cite. That was very common in the early days of en WP, and continues today. It provides a clue to where another editor (or even the same editor) might find material useable in the article. So, if you are going to wikilawyer, at least understand the guideline you are trying to point to. Community consensus on policies and guidelines are learned by actually improving articles over time, not by pointing to them and seeing if other editors roll over and play dead. I might add that I reverted all your edits here because those that might have been arguable were indistinguishable from those that really are not, because you often mix the types of edits up in a single change. The material from KC sources should to be from all of them, and in full, because that provides the full picture of all the contrasting sources available regarding the award of the KC to a given recipient, whereas you have been assiduously removing KC sources you don't like (I assume these are your Ordensgemeinschaft authors), and thereby doing away with what we do with conflicting sources on en WP, which is "compare and contrast". It would be great to live in a world where everything is black and white, but there is plenty of grey. I try not to bite newcomers, but you are also pretty much an SPA with virtually no runs on the board as a content creator, so where your "mission" runs across Balkans-related articles, you will strike disagreement with your editing approach from me. Unless you try to learn more about what you are doing, I suggest you get used to it. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:33, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

I disagree with the assessment that my content creation is not strong. Here are some of my contributions, for which I received kudos and awards:

• New articles:
  • Rommel myth
  • Franz Kurowski
  • The Myth of the Eastern Front
  • Waffen-SS in popular culture
• Expansions:
  • HIAG – major re-write and expansion, from stub to GA.
  • Arthur Nebe – considerable re-write; now at B-class
  • Paul Hausser – expansion of post-WWII section; now at B-class
  • Wehrmachtbericht – rewrite and expansion with RS citations; now at B-class
  • List of World War II Panzer aces from Germany -- added background section explaining the concept of a "panzer ace"; renamed to German tank aces
  • Michael Wittman -- new sections: In popular history; Assessment as tank commander; reworked "Who killed JFK?"-style narrative into "Speculation surrounding death"; now at B-class

I think this demonstrates a strong interest in military history. In addition, Wikipedia could benefit from a reduction in the amount of mythology that I frankly was surprised to find here; the mythology can be amply seen on my user page. We have different approaches, but I hope that my approach improves the encyclopedia as well. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:57, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

I haven't questioned your interest in military history, I've primarily questioned your competence to decide what should or should not be in military history biographical articles. All of the above work speaks volumes about your narrow SPA nature more than anything else. I wouldn't get too excited about B-class articles, most experienced Milhist editors can knock one of them up in a lazy hour or so. It is in developing balanced articles that meet our community standards for comprehensiveness (ie FA and to a slightly lesser extent Milhist A-Class) that real understanding of our policies and procedures are established. Your lack of competence is demonstrated by your actions on articles you are not interested in developing, and the fact that you crow about it all on your user pages. Even war criminals were born, went to school, had parents, siblings, partners and children, commanded units, did things other than commit war crimes. Some of them were brave in combat situations. Some of them were convicted without anything approaching what any of my countrymen would consider a fair trial. Some were released by the Allies for political reasons after serving a pittance of the sentence they deserved. Does any of that excuse their actions? No, of course not. But those things are all relevant to their biography. Those things are part of the rich tapestry of a life, and maybe they tell us something about why they did what they did, or why they became Nazi's. Maybe sources explore those issues. But, so far as I can tell, you'd never know, you're too busy deleting that information or clues about it that would be useful to other editors who are actually interested in developing a balanced article about them. I'm all for myth-busting and presenting subjects warts and all, and have actually developed balanced Milhist A-Class articles on war criminals, so get off your high horse. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:28, 8 August 2016 (UTC)