Talk:Desiderius Hampel/Archive 1
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Desiderius Hampel. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 |
Recent changes
I've explained the change in each edit summary:
- Trim unused book -- removing dubious source not used for citations; pls see WP:FURTHER
- of course he survived the war, this is self-explanatory as the subject died in 1981
- Unneeded section break & uncited content -- I removed the uncited passage: "When he returned to the front in November he was given command of the 4th Company of his regiment and was promoted to Oberleutnant in May 1917" and an unneeded section break for a short section. Note that the article has been tagged with "Refimprove" since Apr 2014.
- Streamline infobox -- I made the infobox more concise by using the short name of the division, plus the same unit was repeating in both "Unit" and "Commands held" which is not how things are typically done in infoboxes on other military figures.
- Etc.
Could the reverting editor please clarify what was unexplained or unclear? K.e.coffman (talk) 16:52, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
- I object to your idiosyncratic removal of Kumm, for starters, as well as your changes to a sensible structure for a biographical article and removal of material from the infobox. This is of a piece with your "work" elsewhere, trimming down KC recipient articles until there is nothing left via a death of a thousand cuts. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:49, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
Lead section
This article is about Desiderius Hampel. It is not the article about the Knight's Cross. Thus its lead section should feature information about Desiderius Hampel, and not about the Knight's Cross in general. I found a lead section that featured one sentence on Hampel and another which contained some vague, imprecise information about the Knight's Cross in general, written in unencyclopedic language. Thus I removed the sentence which is not about Hampel, and added one which deals with Hampel, namely that Hampel fled from a British internment camp, while Yugoslavia intended to charge him with war crimes, an information which curiously had been skipped over altogether. In addition, I corrected a wrong citation and added a link. For all it's worth, my edit has been summarily reverted within minutes.[1] Consequently the article remains silent about possible war crimes and excells about "skilled leadership" and "extreme battlefield bravery", all the while, and this is quite ironic, it is dubious, whether Hampel received the Knight's Cross after all and a "justification for the presentation was not given". I can imagine some reasons why someone would rather imply "skilled leadership" than talk about war crimes, but I will rather have you, @Peacemaker67:, give some explanation why this is not a case of WP:TWABUSE.--Assayer (talk) 02:56, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
- It's not abuse, because you bundled a whole lunch of edits together, including one that you know is regularly challenged (the removal of information about the Knight's Cross). If you made potentially controversial edits separately from uncontroversial ones (which is good editing practice), you would find things would go much easier in terms of reverts. I encourage you to re-add the information about war crimes without removing the information about the Knight's Cross. You could even improve the prose of the information about the Knight's Cross while you are at it, to make it more encyclopaedic... Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:08, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
- So it's my editing style instead of content issues? Sorry, but I try to keep edits to a minimum to save energy and server space. And don't you know, what you could have done? Simply keeping the "uncontroversial" edits instead of summarily reverting. You don't need TW for that, which is for vandalism. Speaking of "controversial" edits - I did not know that it was "controversial" to remove "information" about the KC which has nothing to do with the article's subject. It makes no sense to ask me to improve the prose, btw, if you consider my editing of information about the Knight's Cross "controversial" anyway. I will rather take that to the MilHistProject for more input to seek consensus and take notice that you could not offer a single reason why the information should be retained in this article about Desiderius Hampel who only "reportedly" received a KC. Thus the general information about the KC is in this case outright misleading.--Assayer (talk) 04:47, 13 February 2017 (UTC)