Talk:Heinrich Prinz zu Sayn-Wittgenstein/Archive 1

Archive 1

Biography assessment rating comment

WikiProject Biography Summer 2007 Assessment Drive

The article may be improved by following the WikiProject Biography 11 easy steps to producing at least a B article. -- Yamara 13:02, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as stub, and the rating on other projects was brought up to Stub class. BetacommandBot 04:03, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

bomber

man was a bomber pilot until he decided too much of a casulties on russian civilians, thats what german wiki says. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.54.186.90 (talk) 22:51, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Ancestry

He was objected because of partly Danish ancestry? Every German citizen could join the Wehrmacht. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.176.233.91 (talk) 11:47, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Zahme Sau (Tame Boar)

"Tame boar" is a mis-translation Eber and Keiler'. Zahme Sau would be tame sow or tame domestic sow or tame domestic pig. I have not changed this, though, because the translation might be historic (i.e., the RAF might have made this translation).Kdammers (talk) 13:13, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

"Tame boar" is how English sources on the night fighter war translate Zahme Sau. As an example of this check The Decisive Duel: Spitfire vs 109 MisterBee1966 (talk) 20:11, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Due to a self-editing conflict brought on (I guess) by a quirky computer, my message was garbled. The first part should read"Tame boar" is a mis-translation. Eber and Keiler' are the German words for "boar."

On the issue of the translation itself: do WWWII British sources use this translation, or historical works? If only the latter, I would hope that Wikipedia policy does not prevent us from indicating the correct translation, since this is an article about the pilot and not about the historical works on him. Kdammers (talk) 07:14, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

I would say the "lost in translation" confusion starts with the Germans. German fighter units flying Wilde Sau missions depicted the Wilde Sau emblem, which shows an Eber or boar. Every English book on this topic, which I have seen, uses the translations "Wild Boar" and "Tame Boar". I have never seen it translated as "Wild Pig" or "Tame Pig". If you think that this should be addressed, I would suggest you take this discussion to the articles Zahme Sau and Wilde Sau. MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:37, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

WP:ENGVAR, WP:TIES, and WP:RETAIN

I see there's a bit of an edit war over whether this article should use British or American spellings. WP:TIES requires strong national ties to a particular English-speaking nation. Since this article is about a German night fighter pilot, there are no strong national ties, regardless of what country's pilots he shot down. That line of reasoning has been brought up a number of times at FAC and repeatedly shot down (pardon the pun) - it's why, for instance, Japanese battleship Yamato is written in Canadian English (despite never having engaged a Canadian warship or plane and despite heavy combat against American forces). Please leave the article as the original author wrote it. Thank you. Parsecboy (talk) 19:18, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Agreeing with Parsecboy, those policies are for strong ties and this article only has weak ties to British English. Therefore the choice of which dialect of English is given to the first major contributor (MisterBee1966 in this case). For the record, I am Australian and prefer British English (when the choice is mine) but the policy of letting the first editor choose helps to cut back on edit wars.  Stepho  talk  04:45, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Support both of the above editors on this. It is policy NOT to change the version of English used without good reason. There isn't a good reason in this case, so perhaps efforts would be better directed to adding reliably sourced content to this and other articles rather than creating an issue where there isn't any. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 05:29, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Also agree. It's difficult to argue that he had strong national ties to Britain. He didn't even exclusively shoot down British pilots: they were just the only Anglophone pilots he fought. There is a tie to Britain, but it's weak. There's no compelling reason to change the dialect, so it should be left as is per WP:RETAIN. Pburka (talk) 18:15, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Yet another agree, WP:RETAIN seems to be the most important policy here. CombatWombat42 (talk) 18:22, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Opinion

Re: "misleading edit summary. as Misterbee has pointed out many times, is acceptable" -- apart from citing an opinion by a (semi) retired editor, the revert has offered no justification of how it was an improvement. I undid it; please see diff: diff.

K.e.coffman (talk) 19:53, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

GA passed 7 years ago

Re: "restore back to the state it was in when content was agreed upon at GA", the GA happened 7 years ago. Instead of invoking seven-year old status of the article, please discuss how the restoration of the material in the diff is an improvement. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:21, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Dapi89 continuously reverts without discussion. WP:BRD encourages "Bold-Revert-Discuss", which I'm attempting to do. It's not "Bold-Revert-Revert-Revert" which can be interpreted as disruptive. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:26, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps you ought to consider your comment an indictment of your own behavior. Parsecboy (talk) 22:35, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

@Parsecboy: Thank you for your comment. I've attempted to discuss the matter with the reverting editor: I've started the discussion here, linked to it from my edit summaries, and also left a Talkback msg on user's Talk page: User_talk:Dapi89#Talkback_Talk:Heinrich_Prinz_zu_Sayn-Wittgenstein.23Opinion. Dapi89 has not commented here and communicates strictly via reverts:

• misleading edit summary. as Misterbee has pointed out many times, is acceptable
• restore back to the state it was in when content was agreed upon at GA
• irrelevant

As I commented above, I do not find these arguments compelling, but the editor would not discuss. What would you do in this situation? K.e.coffman (talk) 23:33, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

What I would not do is revert the editor repeatedly across multiple articles. If there is a serious issue here, and it seems like the two of you are at loggerheads, there are multiple places it can be addressed, including Dispute Resolution Noticeboard, the Administrators' Noticeboard/Incidents, among others. Parsecboy (talk) 23:48, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback; I will think about that. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:17, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Preserving the removed material here by providing this link. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:45, 29 April 2017 (UTC)