Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Hans Philipp

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.