Talk:65th Infantry Division (Wehrmacht)

Military history: European / German / World War II C‑class

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

C

This article has been rated as C-class on the project's quality scale.

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	European military history task force
	German military history task force
	World War II task force

Germany Low‑importance

	Germany portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GermanyWikipedia:WikiProject GermanyTemplate:WikiProject GermanyGermany articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Wehrmachtbericht

Latest comment: 5 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I reverted the restoration of the Wehrmachtbericht transcript & mention: [1]. Please see recent RfC: Proposals regarding mentions in the Wehrmachtbericht, that requires a reliable secondary source for such a mention. The source being used -- Velten, Wilhelm. Vom Kugelbaum zur Handgranate: die Geschichte der 65 Infanterie Division. Kurt Vowinckel Verlag, Neckargemund, 1974. No ISBN. -- is not such a source. For example, please see Kurt Vowinckel Verlag [de]. --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:04, 8 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

How does one check a dead link? The divisional history was written by a former officer of the division and details are supported by Blumenson, Nicholson and the other Allied "official historians" of the Italian campaign. Just because you don't like the politics of the publisher, should not invalidate the reliability of a book you apparently have not read.174.0.48.147 (talk) 17:45, 9 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

Sorry that the linking was unclear; the [de] links to the German Wikipedia article. Here's the link directly: Vowinckel-Verlag. Please establish the suitability of this source at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. --K.e.coffman (talk) 18:10, 9 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

Propaganda

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Interestingly, given the dismissal of German military reports as mere 'propaganda', Martin Blumenson notes in his history of the Italian Campaign at least one military report by the 5th Army headquarters that, in his opinion, unfairly portrays the qualities of the German divisions in Italy. Perhaps dismissing certain sources out of hand while lionizing others is not the most effective way of building an unbiased picture...? 198.161.4.63 (talk) 20:32, 19 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

Which sources are being lionised? --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:43, 21 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

Add topic