Talk:Ernst Lindemann
Latest comment: 7 years ago by K.e.coffman in topic Neo-Nazi publication
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Ernst Lindemann article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 4 months  |
 | Ernst Lindemann is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on May 27, 2011. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||
| This article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.jpg)
Neo-Nazi publication
editI removed one citation to Clemens Range: diff. This is intricate detail and immaterial. The publication itself has been described as neo-Nazi in this discussion: User talk:Hawkeye7/Archive 2016#Neo-Nazi publications. Please let me know if there are any concerns. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:20, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
- The opinion of one editor is not sufficient. This is a featured article, and the information is entirely relevant. Dishonest edit summaries are disruptive. Dapi89 (talk) 16:48, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
- I consider the statement to be trivia and unnecessary: "Lindemann was the 94th recipient of the Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross in the Kriegsmarine.[1]"
References
- ^ Range 1974, p. 116.
- If he were the 4th recipient, then maybe it would be worth including, but the 94th? K.e.coffman (talk) 19:57, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
- K.e. and I don't often agree on what constitutes "intricate detail", and I can't speak to the reliability or otherwise of the source, but I also think there is no reason to include this particular detail -- first few or last few should be worth mentioning but beyond that seems a bit unnecessary. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:42, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
- It is interesting and worthy of note. It doesn't matter which number it was. And above all, it is a fact. Dapi89 (talk) 18:20, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
- The inclusion of this material fails WP:DUE. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:28, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
- Opinion. This is a fact. Reverted. Dapi89 (talk) 15:41, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
- The inclusion of this material fails WP:DUE. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:28, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
- It is interesting and worthy of note. It doesn't matter which number it was. And above all, it is a fact. Dapi89 (talk) 18:20, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
- K.e. and I don't often agree on what constitutes "intricate detail", and I can't speak to the reliability or otherwise of the source, but I also think there is no reason to include this particular detail -- first few or last few should be worth mentioning but beyond that seems a bit unnecessary. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:42, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
- If he were the 4th recipient, then maybe it would be worth including, but the 94th? K.e.coffman (talk) 19:57, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
I've reached out to the WP:NPOVN. The thread is Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Fringe source in WWII bio article. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:46, 31 March 2017 (UTC)