Talk:Carltheo Zeitschel

"died killed in 1945 killed"?

What on earth does "died killed in 1945 killed" mean? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:15, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Likewise "in Tunis bridgehead a he after the defeat Erwin Rommel"? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:49, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

It will take less time to write the article from scratch than to decipher and verify all this Schiet. Staszek Lem (talk) 01:34, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Citation needed

I'm requesting a citation for the statement: "Carltheo Zeitschel ... was a German Nazi physician, and diplomat who organized the deportation of Jews in the German Embassy in France as Judenreferent" --RexxS (talk) 23:10, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Did you actually read the article? Which part of this statement are you challenging? Staszek Lem (talk) 23:56, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes I did. I was trying to provide references for the Wikidata entry at Carltheo Zeitschel (Q1043414), but was unable to isolate the definitive references for his dates and places of birth and death and his occupations as a physician and a diplomat, hence the cn tag on that first sentence. I'd be more than happy for your help in referencing those statements, if you are able. --RexxS (talk) 00:17, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

You placed the tag on 'Judenreferent', which is most critical information in the sentence. If you requesting info about dates and occupations, you have to tag them; I cannot read your mind. The request for 'Judenreferent', which is basically whole article and citations are about, looked like tag-trolling to me. Staszek Lem (talk) 00:22, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm not asking you to read my mind. Maintenance tags normally apply to the whole sentence when they are applied at the end, see Template:Citation needed/doc #Example 2 for guidance. If you can supply a citation, that's fine, but the tag isn't there specifically for your sole consideration, and it needs to be left for others who may be able to supply appropriate citations. You created the article on Judenberater/Judenreferent and that's great; I'd be delighted to see a source that specifically refers to Zeitschel by that appellation, as that might be another data point that we can update on his Wikidata entry and make available for all the other Wikipedias. Hopefully, you'll be able to distinguish a tag-troll from a good faith editor in future. --RexxS (talk) 02:25, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

User:RexxS, thanks for your good-faith edit in adding a {{cn}} tag. I have to agree with User:Staszek Lem about tag placement, however, in that it did indeed require mind-reading. Your use of #Example 2 actually proves Staszek's point, where it says: "it may be that [one thing]" ... "and it may be that [some other thing]..." but you don't know which of the two, which is the exact point about mind-reading the intent of the postfixed tag. It's actually #Example 3 that is relevant here, which places the {{cn}} tag in the right place as an infix (right after the claim being challenged for verifiability) and resolves the ambiguity and the need to mind-read the tag-writer. Basically, you followed Example 2, but to avoid such strife or misinterpreted judgments of trolling, Example 3 will work better for you in the future.

Having said that, and wrt your last statement, yes, perhaps Staszek should have been more willing to credit you with a good-faith attempt to uphold the core principle of verifiability. Please understand, however, that the Holocaust issue is a sensitive one for many people, and there really are trolls out there (both online, and in the RW as current events sadly demonstrate) that attempt to gratuitously disrupt, vandalize, or propagandize the issue. Holocaust denial is a real thing, and WP articles suffer real attacks from such people. It can be tiring and disheartening to have to deal with such attacks, and vigilant editors that immediately revert such vandalism are to be commended.

Although your good faith in making your change is now perfectly clear to me, and I presume to Staszek as well, and that you were not trolling but merely trying to uphold verifiability, the fact is that the original placement of that tag did look like denialism, so I hope you can see why someone might have interpreted it that way. In fact, I thought their response was mild, given the circumstances. I hope that this makes sense and that the issue is fully resolved now to everyone's satisfaction, and that we can all go back to improving the article. (Which still needs it; I've tagged it at WP:PNT.) Mathglot (talk) 20:42, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

@Mathglot: I'm sorry but you've misunderstood the example I referred to. When it says "[[Humphrey Bogart]] has won several [[snooker]] world championships.{{Citation needed|date={{currentmonthname}} {{currentyear}}}} The template indicates that it may be that Humphrey Bogart played snooker at some point and it may be that he won some tournaments at some point but no reliable, published sources were given to verify it and the information is not considered common knowledge." it means that there are multiple facts within the sentence that do not have reliable, published sources to verify them and the information is not common knowledge, so you place one tag at the end of the challenged sentence.

Any semi-experienced Wikipedia editor should be able to work out that there are multiple facts in the opening sentence of this article that need sourcing, viz. Zeitschel's date of birth, place of birth, date of death, place of death, nationality and occupation as a diplomat. When I made my original edit it was to add those fields to the infobox with the edit summary adding the unreferenced fields locally for now as markers for what needs sourcing and I added the {{cn}} at the same time to indicate the sentence where I needed to see the sourcing. That was so that I could update Wikidata with the appropriate references. I do not need to put six {{cn}} tags in one sentence to indicate six facts that are unsourced; as the example shows, one at the end is sufficient.

So no, the issue is not fully resolved, and there are still no sources given for those six facts. His Wikidata entry is not updated with proper references - see Carltheo Zeitschel (Q1043414) for the disgraceful state of referencing. Now I'm going to replace the citation needed tag at the end of that sentence because I'm challenging virtually the whole sentence for verification. I'll have no truck with your ridiculous accusations about 'denialism' - I have a considerable body of contributions to this encyclopedia over many years and I don't take kindly to that insinuation. Now, if either you or Staszek decide to remove a properly placed {{cn}} tag again, I'll take the issue to ANI and seek measures to ensure that it is the last time you do. --RexxS (talk) 22:39, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

"His Wikidata entry is not updated with proper references - see Carltheo Zeitschel (Q1043414) for the disgraceful state of referencing." Who cares? This is enwiki, the disgraceful state of Wikidata is not a reason to cause trouble here (though it is a good reason not to point editors to Wikidata through the infobox of course). I have referenced four of the 6 "disputed" facts quite easily, and the remaining one (place and date of birth" are in fact already sourced to Ray as well, so in my opinion the CN tag can go completely. "I was trying to provide references for the Wikidata entry at Carltheo Zeitschel (Q1043414), but was unable to isolate the definitive references for his dates and places of birth and death and his occupations as a physician and a diplomat, hence the cn tag on that first sentence." but you then raise hell when people indicate the problems with your tag (lead doesn't even need referencing, and many of the facts I now explicitly sourced were already sourced in the article anyway), even threatening them with ANI. Doing a better search and actually improving the article might have been a better use of time than this. Fram (talk) 08:56, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Everybody cares, except the Wikidata-haters like you, who are actually the ones causing trouble. Wikidata is a sister project and the information made available centrally is used by many other Wikipedias and third-parties, exactly like the images at Commons are. Just because you don't care about other Wikimedia projects, doesn't mean the rest of us have to follow that blinkered course. There's value in improving the referencing on Wikidata, even if it suits your mission to keep it as poor as you can.

"lead doesn't even need referencing" is nonsense. How did you ever get this far in Wikipedia without knowing that "there is not, however, an exception to citation requirements specific to leads"? Nobody will challenge them if the same facts are repeated and sourced in the body of the article, but in the case in point, the date and place of birth were not stated elsewhere and were not referenced; the date and place of death were stated, with {{cn}} tags on them, so clearly were not referenced; there's no source for his nationality nor for his occupation as a diplomat, although each were mentioned in the article without any citations. Neither of the first two citations you recently provided is a source for Zeitschel's nationality nor for his occupation as diplomat. Thankfully the third source, even with the missing page number (because you rely on Google books snippets as usual), does tell us he was a Consul in Lagos, but fails to confirm his occupation as a physician (it says he was "médecin de formation" - trained as a doctor). Are you sure you've sourced the six facts that were unsourced when I added the tag in January? I don't think so.

I'll also remind you that the burden of providing reliable sources falls on the editor adding content, not on anyone asking for the content to be verified, so you know precisely what you can do with your "Doing a better search and actually improving the article" crap. If you want to do the research, good for you, but that doesn't give you any right to complain that others didn't. --RexxS (talk) 16:06, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Bye, Rexxs, let me know if you have asked anything worthwhile to answer. You do know that a "Google snippet" is not the same as a Google Book which you can access completely or nearly completely but doesn't have page numbers? Because you keep making that same mistake in your attempts to make me look bad. Anyway, the "physician" claim is sourced to the first of those three sources, "Zeitschel, a former merchant marine doctor", on the page linked to by my source template (and with the page number actually given in that reference). So please, instead of knee-jerk reacting, next time take the time to actually check the sources before you reply. Fram (talk) 19:04, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Created by machine translation

This article was created using machine translation from German of Carltheo Zeitschel by monolingual, indeffed user Beatley (talk · contribs) (sock of Slowking4). Subsequent copyediting for grammar and style may have hidden errors of fact generated by the automatic translation. It needs attention from someone with dual fluency in German and English to check it for accuracy. Mathglot (talk) 01:39, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Fix for Harv Error in references.

While doing some CS1 maintenance I notice this article has an orphaned footnote. I believe the following is the source for it but can not verify it. Leaving this here for another editor to verify and add to the article.

• Klee, Ernst (2003) (in German). Das Personenlexikon zum Dritten Reich. Wer war was vor und nach 1945?. Frankfurt: S. Fischer. ISBN 3-596-16048-0.

--- Darryl.P.Pike (talk) 19:59, 30 March 2021 (UTC)