Talk:Hermann Buchner (pilot)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Unreliable sources tag

Berger is a self-published source with limited reviews. I'm aware of one that describes Berger's works as hero worship. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:48, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Notability

Does not meet WP:SOLDIER & sig RS coverage not found link.

No de.Wiki article. Please also see a note at MilHist Talk Archives for background behind the redirect. In summary, per the outcome of the discussion at Notability:People on notability of Knight's Cross recipients: permalink, certain recipients were deemed non notable and WP:SOLDIER has been modified accordingly: diff. The articles of these recipients are being redirected to alphabetical lists.

K.e.coffman (talk) 23:44, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Redirect

@Dapi89: I would appreciate if the editor did not characterise these notability redirects as "disruptive". Please review the notes by the closer here: permalink, following the extensive discussion at Talk:Notability (people).

Separately, I've restored the pre-redirect version, as the maintenance tags have not been discussed or addressed. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:00, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Using the same excuse on every article you want to delete is not acceptable. There has been no specific information given in the above as to why this article allegedly has "multiple issues". I suspect the issue is he is a German servicemen from World War II. I can't see any unreliable sources either. Dapi89 (talk) 21:17, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Please see immediately above "Unreliable sources tag" and "Notability" sections. Please also be mindful of WP:BRD -- the removal of the tags have been reverted, and no justification for this removal has been given. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:24, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

You are making the claim this article contains unreliable sources. Say why. Simple. Until then, the addition of erroneous tags is disruptive. Dapi89 (talk) 21:30, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Berger is a self-published source: "Selbstverlag Florian Berger". One review that I'm aware of describes his work as hero worship. Here's why I consider Berger to be WP:QS. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:34, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Again, thank you for showing this is just your opinion. Do you usually base your views on one review? The links you provide fail to show support for your assertions, made through the use of tags, that this article is a) non-notable and b) contains unreliable sources.

Another point: you cannot delete memoirs, and certainly not on the grounds they're unreliable. They serve a purpose, and can be used for point-of-view statements and aspects of one's early life. Unless you can provide a convincing explanation for this logic, I will revert. None of it so far makes sense. Dapi89 (talk) 21:40, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Please provide evidence that Berger is a reliable source, not just one editor's opinion. Please also refer to WP:SELFPUBLISH. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:05, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

No, we've been through this before. The burden of proof is on the editor who makes the claim of unreliability.

In any case, the said book has not been used for inline citations so the complaint is spurious. Dapi89 (talk) 08:08, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Editor is mistaken on both counts. For the first one, please see WP:BURDEN. For the second one, here's the self-published source that's being used for citations:

• Berger, Florian; Habisohn, Christian (2003). Ritterkreuzträger im Österreichischen Bundesheer 1955–1985 [Knight's Cross Bearers of the Austrian Armed Forces 1955–1985] (in German). Vienna, Austria: Selbstverlag Florian Berger.

K.e.coffman (talk) 08:24, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

This book by Berger was written based on the files of the National Archives of Austria (Österreichisches Staatsarchiv) and represented by Amtsdirektor Lambert Schön (see google extract. This gives indication that it is sufficiently reliable for use on Wikipedia. Given the involvement of the National Archives, I agree with @Dapi89: that this reverts the burden of proof and that the claim of unreliability needs to be proven. Cheers MisterBee1966 (talk) 09:10, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

What does "represented" mean in this context? The fact that Berger used archival materials is not sufficient to establish this source as RS. I don't see this mentioned in WP:RS, WP:IRS and WP:SELFPUBLISH. Self-published sources are considered RS only when the author is a recognised expert in the field:

• "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications."

Has his work been previously published by reliable third-party publications? s Berger an established expert in WWII history? K.e.coffman (talk) 16:53, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm not mistaken. I wonder whether K.e.Coffman has ever undertaken a research degree in this field?

The use of primary sources matters. That Mr Berger doesn't appear to have completed a PhD is not a strike against him nor is the fact this was published under his own name (PhDs are self published sometimes). What Misterbee means by "represented" is quite obvious. The work is a compilation of archive files which have been reproduced by Berger with the assistance of the archive director and a support team which included Dr Gerhard Artl. The book is written as a narrative in the same style as say, the Air Historical Branch published the operational narratives conveying the experiences of the RAF in the World Wars (written by serving officers). Except this book of mini-biographies requires no academic acumen and virtually no analytical skill.

In answer to the last flurry of questions: yes he has been published by third parties and yes he is an authority on German military awards and recipients. Are you demanding he be an expert on every facet of "WWII history"? Dapi89 (talk) 18:41, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Aaron Callaghan (footballer, born 1966) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 15:46, 6 March 2023 (UTC)