This article is within the scope of WikiProject Czech Republic, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Czech Republic 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.Czech RepublicWikipedia:WikiProject Czech RepublicTemplate:WikiProject Czech RepublicCzech Republic
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Newspapers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Newspapers 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.NewspapersWikipedia:WikiProject NewspapersTemplate:WikiProject NewspapersNewspapers
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics 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.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
It is not entirely clear, what exactly Franz Katzer, born in 1930, did for a living. It is claimed that he worked in "various technical professions", as a book seller and for a university library. But it is clear that he was not trained as a historian. His main work (so far", this biography of political biography of Konrad Henlein, Das große Ringen. published by the notorious Grabert Verlag, is considered to be an apologetic work. It has been subject to severe criticism even by the reviewer of the right wing newspaper Junge Freiheit, who, among other things, felt that Katzer should not have called into question the right of existence of the Czech republic. According to Katzer it was Beneš who wanted war, not Hitler, and so forth. That's why I consider that book an unreliable source and I did not feel the need to keep it as an additional reference. At the same time special studies like Engelbert Schwarzenbeck: Nationalsozialistische Pressepolitik und die Sudetenkrise 1938. Minerva, Munich 1979 are not used. Taking a closer at the article, I furthermore take notice, that the references a misleading and incomplete anyway. Collections of essays are cited like monographs, skipping authors Susanna Schrafstetter, Werner Röhr and Peter Becher. Neither is it clear who wrote the piece in the Nazi German journal Zeitungswissenschaft.--Assayer (talk) 21:28, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In this case, the reference is used to cover a few rather basic facts: 1) the years of publication and 2) the name of the editor. Is there any reason to believe that he, based on his a judgement over his political views, would have falsified these claims? --Soman (talk) 07:21, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As per other refs, I use the reftag app to generate refs from google books, but these aren't always 100% correct. Please feel free to improve. --Soman (talk) 09:24, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The question is: If it is used to cover a few basic facts, why is this book cited anyway? It seems as if these information are covered by other RS already, and there are more detailed RS available. Instead the reader is advised to turn to Katzer, p. 335, where he will find a highly partisan account of history of the SDP and their the newspaper. All the references seem to be the result of some random google search without background research on the sources. But a partisan and biased source is still a partisan and biased source, even if you try to constrain yourself only to use "a few basic facts". Using it on Wikipedia still lends authority to it and ultimately promotes its circulation.--Assayer (talk) 00:24, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
