Talk:Günther Seeger

Recent edit

Hi, could the reverting editor diff please explain how "Aces of the Luftwaffe" web site is a reliable source? K.e.coffman (talk) 04:54, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Please take time to review that web-page editor's list of sources: http://www.luftwaffe.cz/sources.html

They are extensive and include some of the most respected and learned authorities on the Jagdflieger - people like Jochen Prien, Chris Shores, Ernst Obermaier, Erik Mombeek and Werner Held - many of whom have access to primary resources, unlike myself. He has also been able to reference primary resources, such as Der Adler, himself. These are the same respected authorities who are often referenced by other notable authors such as John Weal, Raymond Toliver, Bernd Barbas and Donald Caldwell. Therefore I am happy to put trust in his biographical integrity. Secondly, in collating the information from the 6-10 varying resources that I do have - either on-line, or in hard-copy - I am constantly finding consistency and corroboration of information between them all that furthers my confidence that these are reliable facts that can be collated and uploaded onto the Wikipedia site.

Why do you accept John Weal as a reference in your heavily redacted edit, when he has been writing referring to exactly the same sources himself, yet you are questioning the provenance and reliability of this on-line source? I would suggest that both are equally valid and together they provide a far better narrative than individually.

With a number of the notable pilots there are a great many sources to provide the details that match up and compliment each other to give a fully rounded biography of that pilot. Therefore with other pilots, when there are fewer sources to cross-check, I have been happy to accept that information at face value, given the proven reliability of the source with other cases. I would prefer to present that information to the public in Wikipedia, rather than just leaving this person as a literal footnote to history in a victory list of hundreds of names. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Philby NZ (talk • contribs) 22:14, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

This makes luftwaffe.cz a tertiary source; the web site has no reputation for accuracy or fact-checking. It's not RS. I am not familiar with Weal, but it appears that he's writing in the genre of militaria literature and could be biased. But since I don't have personal experience with his works, I kept it. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:14, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

This is exactly my point - Both the website AND Weal are sourcing their information from the same secondary sources (Held, Shores, Prien, Novarra, Obermaier, Beale)- they are both, by necessity, tertiary sources. Yet you have arbitrarily decided that a website you have gone and seen is unreliable and yet a book that you have not seen (I have a copy of it, and it is as good a resource as the website albeit less detail and more wide-ranging) has merit and is worth keeping. Such unilateral dismissal of good evidence is very disappointing to see, and I would wager that Wikipedia would be a far poorer product if it could only rely on submitters providing articles based on primary documents - the history and biography sections would be particularly bereft, so at some point we have to trust and accept at face value tertiary sources that corroborate each other to present anything more than an article-stub with a list of references for the reader to go and look up. Philby NZ (talk) 03:56, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Then I would suggest the editor rewrites WP:RS and WP:MILMOS#SOURCES, as the proviso "we have to trust and accept at face value tertiary sources" (including POV-challenged fan pages) is not included there. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:58, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://web.archive.org/web/20071211213714/http://www.luftwaffe.cz/seeger.html. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:55, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Notability

Does not meet WP:SOLDIER & sig RS coverage not found link, just passing mentions and / or non RS militaria literature.

No de.wiki article exists. Did not hold a significant command and topped out as Oberstleutnant. Successful completion of missions (sorties flown, # of enemy aircraft shot down, etc) is not part of SOLDIER. A MilHist RfC on this topic has failed to gain consensus in May of 2017:

• MilHist:RfC on the notability of flying aces.

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.

For a relevant AfD on a German fighter aces of WW2, please see:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fritz Lüddecke, which closed as "Delete".

K.e.coffman (talk) 05:11, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Continued addition of COPYVIO content

@Diannaa @Pichpich Thank you for your previous work reverting copyright violating content on this page. It seems that @Cornu1907 just keeps adding the same copyrighted content from [1]. I have never dealt with copyvios like this so I'm not sure if any futher steps are needed (probably revdel, maybe a block). Toadspike (talk) 09:21, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

User has been warned on their talk page, I'm not sure if they were warned last time. Quick Earwig checks on other pages they've edited suggests CCI is probably not warranted. The only other things I could find are this 2017 diff [2] was completely copied from the milhist Fandom article [3] without attribution, which is a violation of their CC BY-SA license. The Wikipedia article has thankfully since been rewritten. Determining who copied from who (or if this user wrote both articles) requires a deep dive into both revision histories. This diff [4] is also on that Fandom, but there could again be several benign explanations.

tldr; I'm assuming good faith, we just need to revdel this page and tell them not to copy content. Toadspike (talk) 09:53, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Slight correction, the 2017 diff is probably a contested BLAR (see preceding edit), and not purposeful copying from Fandom (which is copied from Wikipedia anyways). ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 22:13, 7 May 2024 (UTC)