Talk:Helmut Brümmer-Patzig

Name

This man, Helmut Brümmer-Patzig, also went by the name of (and was notorious as) Helmut Patzig. I've fixed it and added the refs. He was better known as Patzig, so I don't know why the article is under his double-barrelled name; it was mis-categorized, as well. Anybody would think it was being hidden away...Xyl 54 (talk) 15:25, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Helmut Brümmer-Patzig. Helmut Brümmer-Patzig (* 26. Oktober 1890 in Danzig; † 11. März 1984, auch Helmut Patzig genannt) war ein deutscher U-Boot-Kommandant im Ersten und im Zweiten Weltkrieg. Quelle: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helmut_Br%C3%BCmmer-Patzig Abgerufen 04 JUN 2022. Tjlynnjr (talk) 02:14, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Death

The only source cited for the date of Patzig's death is a single unreferenced forum post in which a "Lieut-Colonel Clio" says that "Ron Young tells me that Patzig died on 11 March 1984. Furthermore, in an interview in the early 1980’s Patzig stated that he and his crew did not make any deliberate attempt to kill the survivors of the LLANDOVERY CASTLE. Where he got this information I do not know but he is usually reliable." No information is given as to who this Ron Young is nor is there any further verification of these claims. I have searched but cannot find any academic or indeed any sources to back up this information that are not just plagiarising or citing this very Wikipedia article. AspieWiki (talk) 16:10, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

War crime

An identified-by-terminal-number editor has tried to re-litigate Patzig’s status, and has justified the move by saying the ‘LC’ was allegedly carrying munitions (no citation given). That’s not the point - the ‘LC’ was marked as a hospital ship, and firing at it was a war crime. If the ‘LC’ had been carrying munitions under the semiotic of the Red Cross, that makes 2 war crimes, not 0 war crimes. Bigturtle (talk) 03:48, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm a regular at Third Opinion. Opinions are not available unless discussion has first taken place here, and I've removed the request for that reason. See WP:DISCFAIL if needed, but what I say below may make that unnecessary.

Having said that, my unofficial opinion is that the removal of "for the war crime" is acceptable, not because the sinking was or was not a war crime (which it was clearly adjudicated to be since the other crewmen were convicted) but because saying that it was a war crime is redundant since the prosecution was expressly at a war crimes tribunal. However, I do think one additional change needs to be made, and I'm going to make it: "escaped conviction" should be "escaped prosecution". Saying that he escaped conviction requires us to exercise a crystal ball and violates no original research.

If the IP editor wishes to make the case that even though this was clearly adjudicated to be a war crime that it really was not, he needs to document that case through reliable sources and discuss it on the talk page.

Having said all of that, I have just now noted that the source for the last two paragraphs of the World War I section is an online forum, which is absolutely not an acceptable reliable source as defined by Wikipedia, so I'm also going to remove that source and {{cn}} tag that material. Unless an actual reliable source is added, I may some day get around to deleting that material for being unsourced. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:23, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

If “opinions are not available unless discussion has first taken place here” and an IP does something, is asked on the Talk Page not to do it again, then the IP does it again, and there is no discussion, what is the preferred recourse? Bigturtle (talk) 21:01, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

There's two possibilities: First, WP:DISCFAIL, though that's not particularly effective with IP editors. Second, and more on point, request page protection, asking for semi-protection (which prevents IP editors from editing the page). Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:33, 25 March 2020 (UTC)