Talk:Ernst Lindemann

Latest comment: 7 years ago by K.e.coffman in topic Neo-Nazi publication
Featured articleErnst Lindemann is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on May 27, 2011.
On this day... Article milestones
DateProcessResult
February 17, 2011WikiProject peer reviewReviewed
March 2, 2011Good article nomineeListed
April 5, 2011WikiProject A-class reviewApproved
May 1, 2011Featured article candidatePromoted
On this day... Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on March 28, 2017, March 28, 2021, and March 28, 2024.
Current status: Featured article

Neo-Nazi publication

edit

I removed one citation to Clemens Range: diff. This is intricate detail and immaterial. The publication itself has been described as neo-Nazi in this discussion: User talk:Hawkeye7/Archive 2016#Neo-Nazi publications. Please let me know if there are any concerns. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:20, 16 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

The opinion of one editor is not sufficient. This is a featured article, and the information is entirely relevant. Dishonest edit summaries are disruptive. Dapi89 (talk) 16:48, 16 March 2017 (UTC)Reply
I consider the statement to be trivia and unnecessary: "Lindemann was the 94th recipient of the Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross in the Kriegsmarine.[1]"

References

  1. ^ Range 1974, p. 116.
If he were the 4th recipient, then maybe it would be worth including, but the 94th? K.e.coffman (talk) 19:57, 16 March 2017 (UTC)Reply
K.e. and I don't often agree on what constitutes "intricate detail", and I can't speak to the reliability or otherwise of the source, but I also think there is no reason to include this particular detail -- first few or last few should be worth mentioning but beyond that seems a bit unnecessary. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:42, 17 March 2017 (UTC)Reply
It is interesting and worthy of note. It doesn't matter which number it was. And above all, it is a fact. Dapi89 (talk) 18:20, 18 March 2017 (UTC)Reply
The inclusion of this material fails WP:DUE. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:28, 30 March 2017 (UTC)Reply
Opinion. This is a fact. Reverted. Dapi89 (talk) 15:41, 31 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

I've reached out to the WP:NPOVN. The thread is Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Fringe source in WWII bio article. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:46, 31 March 2017 (UTC)Reply