Talk:Josef Schulz

Untitled

Seems like if Stanislav Petrov has his own page, Josef Schultz should get one, too. Both were famous for a single event but both events were representative of larger issues and carried big implications for their time. He has a statue built in his honor. If I see a statue of someone and want to know about them, I turn to Wikipedia.

Someone changed the page to say "alleged" but there were photos and references linked. I'm not a Wikipedia guru by any means, but it feels like this guy should get a page as he played a significant role in a significant historical event - especially to those who live in Serbia. He is called "the hero of Serbia." The rules linked to in the proposed deletion are ambiguous and enforcement seems completely subjective. I just need help finding the proper attributions and fleshing out the article. Gthing (talk) 20:35, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Problem is, there doesn't seem to be any reliable evidence of the proposed story. It seems to me unacceptable that Wikipedia host an article stating the alleged actions of JS as a historical fact. Please provide some evidence for the claims stated in this article. (Hint: A post in an internet forum doesn't count.) Some (also rather dubious) sources claim that the story of JS was made up by Soviet propagandists. Until further evidence is provided, I propose this article be deleted or rewritten as to state the possibility of this being a made-up story. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.37.105.42 (talk) 10:14, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Up against a wall

I haven't seen the film, but that 'wall' in the photos is quite clearly a hayrick. So either the text is wrong or the photographs do not depict the event described here. pablo 11:22, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Name of person and film character

Although the name of the character in the English version of the film was (I assume) Schultz, it looks like the name of the actual person was Josef Schulz (without a 't'). I presume the reason is that the German 'z' is actually pronounced 'tz'--Boson (talk) 21:48, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Factual accuracy dispute

I can see a number of editors have put considerable work into this article, however I oppose the removal of the disputed tag as the article still makes a number of unsubstanciated claims, including that the photos are of the alleged incident (how could they possibly be if Schulz was already dead?) and still has this sentence which clearly contradicts the paragraphs above which claim he died in battle and was not executed at all: "The first round of fire did not hit Schultz as none of his fellow soldiers would aim at him. He was left standing alone when his superiors ordered another round of fire and he was shot and killed."

Given that the wiki community seems to have decided to tolerate an article about an incident that cannot be proven and is likely a 'legend' then our readers need to be able to easily identify that the facts have not been established. IMO this is why wikipedia isn't taken seriously and never will be. What happened to WP:VERIFY or WP:PROVEIT? Anotherclown (talk) 04:17, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Disputed tags get removed because it's not clear what it being disputed and then it appears nothing is disputed.. Would recommend using {{cn}} and similar in sentences. Explaining on talk like you did is also good. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 04:48, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

SunCreator. Firstly congratulations to those editors that have worked on this article, it has improved considerably and I am now quite happy with the citations and its content (it has truely come a long way from being an referenced stub which claimed that this was a true story). As such I withdraw my concern about its factual accuracy. That said to remove my tag and claim that it wasn't clear what was in dispute is disengenious as I clearly stated the problem above. Perhaps next time you might approach the editor first before removing a tag placed in good faith. Anotherclown (talk) 10:24, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I didn't remove the tag, nor ever edited this article. So assume that comment wasn't aimed at me. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 15:36, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I removed the original "Disputed" tag with the summary rm Disputed template. Talk page issues clarified. Any remaining issues flagged as 'Citation needed' (I think)). The Disputed tag clearly refers to the " relevant discussion on the talk page" but there was no such discussion, and any problems mentioned on the talk page had been resolved. There were a few minor points that were flagged individually, as stated in the edit summary, but the dispute as to the fundamental inaccuracy of the article had clearly been resolved. The documentation {{Disputed}} says: "First add a new section named "Disputed" to the article's talk page, describing the problems with the disputed statements. Then place {{Disputed}} at the top of the disputed article. If the talk page discussion is not in a section named "Disputed", use {{Disputed|talk page section name}} (for a talk page section named "Disputed information", use {{Disputed|Disputed information}} in the article). If there is no talk page, the tag won't refer to it (in which case it's recommended to consider whether the tag should be there, since there is no reason given)." Though reasonable people may disagree as to whether the tag should have been removed, claims that the removal was in any way disingenuous are uncalled-for. Boson (talk) 00:42, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Even if it is an apocryphal story that doesn't necessarily exclude the possibility of an article; I suggest you reserve judgement until the current rewrite is done. pablo 09:59, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough, but the only reason this rewrite occurred at all was because of the very real concerns that other users and myself raised about it at AfD. Previously this article claimed the whole thing was true, now it is far more clear that its a legend. Anotherclown (talk) 10:24, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I read the AfD discussion, and it served its purpose, articles are often improved as a result of an AfD. Improved article ≡ deleted article ≡ a win for Wikipedia. pablo 10:31, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I reworked the article based primarily on the Bethke article, since the scholary sources also cited are in the same vein. I also included a Vesti reference, though Vesti has been criticised as a Serbian partisan source according to Vesti's de.wiki entry; the point of inclusion of the Vesti ref is to have a source that the photographies appearing in this article are actually the same photographies Bethke is talking about. Nothing is referenced to the article body of the Vesti article. The Vesti article contains another image of Schulz, which looks PDy but I am not sure. I hesitate to upload it since it remains unclear to me whether this picture undoubtly shows Schulz and where Vesti obtained it (otherwise we could claim fair use even if it is not PD I guess). Skäpperöd (talk) 10:18, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Josef Schulz. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110927191147/http://www.keene.edu/cchs/videosalpha.cfm?Video_ID=955 to http://www.keene.edu/cchs/videosalpha.cfm?Video_ID=955

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:51, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Josef Schulz. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110726004945/http://www.drustvosns.org/kultura/pdf/Carl%20Bethke%2C%20Deutscher%20Widerstand%20gegen%20Hitler%20aus%20YU-Sicht.pdf to http://www.drustvosns.org/kultura/pdf/Carl%20Bethke,%20Deutscher%20Widerstand%20gegen%20Hitler%20aus%20YU-Sicht.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:43, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Real person

Josef Schulz. Born: 16 February 1909, Dortmund(-Huckarde), Died: 19 July 1941 Adzibegovac (first grave: Topola), Gefreiter, 2. Komp. Inf. Regt. 741. Declared as: "gefallen, Lungenschuß rechts, verblutet" (= KIA, shot in the lung right side, bled to death). - Civil death registration 23 December 1941, Wuppertal-Barmen, No. 2115. See: Volksbund Deutsche Kriegsgräberfürsorge, German War Graves registration See: Death registration card No. G-A 381/0643 of Deutsche Dienststelle (WASt), now to find at ancestry.com ("Deutschland, im Kampf gefallene Soldaten 1939-1948"). --213.172.123.242 (talk) 07:15, 21 August 2021 (UTC)