This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Desiderius Hampel article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I've explained the change in each edit summary:
Could the reverting editor please clarify what was unexplained or unclear? K.e.coffman ( talk) 16:52, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
This article is about Desiderius Hampel. It is not the article about the Knight's Cross. Thus its lead section should feature information about Desiderius Hampel, and not about the Knight's Cross in general. I found a lead section that featured one sentence on Hampel and another which contained some vague, imprecise information about the Knight's Cross in general, written in unencyclopedic language. Thus I removed the sentence which is not about Hampel, and added one which deals with Hampel, namely that Hampel fled from a British internment camp, while Yugoslavia intended to charge him with war crimes, an information which curiously had been skipped over altogether. In addition, I corrected a wrong citation and added a link. For all it's worth, my edit has been summarily reverted within minutes. [1] Consequently the article remains silent about possible war crimes and excells about "skilled leadership" and "extreme battlefield bravery", all the while, and this is quite ironic, it is dubious, whether Hampel received the Knight's Cross after all and a "justification for the presentation was not given". I can imagine some reasons why someone would rather imply "skilled leadership" than talk about war crimes, but I will rather have you, @ Peacemaker67:, give some explanation why this is not a case of WP:TWABUSE.-- Assayer ( talk) 02:56, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Desiderius Hampel article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I've explained the change in each edit summary:
Could the reverting editor please clarify what was unexplained or unclear? K.e.coffman ( talk) 16:52, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
This article is about Desiderius Hampel. It is not the article about the Knight's Cross. Thus its lead section should feature information about Desiderius Hampel, and not about the Knight's Cross in general. I found a lead section that featured one sentence on Hampel and another which contained some vague, imprecise information about the Knight's Cross in general, written in unencyclopedic language. Thus I removed the sentence which is not about Hampel, and added one which deals with Hampel, namely that Hampel fled from a British internment camp, while Yugoslavia intended to charge him with war crimes, an information which curiously had been skipped over altogether. In addition, I corrected a wrong citation and added a link. For all it's worth, my edit has been summarily reverted within minutes. [1] Consequently the article remains silent about possible war crimes and excells about "skilled leadership" and "extreme battlefield bravery", all the while, and this is quite ironic, it is dubious, whether Hampel received the Knight's Cross after all and a "justification for the presentation was not given". I can imagine some reasons why someone would rather imply "skilled leadership" than talk about war crimes, but I will rather have you, @ Peacemaker67:, give some explanation why this is not a case of WP:TWABUSE.-- Assayer ( talk) 02:56, 13 February 2017 (UTC)