Talk:8th Panzer Division (Wehrmacht)

Reliable Sources

I am remove the unreliable source tags, Werner Haupt is a German author and has an obvious bias toward the German Army and in particular the German solider.
However this does not in of itself make him an unreliable source, if you are looking for accounts of events in second world war battles and campaigns that give the German military viewpoint.
Much of his writing is based on original documents such as war diaries of divisions and Armies involved. His facts tent to be accurate and verifiable by the context of events.

As a source he has been listed often as reliable by respected authors. Here are two examples

On the German side Werner Haupts 'Sieg ohne Lorbeer' is one of the best general accounts of the campaign: Alister Horne, to Loose a Battle

Werner Haupt account of the Latvian formations ranks as factually reliable. Valdis O. Lumans auther of Latvia in World War II Valdis O. Lumans is the Cleora Toole Murray Professor of History at the University of South Carolina Aiken

The same comments apply to Frank Kurowski's Deadlock before Moscow. This is not a great literary book, but is obviously based on primary German sources. As such it gives a reliable view of events as captured by the German Army at the time.

I cannot understand the reference to Mainstain as a unreliable source of information about the units that were under his command.

As these sources are used to verify the activity of a German military Unit, and can be proven to be reliable I cannot see a problem with their use. Christwelfwww (talk) 17:51, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi, I do not fully understand the post. Could you clarify, as "Haupts" is not used in the article. "Lumans" is not used either.

On Kurowski, there's at length discussion here: Reliable sources noticeboard or please see the German Wikipedia article.

Manstein is WP:Primary and is biased; his memoirs have been described as revisionist. I am going to restore the tag as these issues are fundamental. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:54, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD

"Primary" is not, and should not be, a bit of jargon used by Wikipedians to mean "bad" or "unreliable" or "unusable". While some primary sources are not fully independent, they can be authoritative, high-quality, accurate, fact-checked, expert-approved, subject to editorial control and published by a reputable publisher.

Re Kurowski. I agree that on the whole I would not use him, but from your discussion it's not always either-or. I am not using the source to glorify the German soldier, but to verify the actions and location of 8PD However you have to see the book 'Deadlock before Moscow, to understand why is a reference. Much of it is in fact a collection of after action reports, with no additional commentary at all in some chapters. You can see this from the recommendations on Amazon if you like with out reading the book. Its also a very niche description of events not covered in other literature. A small side show battle covering a short period of time.

Of course Manstein is biased. Every book ever written on the second world war is biased. Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject. Neither does being a primary source discount him as a reference. An article sound not be based only on such sources.

I cannot see why I should not remove your tag again as it seems to be based on your own opinions rather than Wikipedia policy or consensus.Christwelfwww (talk) 09:39, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Looking at it again, the article does not actually use Mainstain as a source, but a book about Mainstein by Robert Forczyk Christwelfwww (talk) 09:49, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Seems that there exists no blanket ban on Kurowski, nor a consensus against using his work in a careful way. See contrary comments by Nut, Peacemaker67, Dapi89. Therefore please reserve any tags to the specific entries rather than one of overall opinion. Same applies to any references by Haupt. And as there is no manstein references I will remove the general tag, and expect if you re apply any they relate to specific entries Christwelfwww (talk) 19:54, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Kurowski

For Kurowski, please see current discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history -- WWII content: Otto Kittel, other GA/FA articles. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:00, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. Discussions seem to me to validate what I have said above.

Kurowski should be treated with caution but can be used if content carefully considered.

To be honest, some of his books I've seen are very low grade, but the one I referenced is based almost entirely on after action reports.

More over the narrative of 'Deadlocak before Moscow' is of a sector poorly resourced by the Germans, of Soviet encirclement, and defeat of repeated rescue attempts, by a superior Red army.

This is not really pointing to the glorification of the Wehrmacht. In my opinion that makes this book a valid source as it also covers a little reported on action. Christwelfwww (talk) 20:20, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

If you are interested in the battle of Moscow, then I recommend The Battle for Moscow by David Stahel. If your position that Kurowski is okay to use because his book is "based on after action reports", then that's similar to performing WP:OR via an non WP:RS source. Please join the discussion at the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history to state your opinion. My position that Kurowski fails the WP:RS test stands. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:25, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

I have the Stahel books, they dont cover the action I'm describing in detail. Your 'position' is also not the only 'position' on this topic. I prefer a more balanced view, say of Peacemaker67 who I know as a great contributer to WP.Christwelfwww (talk) 20:38, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Actually Im sorry if I got a trifle heated here. I've tried to take advice and step back. What I shall do is look for alternative sources to Kurowski, to take the heat out of the discussion on this topic, although I already checked and there is not the same level of coverage elsewhere. Some that there is, is no doubt more acceptable but actually less accurate, which is not so good. However its only a smaller part of the article topic.

On the other two authors mentioned , one (vM) was not used and the other (WH), I cant find any discussion anywhere that says he is not valid, and allot of use by WW2 authors that quotes him in their sources sections. I will try and summon up the energy to contribute on the RS discussion, although I would come down on the biased but usable side. I don't believe an authors political leanings precludes them, and as far as I can see, no one has really come up with any concrete evidence of distortion of facts. Christwelfwww (talk) 19:54, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your conciliatory note. Just letting you know that the most current discussion is on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history (Kurowski: "Journalism of gray and brown zone"). Please feel free to comment there. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:21, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history

HI, just a quick note about a current discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history (WWII content: Otto Kittel, other GA/FA articles) that editors of this page may be interested in. K.e.coffman (talk)