Talk:Baldur von Schirach

message: An editor read a book about Baldur von Schirach, and has since added around 26K of material to this article, based on that one source, in doing so doubling the size of the article.  These edits have skewed the article toward the views of the subject held by the author of that one book, which potentially violates WP:WEIGHT.  I don;t believe that this is acceptable.
I'm not sure what the solution to the problem created by this editor is.  One thing would be for other editors familiar with the subject to double check the material that has been added against other sources.  Another, more radical approach, would be to revert back to the version of the article before the addition of the new material, and require the editor involved to double check every fact and opinion they wish to add against other sources before they can be added, citing multiple sources - it is, after all, that editor's actions which have created the current problem, and they should bear the bulk of the burden to fix it.
I would like to hear the opinions of other editors. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:46, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh for goodness sake. This is a Vital level 5 biography article. Until recently, it was remarkably short, considering its importance. (It also contained a bunch of unsourced statements, some false, for which I have added citations and corrected where necessary.) In order to improve the article, I am reading what I believe is the only book-length biography of Schirach. There are no other similar sources we could rely on in the way you suggest, as far as I am aware. The source in question is impeccable, the idea that it would bias the article is unlikely. Requiring an additional citation for every fact is unnecessary, and requiring an additional citation for the occasional opinion of Professor Rathkolb's that I have included (and clearly signposted) is not possible. Reverting the article to its previous state would not be an improvement, it would be a serious regress. Do you have any specific criticisms of the source? Of course any editor or reader is welcome to check the citations against the source and cross-check against other sources. cagliost (talk) 02:06, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

text: There's no policy against extensive use of a source, as far as I'm aware. Bias can be subtle, of course, but that means that vague accusations of bias can be made against any article. To make a persuasive accusation of bias, specific criticisms would be needed. WP:WEIGHT is not about excessive reliance on one source, it's about giving excessive prominence to viewpoints. A criticism relying on WP:WEIGHT would have to be specific about which viewpoints are being given undue weight. As an extreme example, to the extent that Rathkolb voices anti-Nazi viewpoints, I hardly think we should seek out pro-Nazi viewpoints, that would be WP:FALSEBALANCE. cagliost (talk) 10:36, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:WEIGHT]] 

message: His sister Viktoria Benedikta died young, but it's not clear exactly when. Marjorie Mary Butler Harrison (1956) says born 1902, died 1902. Miller & Schulz (2021) say "(born 16.06.1899 in Hannover, died 15.04.1901 in Berlin [diphtheria])". cagliost (talk) 11:59, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Viktoria Benedikta 

message: Rathkolb chapter 10 says Rosalind von Schirach left the church: "Schirach, who unlike his father and sister had consciously remained a Protestant and had not left the Church". But in chapter 14 he says she "never left the Evangelical Church." cagliost (talk) 12:02, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rosalind's religion 

message: This "Start-class" article could see immediate improvements that could result in elevation to C-class and beyond. Other than normal editing improvement there are some obvious issues.
*While not tagged there is a lot of unsourced content. Several paragraphs are left dangling with no sourcing. "Schirach was notoriously anxious about air raids." and the fact of being notorious means there should be sourcing. 
*The "External links" section is bloated. 12 links are not necessary and it becomes a dumping ground for links that might be integrated into the article or that are unnecessary.   --  Otr500 (talk) 09:59, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I have expanded the article significantly. , you may wish to re-assess it. cagliost (talk) 12:08, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article issues