Talk:Hermann Fegelein

Archives (Index)

1

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Inclusion of Portrayal in the media section

Hey all, I would like to find consensus for re-inclusion of the portrayal in the media section. This was previously discussed on talk page, where a summary recorded 6 people in favour of including it, 1 neutral and 3 against. On top of that I would like to make the point that this is a pretty unknown nazi, who is not in the basic history books, so most people will find this article after seeing him portrayed in one of the films, on tv or because of the meme. These people want to confirm that this is the person they saw and want to know more about, and listing these portrayals serves that purpose.

I had this myself, I saw the meme, didn't know what it was about, and came here looking for information on the guy, but after reading this page i still didn't know if this was the right guy or not, i even clicked through to his brother with the same name, but that didn't help me solve the question either (until i found the previous deleted section, but most users won't look for that).

I'm all in favour of keeping the pop-culture content low, but this is a handle for those people who come here looking for more information about an historical figure and it's wikipedia's purpose to facilitate this. People might come to this page because they read about it in some source that's not sophisticated enough for your taste, but if we help them they can leave with genuine historical knowledge.

Also the section as it was[1] is pretty neutral and concise, it doesn't give any overdue attention to popular culture, it just lists big mainstream film and tv portrayals without too much detail, and briefly mentions the existence of the meme. What do you think?--83.128.126.218 (talk) 15:31, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

I feel pretty strongly that we should not include it. WP:MILPOP states that we should not include pop culture trivia in military history articles "unless the subject has had a well-cited and notable impact on popular culture. Any popular culture reference being considered for inclusion must be attributed to a reliable source for the article topic". Neither of these conditions is met, as Fegelein has not had a notable or lasting impact on popular culture (the page has not had to be protected for meme-related vandalism for two and a half years), and the previous material in the article was sourced to IMDb, which is not considered a reliable source for this wiki, and I daresay is totally inadequate sourcing for an article that has already reached A-Class status. The parodies are already covered at Downfall (2004 film); perhaps we could add that as a see-also — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:59, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Concur; the section did not meet the ""unless the subject has had a well-cited and notable impact on popular culture. Any popular culture reference being considered for inclusion must be attributed to a reliable source for the article topic" test. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:34, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

edit conflict - As I was just writing, I agree with you Diannaa and your assertion; the film Downfall could be included as a See also, linking to that film portrayal. Kierzek (talk) 21:45, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Portrayals are not trivia. I'm not suggesting adding any pop culture sources that just reference him, just portrayals of the guy in places where people might have seen him, and for this lesser known guy, like I said, it's the way most people will hear about him, it will serve the users of wikipedia and the furtherance of their historical knowledge to link those portrayals to the real guy, so they might learn stuff about the real him instead of leaving this article totally confused. How come you totally disregard that argument?

Also if you would actually read WP:MILPOP and look at the examples those are about items that appear in about every WW2 movie and other namechecks and quick references, not about rare actual portrayals of a historical figure that is otherwise virtually unknown. This is not an 'in popular culture' section. It is a section of portrayals of an historical figure in major movies and tv series.

If the reliable source is really a problem, I'm pretty sure there are plenty of reliable resources that account of the existence of major hollywood movies and their casting lists and I wouldn't mind finding them for you. But first tell me if that would be enough.

Also are you disputing that he appeared in these films, or are you just crying for sources just to get your way? Please read WP:GAME.

A "see also" is a solution that has the worst of both sides, you are still including it, even though you think it should not, but you're not placing it in a properly named section where people will actually find it, and why would you only include that portrayal and not the others? Because of the meme? --83.128.126.218 (talk) 23:06, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

The fact is there is not much in the way of "historical" film portrayals of any real substance for this person. The most prominent one to feature him is "Downfall"; he also appears to a lesser degree in the HBO TV film, The Bunker (1981 film). You write as if there are many films and TV shows in which he is part of but do not list any. Further, it would make no sense (considering the level of this article), nor be helpful to readers just make a "laundry list" of anything he may have a mention or cameo. No one has stated that he has not had some limited appearances on film; but, you write in such general terms, it is hard to guess which portrayals "in major movies and tv series" you believe should be included and why; not the mention, you have not provided any RS sources which could be used for citing. I thought the "See also" was a good compromise; it provides a name, link for any interested readers and does not have to be cited. Kierzek (talk) 00:16, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

I linked to, and mentioned the previous included list of which a 2/3rd majority of wikipedia contributors thought it should be included, which lists 7 portrayals. And my point is not to give information about these portrayals because these portrayals are so incredible important, but because it helps link the portrayals to the real life historical figure, so people that come here looking for more information on the person they saw in the movie or on tv (which as I argued before, is the majority of the people finding this article) will know they reached the right article and will learn things about the real historical person. "see also" is an afterthought, meant for people who have read the article and want to know even more, but I'm arguing that this article should make these portrayals findable in the beginning, by including it as a section in the article, so it's also in the table of contents, and people looking to see if this person was portrayed in the film or tv series they just watched, can find that information. --83.128.126.218 (talk) 13:31, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

There's no reliable sources been presented that demonstrate that Fegelein has had a large or lasting impact on our culture. Brief mentions in list-type sources are not what we are looking for; what would be required is in-depth coverage in multiple reliable sources, not mere proof that films exist (that fact has not been called into question). The results of the previous discussion can no longer carry any weight here, as consensus can change; the previous discussion was five years ago. This discussion currently stands at three people opposed and one supporting, so it looks like the consensus is to leave it out. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:00, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

You are still ignoring my argument that including the portrayals helps people looking for more information on this guy, to find what they're looking for. --83.128.126.218 (talk) 14:41, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

And if the consensus is about the number of people opposing and supporting, can you explain why you ignored the 2/3rd majority for inclusion consensus with 10 people giving their opinion the last time and still kept the information out? Is that because you're an admin and consensus is whatever your opinion is? You know that that is the reason why the number of wikipedia contributors is only dropping and dropping.. anyone new editing is immediately reverted even though it goes against all policy. --83.128.126.218 (talk) 14:52, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Can I conclude that I've successfully addressed your objections and I can proceed with making the necessary edits? --83.128.126.218 (talk) 15:04, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

You do not have a consensus to add or change anything at this point, but for a "See also" which was suggested. Kierzek (talk) 15:16, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Well can you address these questions then?

You are still ignoring my argument that including the portrayals helps people looking for more information on this guy, to find what they're looking for. --83.128.126.218 (talk) 14:41, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

And if the consensus is about the number of people opposing and supporting, can you explain why you ignored the 2/3rd majority for inclusion consensus with 10 people giving their opinion the last time and still kept the information out? Is that because you're an admin and consensus is whatever your opinion is? You know that that is the reason why the number of wikipedia contributors is only dropping and dropping.. anyone new editing is immediately reverted even though it goes against all policy. --83.128.126.218 (talk) 14:52, 7 February 2017 (UTC)