Talk:Günther Schwab

Removed Nazi reference etc[edit]

I have been bold and removed recently added text saying Schwab was a "Nazi", "pioneering global warming theorist", and proponent of "Social Darwinism and eugenics" who was "condemning many Americans as degenerates". Citations were provided for these claims but the sources are, in my opinion, questionable. The source provided for the global warming claim is an article published on 15 Feb 2011 by an internet publication called "American Thinker". The American Thinker article appears to be attempting to associate Schwab with Nazism, and indirectly associate Nazism with environmentalism and global warming, to make a political point. A separate source is provided for the Nazi and eugenics claims: a book which appears to have a similar political agenda.

I Googled "Gunther Schwab Nazi" and all of the top 10 results (other than this Wikipedia article) appear to be political/anti-environmentalist sites. Most of the results seem to date to February 2011 and most link back to the same American Thinker article referenced here. When the search is restricted to the years 1901-2010, only the top ten results appear to be relevant: one is this Wikipedia article, three are lists that appear to mirror Wikipedia, and six turn out to contain links to the American Thinker article despite their apparent date.

Apparently there was no mention of Schwab being a Nazi until after his death. Therefore I have removed that claim from the article.Science enthusiast343 (talk) 14:15, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Restoring key data from his life[edit]

Someone tried to erase totally essential facts about Schwab's life, such as his membership in NSDAP and SA, where he has been a lieutenant since 1930.

His first book was published in the central publishing house of the Nazi party and it was reprinted later. I consider attempts to hide that he was a Nazi to be almost equivalent to the holocaust denial. Please don't do it again, whoever was responsible for this attempt.

Please check the article about him on German Wikipedia to learn many more facts that are not available on the English Wikipedia, and some relevant references. [1] [2] People who can't read German sources should avoid editing articles about German-speaking authors because they are unlikely to contribute positively, as the example with the censorship attempt has demonstrated. --Lumidek (talk) 15:48, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you mean. The German article is much more scholarly. But it is insufficiently referenced, as is often the case on de:. Can you get the sources? If so, could you translate the German stuff please, all (or almost all) of it? It is from an entirely different perspective, the "Förster" movie is so well known over here it's almost a cliche concept for "Adenauer era popular culture" (it's actually how I came across this guy).

The English article is better in quality (from an encyclopedia's standpoint) than the German one, but only barely... 1 cited WP:RS, 1 citation that probably fails WP:SPS, and 1 possible RS to read in English, 2 RS and 1 secondary source (but all still to be read/cited) in German. Content-wise there is actually little overlap. As of now, both articles are meager, incomplete, and you're absolutely right, the English one seriously needs expansion. Is Mark Musser the "JM Musser" here? Then the blog might be OK. Otherwise, it must be removed, because it fails WP:RS#Self-published sources (online and paper)/WP:SPS. But with the two new RS from de: to add, this should not be a problem.

If you can dig up the de: sources and properly cite them in-text, I believe the article will be splendid... probably go right up to B-class from where it is now.. that means if you can add another 5-6 sources, you could already try for "Good Article" status ;-) Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 22:27, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was the one who removed the Nazi references - I explained my reasons in the above section of this talk page. The sources tbat were cited appeared dubious, and a Google search revealed that most of the references to Schwab being a Nazi date from just a few days ago (ie. several years after his death). The German Wikipedia offers no citation at all for the claim that Schwab was a Nazi.

Schwab is not a living person so BLP doesn't apply; but still, any statement that somebody was a Nazi needs to be properly verified. I propose that the claim be removed again unless we can find more reliable sources. Science enthusiast343 (talk) 02:47, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's why I am all for someone checking out the sources mentioned but not cited in the de: article. The Frings source in particular seems to be promising; it is only a Master's thesis (or a M.A. thesis is the closest non-German equivalent), but in the absence of anything else, if it is not obviously sloppy it does qualify as RS. The other RS in the German article is possibly nice to yield some "meat" for the article, while the newspaper source seems so trivial as to be quasi-RS.

In my experience, such issues are always best tackled by the power of Google Scholar and ISI Web of Knowledge. Scholarly sources, and lots of them. That is what sets Wikipedia apart from any webnews, blog or cheap paper encyclopedia.

Lumidek, just go ahead and check out the sources and then simply translate the German article as it is appropriate, but noting the sources in-text of course. I have other stuff to do, but I'll keep my eyes peeled for good sources. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 10:25, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]