Talk:Zieten Hussars

Induction into the Imperial German Army

The regiment passed into the Federal Army in the 160 and not after 1871. As such the Imperial German Army was created around the core Prussian Army which was largely unchanged after unification of Germany as I understand it. In any case, the source provided says 1860 and not 1871--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 11:44, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Reversal of move

I have reverted the move from Hussars Regiment "von Zieten" (Brandenburgian) No. 3 to Zieten Hussars as it is not clear to me that "Hussars Regiment "von Zieten" (Brandenburgian) No. 3" is the name more commonly used in Reliable English language sources than "Zieten Hussars". -- PBS (talk) 00:06, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

From from my talk page:

Hello. I was mildly astonished to see that you undid my expansion and subsequent move to an up-to-date name of that article. There is clear evidence from German websites and books that the Zieten Hussars were later incorporated into the Hussar Regiment No. 3 of the Prussian and then Imperial German army. This website offers a comprehensive history of the regiment, but alas, in German. I am really tempted to restore my new version, moreover since the German Wiki is consistent with it. De728631 (talk) 14:05, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Here is an additional English source that connects the Zieten Hussars to the Imperial regiment Nr. 3. Also, the relevant part on the German Wiki reads: "In the course of reforms within the Prussian army, the regiment No. 3 was newly raised and took part in the Coalition wars, but only in 1861 after long struggling the tradition of the old Prussian hussar regiment H2 was recognized (sourced: Hans Bleckwenn: Die friderizianischen Uniformen 1753-1786, vol III etc.)" That said, I'm now going to move the article back to the Imperial regimental titling. De728631 (talk) 14:37, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

The name of a page should reflect that most frequently used in English language sources. Do you have any evidence that the name "Hussars Regiment "von Zieten" (Brandenburgian) No. 3". The lead should reflect the name of the article.

As the changes you made causes a large difference when "diffed", but I can see from the "dif" that some of it is just a rearrangement of the information already in the article, what is the specific additional information that you are adding? I suggest that that you add the information without rearranging the rest of the text and then we can discuss further rearrangement.

Under what criteria do you think http://www.zietenhusar.de qualifies as a reliable source -- PBS (talk) 19:54, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

To start with http://www.zietenhusar.de, I do think it is a reliable source because it draws on information published by third parties, in this case the "Jahrbuch des Deutschen Kriegerbundes von 1914 (Almanac of the 1914 German Soldiers' Association)".

As to rearranging the text, I don't see how this is disruptive as it improves the chronological order of the depiction of the regiment's history.

Now for the name of the article and the lead: "Zieten Hussars" is an entirely colloquial denomination of the subject originating from the likewise colloquial German Zieten-Husaren. Regardless of its occurance in whatever English language sources (only one single source is actually presented in the article), I do think that in such cases a proper translation of an original name serves Wikipedia better than anything else. De728631 (talk) 17:09, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

PS: The current article states already that "...it formed part of the 6th Cavalry-Brigade in the 6th Division (Brandenburg Division) known as Husaren-Regiment von Zieten (Brandenburgisches) Nr. 3 ("Hussars Regiment of Zieten (Brandenburg) No. 3")", so due to the many renamings in the course of history I think it is only fair to use this most recent name as the article's title, as has beeun done with the corresponding German Wiki article. The translation given over here as "Hussars Regiment of Zieten (Brandenburg) No. 3" is moreover slightly wrong as German Brandenburgisches is an adjective and "von Zieten" is a surname and should be used accordingly. De728631 (talk) 18:54, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

The name that should be used is the name that is most commonly used in English language sources. (See WP:COMMONNAME) We do use colloquial names over the official names it depends on which is more notable, eg the Chindits.-- PBS (talk) 22:33, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

If the information you wish to add is from a reliable source then you should unreliable source claiming the reliable source eg: "author of web-pag, web-page, website, Access date. Cites: reliable source (with page numbers if from a book)". I suggest that as a first edit without changing the format of the page you add your new information (and/or corrections) so that a simple diff show up the differences. After that we can muster sources and decide on whether we move the page or not. -- PBS (talk) 22:33, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

So you suggest that any change of format has to be approved? By whom and when? I'm going to ask for a third opinion now as this is getting the form of an edit war. De728631 (talk) 00:02, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

No, but it would help you gain a consensus for the changes, as at the moment because of the big diff your edit caused it is hard to see what has changed, and you edit involves two changes, the first is additional information the second if reformatting the introduction for a page move. As the page move is under dispute, it makes sense to break the changes into two. -- PBS (talk) 01:00, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I in turn are still wondering why the diff tool is so important to you. Have you actually also read the full text of the versions I created or did you only look at the diff tables? Because the seemingly big diff in the first edit mainly comes from adding a simple line break after the first introductory sentence while the actual changes consist of a few added phrases and citations. De728631 (talk) 20:24, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Response to Third Opinion Request:

Disclaimers: I am responding to a third opinion request made at WP:3O. I have made no previous edits on Zieten Hussars and have no known association with the editors involved in this discussion. The third opinion process (FAQ) is informal and I have no special powers or authority apart from being a fresh pair of eyes. Third opinions are not tiebreakers and should not be "counted" in determining whether or not consensus has been reached. My personal standards for issuing third opinions can be viewed here.

Opinion: I presume this diff defines the dispute. My opinions: http://www.zietenhusar.de: I think that this site would be acceptable and beneficial in an External Links list (with perhaps a bit of WP:IAR applied), but I do not think that it is reliable enough to go into a References list as a general source for the entire article. The fact that zietenhusar.de relies upon sources which may be reliable sources does not make it a reliable source, since it is self-published and has no editorial oversight or peer review. Text of article, other than title: I think that the version completed in this diff is the clearer, and thus better, version. Title of Article: It is now apparent that the name change/move is controversial. The best practice noted in WP:MOVE for controversial renames/moves is to refrain from moving it oneself and, instead, propose the move at Wikipedia:Requested_moves, and that is what I would recommend in this case. I would note that doing so is not required, however, as has been suggested in one of the edit summaries, since WP:MOVE is not a policy or guideline, but I think that it is the best way to handle this matter nonetheless.

What's next: Once you've considered this opinion click here to see what happens next.—TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 15:05, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the effort and for your tips, TransporterMan.

• PBS, would you agree that the version completed in this diff can be restored, as TransporterMan suggests, including the "Knötel" names but with zietenhusaren.de moved to External links?
• I'm still interested in moving the page since there are so few English language sources about this regiment anyway that I at least have a hard time seeing how Zieten Hussars is the most common English name. So one might as well follow the procedures at Wikipedia:Article titles#Foreign names and anglicization and translate the German name as I did before. I'd be willing to bring this up at Wikipedia:Requested moves. De728631 (talk) 19:51, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

TransporterMan., I think you are giving out a contradictory advise. The notes and references are set up as WP:CITE short footnotes. A sources is either good enough to be cited (and the information used) or it is not. One can not use a source and then put it into external link (or further reading). So any additional information based on that source cannot be used in the text unless you think it can be cited.

I am not against using the source, providing you make it clear in the citaion: "author of web-pag, web-page, website, Access date. Cites: reliable source (with page numbers it from a book)". And as I suggested before if you insert the changes then do them with the minimum of rearrangement so that the diffs are small and it is easy to see what the additions are, because st the moment the differences are so large that it is difficult to see what new information has been added. Once the information is in the article then we can decide if it should be reformatted. If however TransporterMan does not think that the source is reliable enough to be cited (as (s)he has indicted) then the information should not be added to the text. In which case make any rearrangements to the text you wish to make and I'll then make a judgement on whether it needs further editing.

A Google book search on [ "Zieten Hussars ] in English returns "198 on "Zieten Hussars" in English." A Google book search on [ Hussars Regiment "von Zieten" (Brandenburgian) No. 3 ] in English returns on book. -- PBS (talk) 20:39, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

zietenhusar.de was not even cited by me in the text but since it is considered a general source for the German article I thought I'd bring it up here as well. And as you can see, my other citations contain any available info such as author, publisher, etc. and compared to the previous version I even expanded the citation parameters. Just to please you I'm now going to do a step-by-step edition of what I think can be changed in this article. De728631 (talk) 21:43, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

And as to the page name, I found a naming convention at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Style guide#Units, formations, and bases:

"A name originally in a language other than English should be adapted by translating common terms (such as designations of size and type) and transliterating the remainder of the name. The choice of which components of the name are to be translated (and how) should follow the conventions employed by reputable historical works on the topic; some collected recommendations for specific terms are maintained by the relevant national task forces. The original name should be provided in the first sentence of the article, following the translated name; for example, "The 3rd Mountain Division (3. Gebirgs-Division) was..." or "Boden Fortress (Swedish: Bodens fästning) is...".... When a unit or base has had multiple names over the course of its existence, the title should generally be the last name used; however, exceptions can be made in cases where the subject is clearly more commonly known by one of the previous names."

Which is what I did in the first place, but as "exceptions can be made where the subject is more commonly known..." I think we can actually leave the title as Zieten Hussars. De728631 (talk) 22:29, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

The letter ö

Regarding sources and their authors, Richard Knötel, Herbert Knötel and Peter Hofschröer are all written with the letter ö and should be so named according to Wikipedia policies. So before anyone reverts my corrections I thought I'd mention it here. De728631 (talk) 19:15, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Which policy would that be? I refer you to the policy and guideline WP:UE and the guidance in the MOS WP:MOS#Foreign terms we should use whatever the majority of sources use in this context, which in this case will be other sources those referencing them -- I have no opinions on the issue beyond that. -- PBS (talk) 22:43, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm simply referring to the policy of using what the publisher uses. Please see this cover image (even if the text refers to Knotel, the publisher's cover clearly uses Knötel in both names. As to Hofschröer, see the link I mentioned above. De728631 (talk) 23:57, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Pelze - tiger skins vs leopard skins

Hello, all, the reference to tiger skins should be reviewed and corrected as necessary. Apparently they were leopard skins that the Queen Mother, Sophia Dorothea, gave to the regiment as a gift, not tiger skins. Dorn & Engelmann perpetuate the error in their "Frederick the Great's Cavalry Regiments" ("Die Kavallerie-Regimenter Friedrichs des Grossen"), but all other sources note that they were leopard skins. Also, there is photographic evidence, of contemporary pieces photographed later, at the end of the 19th century, as well as the commemorative uniform pieces worn on ceremonial occasions in the Imperial army.

Best regards, Brad

TheBaron0530 (talk) 19:14, 11 June 2012 (UTC)TheBaron0530

If you have a complete citation (author (date), title, publisher, page number) then we can alter the text. When sources disagree we usually note the disagreement in the a footnote. -- PBS (talk) 17:29, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll track it down, the most common sources are Knötel and Bleckwenn, as well as Menzel's illustrations. Though, may I point out, respectfully, we have no source cited in the article to support that they were tiger skins. Also, the Menzel illustration that is included in the article shows a Leopardenfell as the Pelz. Best regards, BradTheBaron0530 (talk) 20:22, 15 June 2012 (UTC)TheBaron0530 16:20 15 June 2012

As far as I can tell an inline citation is given "Knötel (1980), pp.145-146." it may be wrong, -- the source does not link to an online version and I do not know whether it is accurate, but I am assuming that the original citation was correct (good faith). If you have your doubts then mark it with {{Verify source}}, until you, or someone else, can check it. -- PBS (talk) 20:43, 15 June 2012 (UTC)