This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GermanyWikipedia:WikiProject GermanyTemplate:WikiProject GermanyGermany articles
I removed one citation to Clemens Range: diff. This is intricate detail and immaterial. The publication itself has been described as neo-Nazi in this discussion: User talk:Hawkeye7/Archive 2016#Neo-Nazi publications. Please let me know if there are any concerns. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:20, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The opinion of one editor is not sufficient. This is a featured article, and the information is entirely relevant. Dishonest edit summaries are disruptive. Dapi89 (talk) 16:48, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I consider the statement to be trivia and unnecessary: "Lindemann was the 94th recipient of the Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross in the Kriegsmarine.[1]"
If he were the 4th recipient, then maybe it would be worth including, but the 94th? K.e.coffman (talk) 19:57, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
K.e. and I don't often agree on what constitutes "intricate detail", and I can't speak to the reliability or otherwise of the source, but I also think there is no reason to include this particular detail -- first few or last few should be worth mentioning but beyond that seems a bit unnecessary. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:42, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It is interesting and worthy of note. It doesn't matter which number it was. And above all, it is a fact. Dapi89 (talk) 18:20, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]