Opothleyahola

Possibly apocryphal story

A couple of months back, I removed from this article a piece of information that claimed that Ribbentrop said to Morris when he read to him the declaration of war "This is the war your President wanted" or words to that effect. The story -- which I have never come across in my reading on the subject -- seemed apocryphal to me, and the source -- a book by a general non-fiction author with no training, reputation or credibility regarding the history of World War II -- did not seem to be a reliable source.

Today, the editor restored it and added two additional sources. These were also books by authors who are not subject experts, both journalists, again with no reputation or credibility regarding the history of World War II, although both books were published by reputable general publishers. Three non-reliable sources don't make the information any more reliable sourced than does one, so I removed it again.

I have told the editor on my talk page that they need to provide a source for the information from a true subject experts, someone with a reputation for accuracy who is knowledgeable about World War II, or diplomatic history, or even a credible biographer of Ribbentrop, and not a journalist or a general non-fiction author compiling information they do not have the wherewithal to properly judge the accuracy of. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:12, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Besides at least one of the authors having a degree in history, Journalists are credible writers on what they write. To say otherwise is an terrible accusation at all journalists who've written articles on anything in any publication. Journalists also frequently write books, applying the same research, investigative and critical standards to the books they write. To simply say "They're just journalists" is not at all a reason to call them not reliable sources.
Unfortunately to avoid an edit war this case will need to be elevated. Oakshade (talk) 22:50, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A "degree in history", presumably a bachelors, doesn't make one a subject expert. And a trout to you for bringing this to RSN without even giving the discussion here a chance to reach a consensus. Very bad juju, that. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:24, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A lot to unpack with this response. It was curious enough you removed the content which has been in place for four and half years that was sourced . But when you quickly again with no discussion here on the talk page removed the content with three reliable sources and attacked the highly praised reliable sources for being "journalists" and therefore not credible sources, it was implied by by you the discussion was over and there was no chance of the content being added with it being reverted yet again thus starting an edit war. With very low mainspace page views averaging 20 per day, there was little chance of readers or editors weighing in on this issue on this talk page without it being made aware to the community in the appropriate areas, in this case the Reliable Sources board as it was reliable sources that were being challenged. Oakshade (talk) 01:42, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You're going to keep having stuff to "unpack" if you don't start getting your facts correct. The problem with the authors of the books in question is not that they're journalist, per se, it's that they're not subject experts, which is why you complaint at RSN was ridiculous on its face. I never said, and never will say, that journalists aren't or can;t be reliable sources, and to continue to frame this in that manner as if I did is intellectual dishonesty on your part. You should stop that.

Let's deal with reality here. The situation is that Morris has been called in by Ribbentrop to be read the declaration of war. Maybe Morris brings an aide, maybe Ribbentrop has one as well. Each man probably has a translator, that's six people involved. Throw in a couple more aides for good measure, and we have an order of magnitude of 8 people who could have heard the remark supposedly made by Ribbentrop. At least one of that small number of people must have talked about it or written about it, and that's the genesis of the story.

So, where did your authors say the story came from? Do they credit someone in their books? Do their books have footnotes that show where they got their information? Or do they just come out and say "Ribbentrop said blah-blah-blah to Morris" without specifying the source of the information? You've read the books, I presume, since you cited them, tell us where your author say the story came from, so we can start verifying it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:31, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, this is just a back and forth here as you have shown no interest in building a consensus with your immediate removing of content sourced by multiple reliable sources. If you can provide any reliable sources that contradict the journalistic sources provided and not just your original research speculation, the community and I would be happy to examine them. We'll just see what the larger community says which we will both have to respect. Oakshade (talk) 07:55, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take that as an admission that none of the authors involved say in their books where the information came from. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:01, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And I'll take that as pure original research speculation with absolutely zero credible evidence, actually zero evidence at all, that any of these respected journalists and authors are not credible or reliable sources.Oakshade (talk) 08:24, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OR is about what goes into articles, not about discussions on talk pages.

Why won't you tell us whether the authors of the books you're attempting to cite said what their source was for Ribbentrop supposedly making that remark? What possible reason can you have for not disclosing that very pertinent information? Aren't we entitled to know what they based their reportage on? Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:33, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What I wonder is, what's the importance of this? It does not appear to change history and since the events are not recent, one would expect more traditional sources by historians to have mentioned it with the context... It may also make a journalist's text more lively, but this is an encyclopedia, afterall (see WP:TRIVIA). —Paleo Neonate – 09:24, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There are multiple reasons. In such an historic brief meeting, just about every moment in this tense brief encounter between the diplomats of two then superpowers is significant. In this case it demonstrates the hurried enthusiasm of the Nazi regime to declare war on the US as well as Ribbentrop's disdain and rudeness to the highest ranking US diplomat before him. As historians, journalists, authors and diplomat Ross Gregory, Richard Collier, Andrew Nagorski, Thomas Toughill, Nicholas Best, George Kennan and perhaps many others all saw fit to write about the exchange, it certainly can be considered of encyclopedic value. Oakshade (talk) 17:20, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've restored the info with the Keenan citation posted on WP:RSN. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:05, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ideally, a primary source or two should also be found..if possible. (I don't know if Keenan was there or not, but if he was, that would count). Preferences to secondary sources notwithstanding, for historical content, especially with regard to trivia factoids such as this, what's written in secondary sources can only really be verified with a primary source (if the secondary source provides solid citations to the primary sources that is good too). Firejuggler86 (talk) 23:48, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For me, Kennan, who worked with Morris at the time, is close enough to the primary source to be acceptable, especially since the story appears in his memoirs. The other authors previously cites (and other mentioned in the RSN thread) were not. See also WP:Primary sources - we actually prefer secondary sources. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:14, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]