Talk:Sven Hassel

Untitled

BTW Has anybody tried to check records of Sven Hassel. It is possible that he did serve in the 6th panzer division or heard the stories from somebody who did. The fieldpost numbers he mentions are to the 65 panzer abteilung and 7th company which if I remember correctly he mentions in some books, then the abteilung was absorbed byt the 11th panzer regiment, both in the 6 panzer division. Some of the battles he mentions included the 6th panzer division. There was a officer named Löwe who served in the aforementioned units and got some high medals, and 11th panzer regiment provided units for the heavy panzer regiment Bäke(who might have been "Hinka"). Of course this is just guessing but maybe there's something. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.60.196.68 (talk) 09:04, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I read nine of Hassels books when I was a kid (I grew out of him in my late teens) and it's clear that they are works of fiction. Of course they are fiction - they are novels. The author does not claim that they are autobiographies. It is not possible for a single soldier to experience all the things described in all the novels and survive. For example, the characters survive Stalingrad, the D-Day landings and Crete, and all three of those battles resulted in catastrophic losses for German forces. Very few soldiers escaped the ring at Stalingrad, for example. There are numerous liberties taken with facts. Just one: in "Liquidate Paris" he describes the "daredevil New Zealanders" storming the beaches of Normandy. Of course, the daredevil New Zealanders never fought in Normandy, as they were committed to the Italian campaign. Now, it is perfectly acceptable for Hassel to take these liberties with the facts because he is writing works of fiction, and to my knowledge he has never claimed otherwise. I really don't understand all this "controversy" about his books not being true.

The "controversy" is the claims often seen in the blurb of his books that he was himself a veteran of the Eastern Front, when in fact it is quite clear from Danish police records that he spent the war in Denmark (among other things in jail for bike theft and wearing a fake German uniform pretending to be SS soldier), and that he never joined the Waffen-SS, but was briefly a member of the HIPO-corps in Copenhagen during the end of the war. The claim is that his front line service gave inspiration to a lot of events in the books, and that of course cannot be true if he never saw a front line. --Saddhiyama (talk) 11:50, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I removed this fragment from the critics section:

"All of this information is published on his personal website, which is also full of lurid racist right-winger cartoons which seem to have been drawn by the illustrators of Julius Streicher's Der Sturmer."

That is incorrect - the information about Haaest's father is not on his website. Nore is it "full" of racist right-winger cartoons. Johan77 19:02, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

I find Sven Hassel's books fascinating in their open portrayal of war's hypocracies, horrors and blatant stupidity. I think this generation and those yet to come should read and learn!

I removed the reference to "Caucasian fever," which doesn't appear to be a real illness. | Keithlaw 15:48, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Anyone else think this is sufficiently wikified to remove the wikify tag? Avocado 15:22, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)

I do. --Ben davison 22:34, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Minor changes

Added Italy, Greece and the Balkans to the war theater described in the books. Also some minor spelling changes in the original book titles.

Legion Of The Damned vs later books

I only got to read Legion of the Damned (LotD) after reading several of Hassel's later books, and came away with the impression that later books were expanded and fictionalized by comparison, and written as "genre" novels. LotD, by comparison, covered the whole of Hassel's (reported) military career, ending with his commission as a lieutenant, and seemed to have more of an autobiographical "ring of truth" about it.

I don't have any of his books to hand at the moment, to make a new comparison, but I thought I should ask about it since the article makes no distinction between LotD and the later books. Does anyone else feel the same way? -- Stereoroid 03:00, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Legion of the Dammed was by far his best work. Certainly it created a lot more empathy for its central character. Reading some of the other works I actually found myself hating most of its characters. Piercetp 05:58, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

---

If you have ever read "All Quiet on the Western Front" and "Legion of the Damned", then you will note that LotD is basically a re-hash of "All Quiet on the Western Front", even down to the oldest member of the unit being killed by artillery fire whilst out on a walk in the country.

Furthermore the style of 'Legion of the Damned' is totally different to the other books.

JRE 25 July 2007

Who is telling the truth?

The opening paragraph states "Sven Hassel (born April 19, 1917) is a Danish-born soldier and writer who has written pseudo-autobiographical novels based on his experiences in World War II." According to his own biography at http://www.svenhassel.net/ he states that

and the following year, due to the great unemplyment in Denmark, he joined the German army as a volunteer. Initially he served in the 2nd Cavalry Regiment and furthermore in the 11th and 27th "Panzerregiment". He fought in all the frontlines except in the North of Africa. Consequentialy Sven was wounded eight times. From 1945 to 1949 he was POW and was subject to Russian, American, French and Danish prisoner camps.

But according to Eric Haaest (http://home.tiscali.dk/haaest/Hassel-Hazel/Texts/English/00table.htm) this is all not true. It seems that the article here tends to take the latter's point of view. Maybe this article should take on a more neutral tone. Just a thought. Piercetp 06:54, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Does it matter who is in fact telling the truth? It is fairly obvious that the books are fiction.. For instance Julius Heide is portrayed as some sort of weakling in some books (Sorry I can remember exactly which ones) and then as a super soldier in others. The books are also full of weird stuff. For instance I remember reading that Porta wanted to photocopy a pornographic picture so that he could sell it. Where they even invented in WWII? But the point im trying to make is that they should just be taken as good books. I dont thinks Svens history is of great importance although I do tend to naturally lean towards rejecting some of the claims that have been made against him because I am a fan. - Antony

• I generally agree with what you say, and think it's not as bad as you say. e.g. "photocopy" used to mean to copy photographically i.e. using a camera, not necessarily using a photocopying machine! Also, I read Heide as a character who bought in to the Nazi ideology hook, line and sinker, bending his personality out of shape. Capable of being a super-soldier, but with human weaknesses that appeared at odd times. Something of a "tin soldier" whom the others could wind up and send in to battle for them! Stereoroid 22:40, 4 November 2006 (UTC).

• I have to say i find it a bit disappointing that more effort seems to have been made inputting the "critics" section of the entry than to the actual books and the author - the article seems to be very anti Hassel now rather than a neutral summing up of his works. Wether true or not the books should be described here for their writing content / stories and not historical facts - after all they are designed to be one mans view of the war and not an overview of what happened across the entire campaigns or areas (wether or not they are an auto biography etc is irrelevent).SiHudson 00:12, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

German

Were his books ever published in German? Bastie 18:29, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Answer: I've just translated the fourth one, Frontkameraden, and am working with Sven's son Michael to translate the rest of them. Shall edit the German pages. The anke (talk) 15:43, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

ISBNs

How about some ISBNs?

Die Galgenvögel. Roman. (Broschiert)

Verlag: Goldmann Wilhelm GmbH (1987)

ISBN-10: 3442088771

ISBN-13: 978-3442088775

amazon.de Radu er (talk) 16:41, 18 February 2008 (UTC) who really gives a toss? there great books true or not, every ones treating sven like a fraud, the guy went through a lot as did many, but many didnt come through —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.129.111.4 (talk) 18:26, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Significance?

From the current article:

"It is significant that some Hassel fans believe Eric Haaest's version of who Sven Hassel really is, while continuing to enjoy Hassel's books."

What is so significant about that? There are probably other fans who like the books and don't care either way about the author. If your saying something is significant then you really should say why its significant.

I agree. For many readers it doesn't matter if the author states "I did all that" and is lying (as Karl May) or "Of course I didn't do that" (as Asimov). What matters is the fun the reader's getting. Radu er (talk) 16:45, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Original research

I have copied this section from the talk page of User:Ferranrivas since it is relevant to the discussion regarding the recent edits to the article (the first paragraph is written by that user):

I make specific changes to my clients. Currently made ​​changes to the family of the writer Sven Hassel. Specifically, the request comes from her son and granddaughter, which I have indicated the changes to give more accuracy to Sven Hassel biographical text. If necessary we can provide the necessary accreditations to require anyone who wants them, but the text and links we mention the author's website and other websites have posted news about the author. I can prove my sources and I do reference to the websites where the same text is already published. What else you need to prove the veracity of my sources?

Svendhassel.net is the homepage of the author, and thus a WP:primary source regarding his biography. A primary source can only be used to source the opinion of the author of that source, that is, their claim that it happened in that way. So anything sourced with that should be worded "Hassel claimed", "According to Hassel himself" etc, since it is not verifiable facts but opinions. Regarding the name missing from the Bovrup Registry, that is original research, since there can be a number of reasons why he doesn't appear in that list (it isn't an infallible document), so you would need a secondary reliable source (most likely that of an historian) that makes the claim that that fact would ivariable mean he never was a member of the party. Otherwise I could just as easily produce the court documents in the various criminal cases against Hassel the occurred during the war, proving that he spent most of his time in Denmark during those 5 years. But I can't according to policy, since that would also be WP:OR. I hope I have made the Wikipedia policies a bit clearer to you, they can be somewhat daunting. --Saddhiyama (talk) 09:42, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Upon reading your reply it seems that you are perhaps also in breach of the Wikipedia policies regarding conflict of interest, since you state that you edit on behalf of the family. You would perhaps be better off advising the relatives of Hassel to contact an author or historian, and get them to write a book on the subject using those accreditives you mention. That would (likely) be considered a reliable source in Wikipedia, but we can't engage in "correcting history" here ourselves. --Saddhiyama (talk) 09:46, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

As someone who recently celebrated their 60th birthday, and served in the British Army, where these novels were passed around like pornographic magazines. Let me assure you that not a word of it was ever believed as being the truth. Sven Hassel remains for many a soldier of my age, a damned good read, inasmuch as that, 'they', that platoon, could have served alongside all of us. We moaned about the same things, we hated the idiots of officers known as Ruperts, (much as the Prussian officer class had a similar sounding name), the crazy plans and even considered 'fragging' (American expression from Viet Nam, where you lob a fragmentation grenade, at an another, to get rid of them)some of the useless arses or upper ranks. Before you ask me to cite sources, just get hold of a copy of any of the books and note, not a one of them is categorised as biography nor autobiography but novels. Therefore, I suggest that you treat it, as it was written, a work of pure fiction, that has resonance with every soldier, desperate to find an escape from the boring part of the 'stand down'. To be honest, it's as if some believe that Ivan Denisovich Shukhov actually lived outside of the pages of One Day in the Life.. and seek to critique that great work for inaccuracies. If these books deserve any criticism, it's because of the minutiae of the equipment and not for the 'facts'. Hint, the 'Old Man' claims to have fought in the same battles as Hitler, but is still serving(?), before the last desperate act of calling up the Volkssturm and he considers giving 'this all up and joining a proper regiment', more suiting his age and not 'spend his time wet nursing kinder like Porta). He claims to be a year older than Hitler(dob 20 April 1889). In closing, let me say that I have enjoyed your talk about these books, even if it is patently apparent that many have not read all of them. I have. Served with Sven, in each page of those books, and am proud to call him, my brother in arms. As we said, Who cares who wins... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Woolywords (talk • contribs) 23:24, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Phone and Address Records

What's the deal with the long list of phone and address records? Who is interested in this? I'm tempted to delete most of that stuff. Marchino61 (talk) 06:11, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree. I removed the phone records yesterday, but they've been restored as evidence that he was lying about his whole life. I don't see that they prove that, or anything else of interest. I think they should come out.--Fahrenheit666 (talk) 02:20, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

The phone and address records most certainly prove that he lied about actually being 'Sven Hazel', i.e. that his claim that his authorship (which largely defined his post-WW2 life) as self-experienced is fraudulent. So when addressing the existing request to rewrite the article into prose, be careful not to remove this evidence. Thanks. Lklundin (talk) 08:41, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

They prove where he had a phone, and that's ALL they prove. If you can't come up with a more relevant reason for keeping this I'm going to delete it again.--Fahrenheit666 (talk) 22:59, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

No, the records do not (just) show that he and his wife had two phones and where they lived and what property he bought in Denmark. Rather, they show that over the years he used different names and titles, including Lieutenant Colonel, a high ranking officer which is notable. As such I have reinstated the information. Lklundin (talk)

@Marchino61, Fahrenheit666, and Lklundin: And I will remove them, as wp:Original Research. Presenting "evidence" - the phone records and property listings - and then drawing a "conclusion" from that - that Pedersen/Hassel lied - is not our job to do, that is original research. Also the sources are primary, phone and property listings, they only show that someone using this or that name had a phone number and an address, they do not prove that such person is the subject of this article. Are there any reliable sources using that data to present that conclusion? If so, great, but please present those sources. - Nabla (talk) 00:40, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

@Nabla: Per WP:BRD I am reinstating the removed material. Sven Hassel was denounced as a fraud more than 50 years ago by the journalist George Kringelbach. Numerous secondary sources repeat this - and in doing so, make it clear that there is only one Sven Hassel authorship and only one person, Børge Willy Redsted Pedersen. In the article no Wikipedian is drawing any conclusions regarding the claims of Kringelbach or otherwise. Further, while the contested material can be interpreted as "evidence" of fraud, it is not being represented as such. There is in other words no violation of WP:SYNTH. Lastly, per the numerous secondary sources regarding Hassel/Pedersen, apart from the matching names (and professions etc) there is no additional need to determine that the primary sources regarding the named persons do in fact refer to the subject of the article. Please keep these points in mind for any subsequent changes to the article. Thanks. Lklundin (talk) 21:40, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

@Lklundin: If the long list of phone numbers is not used to prove a point, then what is it for? - Nabla (talk) 00:10, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

@Nabla: The cited phone records are available for Copenhagen from when the first phones were installed there in the late 1800's and until the mid 1960's. They provide a range of notable biographical information that for some is not available via a secondary source: The title(s) the user chooses to use to describe themselves, when they first registered a phone, their address and how they change address over the years, if they have a summer residence with a phone, if a spouse is also registered as a user and if they choose to delist their phone number (and possibly more). I have cited such records for a number of biographies on Danes (that happen to have some connection to World War II, deadly in most cases), e.g. Christian Frederik von Schalburg, Georg Quistgaard, Emil Balslev, Søren Kam. While no explicit conclusion is drawn from the cited sources, they do help to form the biography of the person and the reader may very well draw their own conclusions from the provided information, as they may when reading any page on Wikipedia. I hope that helps. Lklundin (talk) 16:20, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

@Lklundin: Thank you, but I have even more doubts if this should be included as is. It is primary data, and we usually don't go out collecting data - even on public record - to compose biographies. I do not think we'll get to agree on this, so I will probably create a RfC about this, or something like that, later on (weekdays are not good, so on the weekend, most likely). If you could take some time until then to help create a statement - or to convince me why not to - it would be appreciated. Something like "should we use public phone book data to show information about this person"? - Nabla (talk) 20:16, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

@Nabla: OK. I think the scope of just public phone book records is a bit too narrow for your idea for an RfC. Over the years I have added material to a significant number of biographies citing not only phone book records, but about two dozen different kinds of primary sources. The different types of sources are listed here (where the last handful of entries can be ignored in the current context): User:Lklundin/Source_Citation. I am aware of these sources because outside of Wikipedia they are commonly used for Scandinavian genealogy. Per WP:PRIMARY I am taking care not to interpret the cited material, and instead use the sources "to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge". To the best of my knowledge I only cite these sources for biographies of deceased persons. Other Wikipedians generally have no problem with my above use of primary sources, occasionally I get an approving nod, e.g. User_talk:Lklundin#Nicholas_Winton. In fact, a large number of the biographies where I cite these sources were created by myself and underwent new page patrolling (until I became autopatrolled), without incident. (The biographies I created are typically of Danish WWII resistance members, most of whom died during the war). Other such biographies are deemed vital to Wikipedia, such as that of Niels Bohr (that one cites an above primary source other than the phone book). Apart from Hassel/Pedersen, biographies of other controversial persons where I have used these sources are: Peter Adler Alberti and Estvan Svend Aage Wehlast (the latter created by myself using almost entirely primary sources), perhaps you also wish to review these. To me, the guidelines at WP:PRIMARY seem pretty clear and uncontroversial, but if you feel that additional clarification is needed, then I think you should go ahead with the RfC - and I remain available for any additional discussion of my use of primary sources. Lklundin (talk) 16:55, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

@Fahrenheit666: I have undone your removal of sourced, notable and on-topic material, such as Hassel's/Pedersen's description of himself as a Lieutenant Colonel. Please read and address the above comments from myself and Nabla before suggesting further changes. Thank you. Lklundin (talk) 20:53, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

It is not notable. Please stop pushing this weird argument. Phone records are not notable.--Fahrenheit666 (talk) 23:10, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Since there are few reliable sources into the life of this person and especially since his own statements can either not be verified or are known to be incorrect (contrary to his own claim, he was never a Soviet POW, rather he was serving a prison sentence in his home country for treason), it is essential to quote those reliable sources that are actually available. The old phone books from Kjøbenhavns Telefon Aktieselskab, available online, are a perfectly reliable and verifiable set of sources, that provide notable biographical information and which are cited in a number of Wikipedia biographies. You have also removed information about his real-estate purchases and sales, again notable and on topic information, including the information that the emigrated to Spain. I rather resent your misguided use of our 'lack of consensus' policy, which in a deletion discussion means that the content per default is to be kept, not to be removed like you did. Please try to contribute in a more constructive manner. Thank you. Lklundin (talk) 07:04, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Spelling fix

@Lklundin: I saw that the page title had the misspelling "Offical", but since the display text had the correct spelling, "Welcome to the Official Sven Hassel Site." as a title, it would be ok to use that. Do you disagree?  SchreiberBike | ⌨  23:42, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Template:Cite_web#Title says "Title of source page on website". For some web-pages it is ambiguous which displayed text is supposed to be read as the title, so I usually go by the HTML <title> text (which a browser like Firefox renders on the tab + window frame). I guess in this case it can be said that the actual title text was supposed to be equal to the displayed text. If we choose to go with the displayed text, then we should update the comment that the misspelled HTML title is not shown due to the displayed text, to prevent future confusion. Maybe we wait a couple of days to see if others have an opinion. Lklundin (talk) 06:36, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

RfC on the use of primary sources

Should this article use not only phone book records, but several different kinds of primary sources, as it does? Please take a look at the discussions above, at the sections "Original research" and "Phone and Address Records". - Nabla (talk) 02:39, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Pinging everyone editing here in the last 50 edits, with at least an edit in the last year: @2fort5r, Christian75, Fahrenheit666, Lklundin, Marchino61, Racklever, Saddhiyama, SchreiberBike, and The anke: If I missed anyone, I am sorry and ask that you please fix it or warn me. - Nabla (talk) 02:41, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

I know the above question may be too broad, I am not used to this... So if we end up changing it soon, or closing the RfC with a way to ask it better, I would appreciate it too. - Nabla (talk) 02:45, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

• Comment – Since this page is a biography, the question needs to either be asked and discussed for all biographies, or it has be be argued that this particular page needs special treatment. Lklundin (talk) 08:41, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
• No This is an encyclopedia. It is not a platform for weird personal vendettas and extracts from the phone book.--Fahrenheit666 (talk) 17:40, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Comment – I feel compelled to respond to what I consider a personal attack against me and my contributions. As such I would like to point out that for Wikipedia I have created dozens of historical, personal biographies and contributed to many more, in a fashion similar to this page and that 'the phone book' is a historical collection of the national postal museum of Denmark, who has seen fit to digitalize their archive expressly for the purpose of facilitating public access to it, to the benefit of for example Wikipedia. Lklundin (talk) 09:23, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

• Comment - Primary documents such as phone books, government records, etc., are legitimate sources to confirm facts, as long as they are published or official. However, these type of documents only show that an event happened or that a piece of information is likely true. Because they are created routinely, they don't indicate that the information is important and should be in an encyclopedia. The parts of the article about his personal life read more like a well-researched genealogy project than an encyclopedia article, and some of the detail supported by the primary sources is just excessive in this context. This man is known for his books about WWII - why would we need to know who the best man was at his wedding, or how many stories were in his apartment building, or what size the lot under his house was, or what year his brothers joined the army, or whether and how many telephones he had? If the article is trimmed of all of this material, some of the primary sources which don't relate to his career could be eliminated. Unlike a genealogical timeline (which attempts to trace a person's life in as much detail as possible, backed up with primary sources if possible), an encyclopedia article is supposed to be a summary of information about a subject that has been considered important enough to be written about in published books, magazines, newspapers, and other documents created by authors and journalists who are not friends and relatives. On a side note - the quotes in the article should be removed unless they can be attributed to such a source - otherwise they are "original research"—Anne Delong (talk) 06:11, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
• Comment - The typical reader goes to our biographical articles for an answer to a question like: "Who is this named person?" In this case, already the answer to the question regarding the name is non-trivial. This person has no less than four relevant names, his pen name (Sven Hassel), his pen name in Denmark - Sven Hazel - (and why does he even use two different pen names?), his birth name, and the name he took (after he was outed as a convicted traitor). Many secondary sources use only his pen name, others do not get his actual name right. So just the name he goes by is notable, if not essential to his biography. He is known for his books set in Word War II and for this sensational claims of personal experiences during that war. As such, any information that reliable sources can provide related to his military service are highly relevant. In providing such information, I have taken our policy on primary sources quite literally and thus quoted their information basically in their entirety. I.e. not only did he in 1953 refer to himself as a Lieutenant Colonel, but that he did so while registering his phone. It would be desirable if we could reach a consensus for what information should be deleted from the article. As such, I would find it acceptable if we, from these primary sources, kept only the strictly notable parts, e.g. not under which circumstances he used a certain name and profession, but just when he did so. As for his addresses and real estate dealings, I find it notable to see his progression from a flat in a poorer working-class neighborhood to his purchase of a house on a large lot in an upper-class neighborhood (and then a second house). But again, in the interest of consensus, I would not insist that we keep this information. If someone can formulate a more compact version of his transition, residential and real-estate wise within our primary source policy, then I think that would be ideal. As for his brother being his best man, this is also notable: Some WW2 traitors had their connections with their families severed, so the fact that his brother was his best man 18 months after his release from prison is notable. Also related to his two brothers and his claim of being a highly ranking officer, I find it essential to provide any reliable information on his actual military dealings, including the fact that unlike his two brothers there is no record of him being even evaluated for military fitness (in Denmark). This may in some sense support his frankly extraordinary claim that he became a naturalized German citizen prior to the war (where he could thus serve in the regular army as opposed to the SS where any foreigner would serve), a claim for which we have only his own word. To return to his real-estate dealings, it is also notable that when he relocates to Spain he and his wife sell their two houses in Denmark, giving the move a more permanent character. So to sum up, for the actual formulations and the admittedly large amount of details, I would like to try and reach a consensus, where we stay within our policies, using broader descriptions and fewer details, maintaining his unusual use of many different names and professions, especially with regard to his relation (or lack thereof) to any military entity. Lklundin (talk) 12:34, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

  I think that is all quite fine. I think you most likely could write a book - even a set of them - with a set of biographies as the ones you have been working on in here. I think everything you say above is quite interesting to have in those detailed biographies. I really think you should try to write them, with even more detail and get them published. You would probably do a good service to history (of the WWII, of Denmark). I just think that this is not the place for that. I think @Anne Delong: explained it quite well, so I will not add anymore here. - Nabla (talk) 23:32, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

• Yes Just for the record I will state explicitly that I oppose the blanket disqualification of primary sources that fulfill our general requirements at WP:PRIMARY. Lklundin (talk) 15:12, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
• Comment I agree with Anne Delong, the trivia of when and where he took out phones is not - and cannot - be given any significance and is simply left 'floating' as an uninterpreted and uninterpretable raw data. We might as well be recording the colour of his curtains. Possibly it is seeking to imply significance, in which case it is being used inaptly. Pincrete (talk) 20:23, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Sven Hassel. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141224025129/http://jyllands-posten.dk/kultur/litteratur/ECE4849096/kuloert-dansk-krigsforfatter-er-doed/ to http://jyllands-posten.dk/kultur/litteratur/ECE4849096/kuloert-dansk-krigsforfatter-er-doed/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.svenhassel.net/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.svenhassel.net/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.svenhassel.net/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120716224703/http://home.tiscali.dk/haaest/Hassel-Hazel/Texts/English/00table.htm to http://home.tiscali.dk/haaest/Hassel-Hazel/Texts/English/00table.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.svenhazel.com/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.svenhazel.com/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:59, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Sven Hassel. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20170925180602/http://www.litteratursiden.dk/blogs/ruben-palma/20121021 to http://www.litteratursiden.dk/blogs/ruben-palma/20121021

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:19, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Original research

I have briefly skimmed discussions/RfCs below but it really is simple: read WP:PRIMARY, WP:OR and, inter alia, WP:SYNTH. I don't care how good some Wikipedia contributor might consider themselves to be as a genealogist, we simply don't rely on parish registers, census records, phone books etc. Feel free to write a biography, get it published by a mainstream, reliable publisher & then hope that someone else picks up that book and uses it to improve this article as a valid secondary source. Until you do that, please stop adding your research here. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 23:29, 12 February 2023 (UTC)