This is an evidence page needed for an ongoing dispute resolution process regarding OberRanks, and as such legitimate under WP:UP.
OberRanks (talk·contribs) (formerly Husnock (talk·contribs)) has constantly, over all the years of his activity on Wikipedia, added material with fake references and sourcing claims. This applies both to the referencing of article content and to authorship and copyright claims for images. Of all the offline sources added by OberRanks that I have been able to check, not a single one could be confirmed as correct. Some sources simply do not exist at all; the others do not contain the information they were supposed to support. Many of them are entirely off-topic.
The following is a list of cases that I have so far been able to check. It focusses mainly on articles originally created by OberRanks [5] and on images currently uploaded under his name [6][7]. Unless otherwise specified, descriptions refer to the latest state of the article as edited by OberRanks, before any substantial additions or corrections by other editors. The cases mostly span the time between 2011 and June 2018, with most of the image uploads from 2016 and 2017.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Footnote: Cohen, Richard "Dispelling the myth of Robert E. Lee", Washington Post, Opinion Section (25 Apr 2011). (Source now available online: [8])
Used for the claim that Robert E. Lee was a chief proponent that the capture of Washington D.C. was critical to the southern war effort and drew up several possible attack strategies to take the city. A key first step in all of Lee's plans was to neutralize all Union armies protecting the capitol prior to attack. As Lee never achieved this aim, the Confederate Army was never able to launch a direct full scale assault on Washington itself.
Nothing even remotely similar to this is contained in the article cited (which is an unreliable opinion piece anyway).
N Complete fabrication.
Footnote: Kanor [sic], M. "If The South Had Won The Civil War", Forge Books (November 3, 2001)
Used for the claim that a hypothetical battle of Washington is discussed in academia, analyzed by military theorists and historians.
MacKinlay Kantor was neither part of academia, nor a military theorist or historian, and the work cited is not an academic treatment but a novel. Thus, the cite qualifies not even as a primary-source exemplification of the claim as stated, let alone as a reliable secondary source for it.
N Completely off-topic.
Footnote: Davis, William "Battle at Bull Run: A History of the First Major Campaign of the Civil War", pgs 98-103, LSU Press (Apr 1981)
Used for the claim that Following the Battle of First Manassas, the defeated Union forces, retreating in a rout towards Washington, caused the American government to fear that the Confederates would move on the capitol itself. Forces were mobilized and reserve troops brought in by order of Abraham Lincoln to protect the capitol, which feared an all out battle should the Confederates move east from Manassas, Virginia.
There is an account of the defeat and retreat to Washington, but it's somewhere else in the book. There is nothing at all, either in that chapter or in the pages indicated by OberRanks, about any strategic fears of an attack on Washington.
N Complete fabrication.
Footnote: Griffith, Paddy. "Battle Tactics of the Civil War", Crowood Press (Sep 18, 2014)
Used for the claim that the capture of Washington D.C. was essential to bring victory to the south. Southern leaders knew that such major northern cities as New York City, Philadelphia, and nearly the entirety of New England, were out of reach of Confederate forces, thus invasion of these areas was considered impractical.
No pages given for citation. Google excerpt search on this book shows no hits anywhere for either “Philadelphia” nor “New England” nor any other keywords likely to be related to this content.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Article is still largely uncited. In this version [9] (since slightly cleaned up), there were two items that had footnotes:
Busch, R. & Röll, H.J. Deutsche U-Boot-Verluste von September 1939 bis Mai 1945, Der U-Boot-Krieg, Hamburg, Berlin, Bonn: Mittler (1999)
Used to support the claim that Radermacher was in command of a certain U-boat when it sank through a technical accident, and that he had to face an investigation afterwards.
Cited source confirms the accident (though not its technical details), but names a different officer as the commander, making no mention of Radermacher.
N Clear fabrication.
On being challenged, OR claimed (or "admitted"? He seemed to think it was a valid excuse) [10] that he had cited the source second-hand without checking it, based on an alleged reference paper from Virginia Tech that had quoted it. He failed to provide any details about that "reference paper" or any evidence that it contained the content in question.
Thus, another * likely fabrication.
Footnote: "Records of pensions of Kriegsmarine officers", Volume 36, p. 574, Ministry of Labor and Social Affairs.
Used to support claims about subject’s place and date of death.
No evidence that any publication of that kind or under that title even exists. Are these supposed to be unpublished archival records? If so, there's still no evidence of their existence. What archive holds them now? Under what call number? Did OberRanks cite them second hand? If yes, why didn't he cite his direct source? Does he want us to believe that he went to all the trouble of locating those documents in a foreign archive all by himself? Has he still not learned after this many years that doing so would be "original research" anyway?
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
No inline citations. Entire article ostensibly sourced to single entry in reference list:
Hough, Richard, Captain Bligh and Mr Christian: The Men and the Mutiny, Hutchinsons, London (1972)
The book contains absolutely nothing at all about the Falcon, or about Bligh's command of it (beyond a vague statement that sometime in 1790 he was briefly promoted to "Commander").
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Footnote: Lang, J., Top Nazi SS General Karl Wolff: The Man Between Hitler and Himmler, Enigma Books, New York, NY (June 2005)[1]
Originally inserted at the main Karl Wolff article [11], later factored out here.
Used for the claim that The earliest official photographs of Wolff are from this time [i.e. 1933/34], where he is seen wearing a black SS uniform, walking beside Himmler, in the winter of 1933. An earlier private photograph, which has since been presumed lost or destroyed, was taken in early 1933 reportedly showing Wolff wearing an early pattern brown storm trooper style SS shirt as a Sturmhauptführer. The photograph was taken by a family member as documentation for a legal dispute in which Wolff, on his way to a parade commemorating Hitler's assumption to the office of Chancellor, had punched a store owner in the face over a dispute regarding alterations to Wolff's uniform
No page number. This is a particularly bizarre citation failure. Not only is none of the photos in question mentioned anywhere in the book (let alone the anecdote with the store owner, or the utterly trivial details about what shirt Wolff wore). The book actually also contradicts the claim that the earliest known photos are from around 1933, as it prominently features several others that are considerably earlier. And boy, aren't those nice photos, with uniform details and rank insignia beautifully visible. That's a pretty conclusive piece of evidence that OberRanks never set eyes on this book – the pictures that it does include would have been so interesting to him, given his fixation on uniform trivia, there's no way he would have failed to use them. Clearly, he has never touched the book he cited and has not the slightest clue about what's in it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Article largely uncited. Among the few passages that have inline citations in OberRanks' original version [12]:
Footnote: Arnold, Josh M., Diplomacy Far Removed: A Reinterpretation of the U.S. Decision to Open Diplomatic Relations with Japan, University of Arizona (2005)
Used for the claim that Flotillas were common in the 19th century American Navy but had largely disappeared by the early 1900s in favor of surface units known as "squadrons". One of the more famous flotillas was under the command of Matthew C. Perry who conducted several gunboat diplomacy visits to the Japanese islands in the late 1800s
No page numbers. Source contains material about Matthew C Perry’s activities in Japan, but nothing at all about the military details such as the status or command structure of his force, no mention of the concepts of "flotillas" or "squadrons", let alone anything about the overall role of such units across time; thus, nothing even remotely relevant to the contents of this article. (Besides, Perry's mission was in the 1850s, which is hardly the “late” 1800s).
Walled garden of four articles on otherwise non-notable SS formations and an SS officer, all of them marginally connected to the 1944 Ardeatine massacre in Rome. All four articles (in their original versions by OberRanks) lacked inline citations and only had the same single entry in their reference lists:
Scarlet Pimpernel of the Vatican, Gallagher, J. (1969).
This book is a (non-academic, semi-fictionalized) biography of a person who also played a role in events in occupied Rome in 1944 – beyond that, he had no connection to any of the topics of the four articles listed here. There is not a single mention of any of them in the book.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Footnote: Scarlet Pimpernel of the Vatican, Gallagher, J. (1969). The same book also abused for the four articles above, added here as an inline citation [13]:
Used for the claim that some sources state Kappler knew Heydrich for some time before [i.e. before 1936/37].
No page numbers. According to Google search, no mention of Heydrich in the entire book.
N Complete fabrication. Fut.Perf.☼ 11:39, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
I further removed the material previously restored by O.R. here: [14]. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:50, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
Also removed the material added by O.R. in 2009, as discussed on the article's Talk page here: Material added by OberRanks. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:41, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Footnote: Haslam, Jonathan, Russia's Cold War: From the October Revolution to the Fall of the Wall (2011), Yale University Press[15]
Used for the claim that The unorganized militia has never been activated in the history of the United States, and by law this would only be done in the event of an extreme national emergency, such as a mainland invasion of the United States
No page numbers. According to Google search, there seems to be no mention of a mainland invasion of the US in this book, and certainly nothing at all about "unorganized militias" or the laws regulating them.
N Complete fabrication.
Footnote: Speer, Albert, "Inside the Third Reich", Macmillan (New York and Toronto), 1970 (cf. also other citations to this book in this list.)
Used for the claim that German military and economic leaders had far more realistic views [i.e. about the US, than Hitler's], with some such as Albert Speer recognizing the enormous productive capacity of America's factories as well as the rich food supplies which could be harvested from the American heartland.
Speer's autobiography does contain some expressions of respect towards American capabilities, but I can't find anything closely corresponding to this statement, i.e. encompassing both industrial and agricultural capacities, and their significance for the war effort. Besides, the book is a primary source of dubious veracity, and even if it was taken at face value, it would be a source only for Speer personally, not for other "German military and economic leaders" like him.
Footnote: Crowe, David, Oskar Schindler: The Untold Account of His Life, Wartime Activities, and the True Story Behind the List, Westview Press (2004)
Used for the claim that Between November 1944 and January 1945, the Brünnlitz labor camp was visited several times by former Plaszow commander Amon Göth, who considered himself a friend to Schindler. The inmates at Brünnlitz, who had suffered harshly under Göth, remarked that he was a physically changed man and looked feeble and pathetic compared to his early tenure when he was a figure who commanded absolute fear and terror.
No page numbers. Source mentions only a single visit, “in the spring of 1945”, and says nothing about “feeble and pathetic” (although it does say he looked “thin” and not “quite as threatening”
* Seriously distorted citation, though not completely baseless.
Footnote: Haslop, Dennis, Britain, Germany and the Battle of the Atlantic: A Comparative Study, A&C Black (2013)
Used to support the claim that Siemens was a senior captain upon the outbreak of World War II and was promoted to flag rank in January 1940. A year later, he was selected to serve under Günther Lütjens as deputy fleet commander of the German Navy. The position did not entail at-sea command, but was an administrative posting overseeing the type commanders within the organization of the Kriegsmarine. After Lütjens was killed in the Battle of the Denmark Strait, Siemens continued his post briefly under Otto Schniewind before the position was disbanded in June 1941
No page numbers. There is no mention of Siemens in the entire book, and only a single mention of Günther Lütjens, in a chart stating what position he held in 1938. No mention of the battle of Denmark Strait either.
N Complete fabrication.
Footnote: "Records of pensions of Kriegsmarine officers", Volume 39, Pg 422, Ministry of Labor and Social Affairs
Used to support claims about subject’s place and date of death.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Originally had no references except a link to some page on the website of the US National Park Service that had gone dead [16] Not clear if it's the same page, but OberRanks later re-inserted another link to the same site [17]. OberRanks added several alleged references to the page while it was at AfD, in order to fend off its deletion.
That link says a few things about Emergency War Orders, but is very far from covering even the main definitorial statements of the article as it original stood.
* Apparent fabrication.
The new link is now claimed to support the statement that The United States Air Force and the Navy maintain set EWO procedures for nuclear-bomber, ICBM, and SSBN forces, mainly regarding the release of nuclear weapons onto enemy targets in accordance with OPLAN 8010, formerly the SIOP
N Not in the source. Complete fabrication.
Footnote: Prescott, Deric, "General Orders Maintain Good Order in AOR", 379th Air Expeditionary Wing, Office of Military Justice [available online: [18] ]
Used for the claim that For peace-keeping operations and non-wartime campaigns (such as Operation Enduring Freedom), EWO does not technically apply, although similar General Orders exist to deal with both routine operations and combat conditions under fire, such as an EXORD or Execution Order.
Nothing at all in the source about the non-applicability of "EWO"s, nothing about "General Orders" being similar to "EWO"s or dealing with "both routine operations and combat conditions under fire"; no mention of "an EXORD or Execution Order". The article cited deals only with low-level disciplinary rules such as "no pornography" or "no importation of alcohol".
N Complete fabrication.
Footnote: Prochnau, Bill "From Gadget to Doomsday Capability", Washington Post (25 Apr 1982)[19]
Used for the claim that The concept of Emergency War Orders came about in the 1950s, during the Cold War, as part of the Emergency War Plans which the United States armed forces developed to combat a sneak attack by a foreign power, mainly the Soviet Union.
Nothing relevant to this statement in the article (which barely mentions "Emergency War Orders" in passing, twice.)
Footnote: Speer, Albert, Inside the Third Reich, Macmillan (New York and Toronto), 1970, ISBN 0297000152. Republished in paperback in 1997 by Simon & Schuster
Used for the claim that n April 1945, Magda Goebbels was presented with Hitler's Golden Party Badge and declared as "First Mother of the Reich". Under NSDAP law, Hitler's verbal decree had technically created a new grade to the Party Badge, although status as an officially recognized decoration was never recorded. This is formatted as a block quote, as if it was a literal quotation. (First added without a footnote on 7 March 2014 [20], then reinserted after being challenged on 23 February 2017, with an edit summary of very well known historical event actually[21]).
This is not only not a literal quotation from that book, but also not covered in it at all. The book would also have been a primary source of dubious reliability.
N Complete fabrication.
Also used for the claim that The Eagle of Sovereignty Pin was a special award of the Nazi Party which was intended to be held solely by Adolf Hitler. The pin was intended to denote Hitler's position as Führer of the Party and was worn as a lapel pin on a civilian jacket. The decoration was discontinued in 1934 after the Night of the Long Knives. Thereafter, Hitler regularly displayed the Golden Party Badge.
Speer's autobiography does claim at one point (in a footnote on p.31) that Hitler wore a special pin (the English translation calls it a "gold 'badge of sovereignty'"), but the passage contains nothing about Hitler's titles or about its later discontinuation.
N At least partially fabricated; also an extremely unreliable source.
Footnote: Speer, Albert, Inside the Third Reich, Macmillan (New York and Toronto), 1970, ISBN 0297000152. Republished in paperback in 1997 by Simon & Schuster
Used similarly for the claim that Hitler's main title within the Nazi party was simply that of Führer and there was never any special uniform designed for Hitler's position, although a rank pin for a civilian lapel (used by Hitler until 1934) was known as the "Eagle of Sovereignty Pin"
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Footnote: Speer, Albert, Inside the Third Reich, Simon & Schuster; Reissue edition (April 1, 1997)
Used similarly as above, for the claim that Magda Goebbels would later be awarded the ad hoc and unofficial title "First Mother of the Reich" when Adolf Hitler gave her his Golden Party Badge just prior to his suicide.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Same reference to the Speer autobiography as above
Used for the claim that In 1939 a middle version of Oberdienstleiter was created. Notable holders of this rank include Gerhard Klopfer, a participant of the Wannsee Conference, and Albert Speer (who was later promoted to Befehlsleiter). According to Speer's testimony at the Nuremberg Trials, the political rank of Hauptdienstleiter carried the same authority as a Major General in the German Wehrmacht.
No mention of either "Dienstleiter", "Oberdienstleiter" or "Hauptdienstleiter" in the entire book.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Article about a former SS man at Auschwitz who played a role as a witness of the prosecution at the Frankfurt Auschwitz trials. (The bizarre thing is that this one fact that makes him notable isn't even mentioned in the article; it's omitted in favour of the comparatively trivial fact that he appeared in a TV documentary. Apparently that TV documentary is the only source OberRanks has ever actually consulted about him.)
Footnote: Auschwitz: A Doctor's Eyewitness Account (Dr. Miklos Nyiszli)
Used for the claim that The main argument against Böch's [sic] claim is that SS security in the gassing compound was extremely tight, and not even SS members were allowed inside the special action perimeter unless they were involved in the killings
I haven't checked whether the book contains anything about access restrictions for SS members, but according to Google Search it certainly doesn't contain anything about that being an argument against Böck's account. Böck (or "Böch") isn't mentioned in the book. The conclusion about him seems to be a classic case of WP:OR abuse ("WP:SYNTH").
N At least partial fabrication, via WP:SYNTH, but quite likely also a total fabrication.
Footnote: SS Service Records Cabinets, U.S. National Archives, College Park (Maryland)
Used for the claim that Mainstream historians have often noted that it is highly unlikely Böch [sic] could have casually been brought to the gassing compound by a friend, and even less likely that he would have been allowed inside the gassing facility to personally witness the killing and disposal of the bodies. In addition, the name "Karl Herblinger" does not appear on either the SS rolls of Auschwitz personnel or in the National Archives microfilm index of captured SS records
Maybe the footnote is meant only to support the last of these sentences; the contentious material before it (about what "mainstream historians have often noted") is entirely unsourced. Footnote refers to (alleged) unpublished archival material, thus obvious WP:OR abuse. The argument is evidently OberRanks' alone and nobody else's.
N If it's not fabricated then at best it's still WP:OR.
Incidentally, the argument was also groundless since the name of the person involved ("Karl Herblinger") turned out to be misspelled. OberRanks later rewrote the passage on being informed of that error, but without any acknowledgement of fault on his part [23], attributing the misspelling to another source [24]. Crucial parts of the article still remain entirely unsourced. This is particularly harmful in the case of the claim about "mainstream historians" who allegedly cast doubt on Böck's witness account, because casting doubt on Böck is in fact a favourite activity of Holocaust deniers.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Footnote: Wagner, Bernd C., IG Auschwitz. Zwangsarbeit und Vernichtung von Häftlingen des Lagers Monowitz 1941–1945 (Munich: Saur, 2000), p. 176
Used for the claim that König joined the Allgemeine-SS in the mid to late 1930s, converting over to the Waffen-SS once World War II began. There are no records of König ever having served in combat, and the first significant mention of him in Nazi records occurred in September 1944 when he was assigned to Auschwitz. (Added in this edit: [25]).
There is a mention of König in the book (though it's on p. 187, not 176, which may be a typo.) However, it doesn't support any of the details of his career, except that he was in Auschwitz by October 1944.
Used for the claim that initially, König worked at the main camp hospital at Auschwitz I. Here, he was known for experimenting with electro-shock therapy on male cap inmates. He soon received an internal camp transfer, and was next assigned to the Birkenau camp where he became a medical liaison to Josef Mengele
Source link is dead. Searches in archived versions of the site [27] and present-day versions of the site under its new url [28] show nothing supporting this content. There's a mention of König here, but nothing corresponding to the details claimed in OberRanks' edit.
The following three cases of fabricated sources were previously detected and discussed on talk pages. They are listed here together with the rest for the sake of completeness.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
An odd little article that OberRanks first created, complete with fabricated sources, but which he has since tried very hard to delete again.
Footnote: McDermott, J. "Trump’s Brownshirts? Militia vows to 'protect' Donald Trump", Arizona Republic, 13 June 2016
Used for the claim that At its height, the group had a reported membership of just over five hundred, although boasted several hundred more followers on Facebook and Twitter.
As pointed out at the talkpage [29] and elsewhere [30], this newspaper article does not exist. It is completely made up.
N Complete fabrication.
There is, however, a similarly-titled blog post with similar content on an evidently unreliable website [31]. As somebody quite rightly said on talk, "It certainly looks like someone took this [...] and fudged the citation to make it look like it came from a reputable newspaper".
Confronted about this on talk, OberRanks engaged in a spectacular show of evasion, obfuscation and smokescreen argument [32]. He first claimed he worked from a list of sources that were forwarded to me by a contact at the Maryland Republic Party; when further pressed about the fact that this still couldn't explain how he could have written an article based on sources "that don't exist (and therefore there was no way for you to read)", he went on to claim that his helpful anonymous informants had even written a summary of these sources for him. Like on some other occasions, he displayed no sense of fault at having – by his own admission – cited sources he never read himself.
N A pretty transparent follow-up lie to cover up the first.
Footnote: Sheriff's Department Press Release, Cumberland County Government Record, Issue 4, Vol 23, Pgs 23-57 (16 Mar 2016)
Used for the claim that The Cumberland County Sheriff's Department issued a warning that the Lion Guard appeared to be a "far right extremist organization" and should be monitored closely.
Again, editors who tried to verify this claim found no evidence that such a press release ever existed.
Confronted about this on talk [33], OberRanks claimed that he had received this information third-hand: from his informants at the "Maryland Republican Party", apparently via an e-mail from the Cumberland County government, which in turn was apparently copied from the original release back in 2016. Strangely, that initial "press release" had apparently never been published and archived on the web, but had only been "e-mailed" directly to a number of recipients.
N Completely unrealistic explanation; almost certainly fabricated.
No inline citations in OberRanks' original version of the article [34]. Entire article ostensibly sourced to single entry in reference list:
Yerger, Mark C. Allgemeine-SS: The Commands, Units, and Leaders of the General SS, Schiffer Publishing (1997)
As pointed out on talkpage [35][36], there is apparently not a single mention of this specific regiment in the entire book
N Complete fabrication.
On being challenged about it, OberRanks reasserted the false claim that the contents in question were in the book, and tried to evade the criticism by implying that he had used a more recent edition than the one checked by the other editor. This was quickly dispelled as a falsehood, as (a) the edition checked was in fact exactly the one cited, and (b) a newer edition never existed [37].
N Thus, an unambiguous, deliberate follow-up lie to cover up the first.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Footnote: Patric, J., "To War in a Tin Can: A Memoir of World War II Aboard a Destroyer", McFarland & Company (2004)
Used for the claim that The exact origins of the mail buoy prank are unknown, but it is generally thought to have originated at least as early as World War II.
Book is a primary source that merely contains an individual sailor's report of having used the prank. There's nothing in it regarding its "origins" or what is "generally thought" about it, nor could the book possibly be a reliable source about it even if it did contain such a statement.
N Complete fabrication.
OberRanks' reaction when challenged is instructive: He simply acknowledged that the information was not in there and that he hadn't read the book before writing the article – as if that was the most normal thing in the world to do [38].
Footnote: McLean R., "The Bluejacket's Manual", Naval Institute Press (1905), pg 45 (added in this edit: [39])
Used for the claim that In the early 20th century, United States ships traveling on extended sea voyages had limited to access to regular mail, leading to a system where mail could be dropped off onboard buoys at the entrance to a channel or harbor. Mail would then either be collected or added to by vessels traveling to and from port, with such mail delivered to an established post office once the ship made port in a U.S. facility.
The history of OberRanks' statements about this on talk is instructive. At first he claimed that he "knew" there was some information in that book, but that he didn't have access to it at the moment [40]. He then reiterated that it must apparently be in there but the book sn't online anymore, and that he was going to ask a research library for a copy [41]. A few days later he claimed that he received a bit more information from that library [42]. This is when he inserted the footnote in the article. When further challenged about the source, he turned out to be unable to provide an exact quotation, showing that the library had evidently not sent him a copy, and he was – at best – relying on hearsay again.
I haven't been able to check the precise 1905 edition either, but from a comparison between its online ToC [43] with the corresponding pages in a slightly later eition (from 1916) [44] (p.478f.), it seems quite unlikely that it contained anything more than a summary list of standard navigation buoy types, almost certainly nothing approaching the detail claimed by OberRanks.[3]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Same claim as in File:HimmlersRibbon.jpg, contains the latter as a component, along with other photographic elements that are also undisclosed.
N Unambiguous copyright violation.
OberRanks explicitly claimed (during the FfD of another similar file, File:Hitler Decorations.jpg), that both images were created without photographic input, completely from the ground up by a graphics program I designed in Windows Paint specifically made to create and draw Nazi era decorations [...] made from scratch in a graphics program and is not a copy of a photograph or other such work.
N Another bald-faced cover-up lie (and very obviously a lie, for more than one reason).
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
See above for claims made at FfD. In this item the original photographic elements are so much scaled down and the graphics quality is so poor that they are difficult to identify, but it's still easy enough to see that they were originally photographic. OberRanks' denial of that point at the FfD was a blatant lie. Since we know for certain that the Himmler image was made from copyrighted photographs, and OberRanks has explicitly stated both files were created in the same manner, it's safe to conclude this one has the same problem.
N Another near-certain copyright violation (sources as yet unknown), plus the cover-up lie during the FFD.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Same kind of image as the ones above, same issues
One of the components is clearly a low-res copy of File:DeutschesKreuzinGold.jpg (same artefacts of lighting etc); other components from as yet unidentified photographic sources.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Same type of image as File:HimmlersRibbon.jpg above. Unlike in the latter case, this is not exactly pixel-by-pixel identical with its current corresponding photograph at http://themarshalsbaton.com/Ribbon%20bars.htm, but almost certainly taken from a near-identical photograph of the same physical object or one of the same series (the site is of a shop that produces such ribbon replicas for sale).
* Almost certainly a copyright violation, given the similarity with the cases above.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Claimed to be own work, but also published (in a larger uncropped form) on the official website of a university associated with the photograph's subject, which asserts exclusive copyright on it. [47].
No OTRS clearance. No indication on the source website that the image might be credited to an external photographer. No indication OberRanks has ever had any relation with that institution. University website unambiguously asserts exclusive copyright to all images hosted there.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Originally claimed to be taken on OberRanks' own camera on a specific day in 2002 and released under GFDL (first upload on en-wp), currently claimed to be the work of an "unknown employee of Department of Defence" under PD-USGov (re-upload on Commons).[4]
True source: [48], from a private photo blog website dedicated to St Louis architecture
OberRanks' claim is incompatible with the facts that:
Original file has exif data not from 2002 but from 2005, and from a camera type that didn't exist yet in 2002.
Image comes from a website that contains hundreds of other photos taken with the same camera, both of this building and of other St Louis landmarks (example: [49]). As they are all consistent in technical details, dates, style, quality and scope, they were certainly genuinely authored for this website.
The federal agency OberRanks alleges to be the author wouldn't have had any interest in creating photographs of the other buildings featured in that blog (rather than this one, in which it was once housed).
N Quite certainly a copyright violation.
This was one of the copyvio files I blocked OberRanks over in March, and the file was deleted per consensus at FFD. Even while blocked, and while petitioning for an unblock, OberRanks re-asserted his false authorship claim through a fraudulent OTRS ticket, causing unsuspecting OTRS agents and admins to undelete the image and transfer it to Commons.
In his comments after the block, he also tried to downplay the obvious identity with the picture on builtstlouis.net by claiming it was merely "similar", as if it was simply a different photo taken from the same location ([50]). That's another deliberate attempt at obfuscation; the obvious truth is that the pictures are not similar but exactly identical.
N Repeated, serious copyright violation abusing the OTRS system.
Images claimed to be from captured German documents
OberRanks has uploaded multiple images claimed to be from original WWII-era German documents that were later seized and transferred to the US National Archive. This has allowed him to pass them off as PD-USGov under a special US ruling for such captured items. However, for most of these items there isn't any proof that they really are from that collection. In a couple of cases the claim is demonstrably false (see the first three items below). In the few cases where OberRanks has bothered to provide an alleged precise archival identifier, it doesn't match publicly available catalog information about the records in question. In the rest of the cases, he has failed to provide any detailed archival information at all, beyond claiming they are from "Record Group 242" (which is millions of pages on more than 70,000 microfilm rolls), so these are effectively completely unverifiable. Evidence suggests that he never got any images from the National Archive at all but simply scraped them from random places on the Internet and added the attribution to the archive at a whim.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Claimed source: captured German document of the Second World War originally on file with U.S. War Department and transferred to the custody of the United States National Archives, Record Group 242 (Foreign Records Seized - Cartographic)
True source: from a copyrighted print publication: W. Lohmann / H.H. Hildebrand: Die Deutsche Kriegsmarine 1939 - 1945, Podzun-Verlag 1956
Direct file source: [51] (bit-by-bit identical digitized scan)
The source website correctly credits the map to the book.
This is not an original military map, but very clearly an illustration drawn for the 1956 book.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Claimed to be Personal photograph of U-boat captain Werner Hermann as on file with the Kriegsmarine Personnel Branch in 1944 [...] now on file at the U.S. National Archives, Record Group 242, Registry Entry 767826
According to the National Archives catalog [52], Registry Entry 767826 consists exclusively of English translations of German U-Boat captain's war journals (Kriegstagebuecher) […] These translations are made from materials in the series "Copies of Records of the German Navy, 1945-1978" (ARC Identifier 7065546), […] A typical war journal entry includes data on sea and meteorological conditions, radio communications received and sent, times and duration of submerging, a daily record of distances traveled on the surface and submerged, and all pertinent information concerning combat actions. No sign of why such a collection would also contain personal photographs.
Identical copy of same photo (bit-by-bit identical file) previously found on the Internet: [53]
* Almost certainly a case of source fabrication; unknown copyright status.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Claimed to be taken by the Kriegsmarine public affairs branch in 1940
Alleged source: from the National Archives captured German documents collection, Record Group 242, Kriegsmarine/OKM, Microfilm Publication T608, roll 2 (GG 37 & T176).
Original finding aid for this collection ("GG 37") is available here: [54]. Description of true contents: Two folders of 1* Seekriegsleitung, containing carbon copies (1577) of daily situation reports on land warfare, contributed to the Ski, Kriegs1 tagebuch by the Army liaison officer on the staff of Ob.d.M. und Chef Ski.
No indication how and why this roll should also contain publicity photographs of individual officers.
Same image present on Getty: [55]. Credited to: "Photographer: Presse-Illustrationen Heinrich Hoffmann- Published by: 'Berliner Volkszeitung' Vintage property of ullstein bild, March 05, 1941
N If it's indeed by Heinrich Hoffmann, a lot of his photos (though by no means all) were in fact seized and stored at NARA, so the image as such might conceivably be legitimate, but the claimed source still appears to be fabricated.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Claimed to be from captured German navy personnel file held in US archives
No archival location given
Image previously found on the web here: [57] (not just same photograph, but bit-by-bit identical digitalization, same electronic file checksum); present since at least 2010 [58]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Claimed to be on file with the Kriegsmarine Information-Press Branch in 1944 and later transferred to the United States War Department in 1946 as a captured German military document
No precise archival location given (beyond "Record Group 242")
Same image (uncropped) was posted to a web forum in 2011 and 2013 according to Google image search: [59][60], without source declaration
Claimed to be from Department of the Army, Handbook of German Military Awards from the Second World War”, 1955, United States Department of Defense, allegedly based on Original medal photograph created circa 1944 by the German Wehrmacht
No evidence that a US army publication under this title even exists. And what kind of German Wehrmacht photos (in color?) would those have been?
Claimed to be immediate source: U.S. National Archives
True source: crop from this blog [61] (i.e. this is not just the same poster, but the same digitalization of the same photograph of the same physical paper copy of the same poster, bit-by-bit identical crop, same blemishes, same folds, same jpg pixelization artifacts).
* May very well be Public Domain given the age of original publication, but the sourcing statement is still fabricated.
Claimed to be an American POW photograph from 1945.
Real source (uncropped): [62], not an American POW photograph but from the day of his execution, in Czechoslovakia, in 1947 (cf. also different, higher resolution image from the same scene: [63])
As such, likely taken by Czechoslovak rather than US agents. Strange the National Archive should have mislabelled their holdings so thoroughly (if it ever came from there).
* May or may not be Public Domain, but very likely a source fabrication, given the mislabelling.
Another mislabeled and wrongly dated image. Described as German naval vessels at anchor in Trondheim during World War II [...] Original photograph 5 May 1942.
This is not just any odd collection of German vessels, but the well-known ships Scharnhorst and Gneisenau, and they were at Bergen not in 1942 but in June 1940. (Neither of the two ships was in serviceable condition in May 1942). Larger crop here: [64]
Again, odd that the National Archives should have mislabelled the situation in the photo so severely, isn't it?
No details about archival location given. Unfortunately, none of the other versions on the web provides a proper source either, so the ultimate provenance is unclear.
* May or may not be Public Domain, but very likely source fabrication.
^(I wasn't able to check the 2005 English edition OberRanks refers to, but I've checked the original German edition from 2001 instead, of which the English is a faithful translation.)
^Subsequent edits by OberRanks added more material with more footnotes, but these were just imported wholesale from another article written by others.
^The section on "buoys" in the 1916 edition fills exactly one printed page (bottom of p.478-479). According to the ToC of the first edition, the corresponding section (p.45) was also one print page or less [1], so it's almost impossible it could have contained substantially more content.
^It's immaterial to this case whethere these two statements are contradicting each other, or whether OberRanks himself is that "unknown employee". Previous self-disclosed statements about his work ([2]) would be consistent with the possibility that he works for the institution in question. Cf. also his claim on user talk: On PDF file at work, yes, from the material that was published about it. [...] The original from 2002, which I took with my own camera, was over 16 years ago so no I don't have that one anymore.[3], repeated here: I was advised this afternoon OTRS was sent relevant information about this image [...] I hope this clears this up about this photo I took nearly 16 years ago[4]
Complete fabrication.
Seriously distorted citation, though not completely baseless.
![[45]](http://themarshalsbaton.com/Ribbon%20bars_files/image020.jpg){kind=link}
![[1]](http://www.bluejacketsmanual.com/BJM/y03/toc1.png){kind=link}