" 

 {|style=""border-top:solid thin lightgrey;background:transparent;padding:4px;"" 
 | Response to Third Opinion Request: 
 |- 
 |style=""padding-left:0.6cm""|Disclaimers: I am responding to a third opinion request made at WP:3O. I have made no previous edits on  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 . 
 - 
 style=""padding-left:0.6cm"" 
 Opinion: I cannot agree that the disputed section has no place in this article. It would appear that Biddiscombe — which appears to be, prima facie,  a reliable source — supports the suggestion that the greatest effect of Werwolf was not its real military actions but the effect that the fear of it had upon the Allies. That connection is asserted in the first two paragraphs of the disputed section, but the remainder of the section fails to provide any evidence between the specific reprisals cited in those following paragrames and Werwolf, except that (a) Biddiscombe's book is primarily about Werwolf and (b) that the material comes from that book. While that is pretty tenuous, WP:AGF requires us to presume that Biddiscombe does, in fact, somehow connect the specific reprisals with Werwolf since the editor who is asserting the disputed edit is clearly suggesting, at least by implication, that Biddiscombe does connect them. If someone checks Biddiscombe and discovers that he fails to specifically link Werwolf and the specific reprisals, then that can be raised as an objection to them here at that time, but that will not justify removal of the section as a whole, just the removal of the specific reprisals if consensus can be obtained to remove them. Warning to both editors: There have been at least three out-and-out reversions of the disputed section since this dispute began a few days ago. The edit war policy makes it quite clear that an edit war can exist even if the three revert rule has not been violated. This is an edit war and must stop right now. If it does not, you may be blocked from editing or the article protected against further editing, or both. 
 - 
 style=""padding-left:0.6cm"" 
 What's next: Once you've considered this opinion click here to see what happens next.—   
 |}"