Please note that the talk page is the place for major discussions to take place as to the direction of the article. The recent removal of sourced statements is untenable. FWiW Bzuk ( talk) 00:26, 30 January 2010 (UTC). I've mentioned the reason of removal. Why do you consider it untenable? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.52.101.196 ( talk) 00:31, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
You're supposed to provide some evidence that the source for the deleted info was unreliable. Ian.thomson ( talk) 01:09, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
I am not telling that it is unreliable. It is a view of minority. Try to google another source for the statement. There are lot of books published around nowadays, and a lot of them contain nonsense simply to rise their sales. Russian mass murder and rape of germans at the end of WW2 is a modern fashion among western writers and public. However statistic does not confirm those theories about ugly brutal russians killing and raping everything that moves. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.52.101.196 ( talk) 01:31, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
84.52.101.196 ( talk) 03:57, 30 January 2010 (UTC) <indent>No doubt rape accompanies war, it is a common phenomenon. My concern are:
Just to put us all on the same picture here. The passage that is being challenged is the following.
After being handed over to the Soviets, the German group was split up into groups according to gender. Hartmann witnessed widespread rape and murder of civilians. When the outnumbered Americans tried to intervene, the Soviet soldiers charged towards them, firing into the air and threatening to kill them. Order was later restored, and some of the guilty soldiers were hanged "on the spot" by a Soviet commander.
My understanding of this discussion here is whether this is factual or not. There is no question at least to the fact that this story, whether true or not, can be cited. The information is in Toliver and Constable and various other sources as well. I suggest mediating the wording of the paragraph and suggest rephrasing it slightly, something like this:
Would this work? MisterBee1966 ( talk) 16:44, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
The first thing the Russians did was to separate the German women and girls from the men. What followed was a brutal orgy of rape and debauchery by Red Army soldiers. When the greatly outnumbered Americans tried to intervene, the Russians charged towards them firing into the air and threatening to kill them if they interfered. The raping continued throughout the night. The next day a Russian General arrived at the encampment and immediately ordered a cessation... Later when a few Russians violated the order again and assaulted a German girl, she was asked to identify them from a lin-up. There were no formalities, no court martial. The giulty parties were immediately hanged in front of all their comrades. The point was made.. Philip Kaplan. Dapi89 ( talk) 19:17, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
I have to agree with the earlier editor who wrote "There are lot of books published around nowadays, and a lot of them contain nonsense simply to rise their sales. Russian mass murder and rape of germans at the end of WW2 is a modern fashion among western writers and public." This is the same kind of image of Russians that Hitler foisted on his countrymen. And those editors who continue inserting such rubbish into Wikipedia are perpetuating the same stereotypes. There will always be some authors who will slander various races and countries, and of course it is always possible to argue that as these are "reliable sources" therefore their writings must be included. A measure of the reliability of Kaplan is that he does not even understand the difference between Russian and Soviet. But this crap will remain because Kaplan is after all, a "reliable source". Steel2009 ( talk) 22:44, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Stop being disruptive Steel2009. Stop following me around wikipedia, it comes under wikipedia stalking, now termed Wikipedia:Harassment. You have no interest here and know nothing about the subject. So you and your "comments" will be ignored for the guff they are. If some moron reading this generalises it is not our fault. Philip Kaplan is not a racist. So be careful what you say. The only person at risk of slander here is you. Anyway, I'm not wasting any more energy here. You've failed. Dapi89 ( talk) 23:03, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Steel2009 ( talk) 19:25, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
I've read the Blond Knight of Germany and recall that in one part it talks about how Hartmann was on his way to recon and strafe a Russian troop convoy but on the way they encountered Soviet air forces and engaged them. Can anyone provide other sources that describe air-to-ground operations that he was involved in? Obviously this would exclude the Soviet war crimes allegations. Hartmann is, of course, noted for having the most air-to-air kills but knowledge of air-to-ground actions could be used to make an estimate of how many people he actually killed. XXVII ( talk) 15:49, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
Might this article benefit if a little detail of his personal life was included? The information that's there is a little scattered, so it's hard to know much about his life outside of work -OOPSIE- ( talk) 05:51, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
How exactly does the common cold "progress to" angina pectoris? Last time I checked one's a minor upper-respiratory disease caused by viral infection, and the other's not even a disease; it's a painful symptom of mid-stage obstructive heart disease, caused by cholesterol blocking blood flow to the heart. I'm not sure what kind of medical science they have in Germany, but this is ridiculous and anti-scientific and I'm going to reword it if nobody objects. Bravo Foxtrot ( talk) 01:39, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
Years of service ignore the time spent in Soviet captivity. Hartmann, as every other Wehrmacht POW, would have been in continuing service until such time as he returned to Germany to be de-mobilised. This is an odd and glaring error. Perhaps the author has some reason for having included it? Gr1bble8s ( talk) 00:24, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
On the picture with the caption Oberleutnant he is a Hauptmann. On his right Kragenspiegel you can see three wings. On the Schulterklappen on can see a button and two stars. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.221.19.97 ( talk) 22:46, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
MisterBee1966, could you please provide me a more detailed reason for reverting my edit? Such as why we need an unwieldy and little known term like 'hypocoristic' which even my spellchecker doesn't know, and why, in addition to the reason I gave in my edit summary, in the lead of an article about a famous fighter ace we even need to include the definition of an aerial victory? I'm reverting as I think these are unnecessary complications for the lead. The mayor of Yurp ( talk) 16:32, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
Hartmann's notes say he shot down an "LaGG-5." No doubt the Luftwaffe thought (incorrectly) that's what it was called, given the LaGG-3 designation of its predecessor. However the article is stating what Hartmann shot down, not what his notes say, therefore "LaGG-5" is incorrect. -- FergusM1970 Let's play Freckles 18:19, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
The chapter Civilian life states: " However, fearing a second attack, he became cautious and limited his appearances at public events. He stated: "I am retired and I am a civilian, and now I like to have my rest and peace. I do not live for exhibitions."[50]". I can nowhere find a detail about the first attack, apparently it's related to someone publicly attacking him for having been a Luftwaffe ace. Where has this bit of information went from the article? -- Pudeo ' 20:00, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
According to Toliver / Constable Hartmann asked Gallands Successor as COG Fighters General Gollob to return to his old unit.
One reason for the wish to return to the eastern front was that in the "defense of the Reich" many German fighter aces were killed or wound by supirior, in number and quality, American and British fighters. -- 176.199.13.235 ( talk) 15:49, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
Why should he have been "ashamed of his war service", he should be proud of his achievements. And what does this have to do with his opting "to go on a hunger strike and starve rather than fold to "Soviet will", as he called it"? Royalcourtier ( talk) 07:02, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on
Erich Hartmann. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
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).
Cheers. — cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 02:24, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
I trimmed the list -- some would not be considered RS and some in foreign language and unlikely to be helpful to Eng language readers. Some of the books are discussed here: Unreliable sources, from MilHist archives. Please let me know if there are any concerns. K.e.coffman ( talk) 05:38, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
We can all appreciate an achieving soldier, but is this article seriously more concerned with mocking the Soviet Union than with him being the most deadly Nazi pilot, having shot down and undoubtedly killed many of the pilots of the 352 Allied aircraft he shot down? The introduction reads as if he even needed to be convicted of War Crimes in the SU when he was one of the staunchest tools of Hitler. But no, 10 years in a labour camp is what the article portrays as inhumane... Bataaf van Oranje ( talk) 17:18, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
I agree with the sentiment expressed, even though it's been a while. The sourcing is problematic as well:
From The Myth of the Eastern Front: The Blond Knight of Germany is a "hallmark of romanization", with its "insidious" title suggesting medieval chivalry that "not only fails to characterize the conduct of the German Army in the East, but, indeed, marks its opposite".
Trevor James Constable does not appear to be a serious scholar; the wiki article describes him as:
References
Any feedback or opinions? K.e.coffman ( talk) 23:51, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
I don't think Smeler and Davies, who themselves wax poetic mainly on the name of the book (at lengths!) without pointing out which specific details are wrong historically, can be used as a good basis to judge the book either. As for the name, well, it was a nickname of Hartmann, already used during the war, like Bubi, Black Devil...etc (likely even more famous than those two, considering that the Soviet aces seemed to know him more by that one, according to the bio of the famous woman ace Litvyak. The Soviets in this bio seemed to be impressed by the nickname. Perhaps Toliver and Constable thought it was edgy and sounded like something which helped to sell books - and you cannot blame authors for that). To be fair, aviators, dark types or not, are easy to romanticize, even the Litvyak book does that to Hartmann, with a tinge of romance (not as knight in shining armour of course). Deamonpen ( talk) 15:58, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
Can any experts explain what is a "precision board clock"? ...mentioned in section /info/en/?search=Erich_Hartmann#Knight.27s_Cross_of_the_Iron_Cross "...Hartmann shot down two enemy aircraft before his fighter was hit by debris and he was forced to make an emergency landing. He then, in accordance with Luftwaffe regulations, attempted to recover the precision board clock. As he was doing so, Soviet ground troops approached..."
Or perhaps it is a "precision bombing clock"? 68.35.173.107 ( talk) 00:01, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
I changed the section heading for the second time: diff. After my first edit, editor Dapi89 changed it back to Luftwaffe with this series of edits: diff.
Please note that the Luftwaffe, as used in English wikipedia, ceased to exist in 1945. I consider this to be a POV edit; please refrain from changing it back to Luftwaffe. K.e.coffman ( talk) 09:03, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
The Germans do not refer to the current air force as the "German Air Force"! I suggest some reading is in order for you. The description of the image was put in place to aid blind users. It is not for Wikipedians to remove them at random. Dapi89 ( talk)
German Air Force [3] and Bundesluftwaffe [4] will show you that the "German Air Force" is a term frequently used to refer to the German Air Force of the Nazi Era, as well as the one of the pre-Nazi Era. For example:
-- Deamonpen ( talk) 03:15, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
I believe that this has been sufficiently addressed at the NPOVN: link. Would there be any further objections? K.e.coffman ( talk) 04:31, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
The first thing the Russians did was to separate the German women and girls from the men. What followed was a brutal orgy of rape and debauchery by Red Army soldiers. When the greatly outnumbered Americans tried to intervene, the Russians charged towards them firing into the air and threatening to kill them if they interfered. The raping continued throughout the night. The next day a Russian General arrived at the encampment and immediately ordered a cessation ... Later when a few Russians violated the order again and assaulted a German girl, she was asked to identify them from a lineup. There were no formalities, no court martial. The guilty parties were immediately hanged in front of all their comrades. The point was made.
What does this have to do with Hartmann? Creuzbourg ( talk) 15:45, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
The sources in the article are not suitable for a GA; I would consider some of them to be WP:QS. For example, the main source in the article is The Blond Knight of Germany (1970) by the authors Trevor J. Constable & Raymond F. Toliver. It was described in The Myth of the Eastern Front as "hallmark of romanticism". The German language version of the above book was profiled at the recent conference in Germany, "So was the German Landser"; the commentary on the book is as follows:
JENS WEHNER (Dresden) studied the portrayal of the air war on the Eastern Front in the books of the American authors, Trevor J. Constable and Raymond F. Toliver. He presented on the bestseller Holt Hartmann vom Himmel! The History of the World's Most Successful Jagdflieger, published by Constable and Toliver in 1970 in the USA and 1971 in Germany. The books were very popular. As a general rule, the argumentation concerning the statistics and the war situation on the Eastern Front is contradictory and lacking in reflection [not sure if the right translation]. These included the Nazi propaganda elements of the Fliegerassen and stereotypes about the Soviet Union and communism. According to Wehner, the latter could be traced back to the Cold War and the tensions between the US and the Soviet Union. Furthermore, in the books by Constable and Toliver, the political and social consequences of the Second World War were completely ignored. [1]
References
I'm sure that other sources in the article can be 'unpacked' in similar fashion. If mostly unreliable sources are used, then the level of detail is WP:UNDUE. I will restore the tags. K.e.coffman ( talk) 23:00, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
Hi @ Kyle Delwood: Re this edit: "It is only a couple reviews of a book. It is not enough to have "In popular culture" portion", could you help me understand your objection to this section? K.e.coffman ( talk) 19:28, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
Possibly a section could be named "Nicknames" and cover the "Bubi", "Black Devil", and "Blond Knight of Germany" all in one section? Currently they are interspersed throughout the page and may be difficult to find. In this scenario, there could be mention of The Blond Knight of Germany book without it being a tangential section. For example:
The "Hartmann's youthful appearance earned him the nickname "Bubi" (the hypocoristic form of "young boy" in the German language), and Walter Krupinski, to whom Hartmann was assigned as wingman, would constantly urge him: "Hey, Bubi, get in closer"." sentence could be moved into this new section. Then the "so Soviet personnel consequently nicknamed him Cherniy Chort ("Black Devil")" could also be added. The Los Angeles Times link I put in mentions he was known "to the opposing Soviet pilots on the Eastern Front as "the Black Devil of the South" because of the black-painted nose of his Messerschmitt 109" and "known to his countrymen as "the Blond Knight of Germany"". At this point, then mention "In 1970 Hartmann was the subject of a biography which used The Blond Knight of Germany nickname as its title" and something such as "It was a commercial success and enjoyed a wide readership among both the American and the German public, but has been criticised as ahistorical and misleading in recent American and German historiography. It has been described as one of the works that promoted the Clean Wehrmacht myth."? Kyle Delwood ( talk) 10:24, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
The content is not about Hartmann or his influence "in popular culture", but simply reviews of a book that is about him. It is a leap in connection that was not stated in the section. This is tangential. If the title is renamed to the book's title then this is even more tangential. He did not write the book. In my proposed section introduction of the book would be related to the topic as its title is one of Hartmann's nicknames, and a little discussion may be relevant.
Kyle Delwood ( talk) 19:25, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
Note by a German native speaker: I doubt the book title translation "Fetch Hartmann from Heaven!" is correct. It could also be translated to "Shoot Hartmann down" (vom Himmel holen -- to shoot down [a plane]), which I think is the meaning the title intents. 87.79.160.252 ( talk) 23:38, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
I disagree. You’ve removed a well-sourced section, and inserted material cited to a dubious source (the 1986 L.A. Times article, which seems to be in large part based on the same book). I restored the section pending discussion at WP:NPOVN. Please see the discussion at: Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Section_in_WWII_bio_article. K.e.coffman ( talk) 00:03, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
The book is not a novel, for the record. I am not saying the book is irrelevant to Hartmann but that a section just about reviews of the book which do no not pertain specifically to Hartmann's influence in popular culture is tangential. If you see above, I mentioned that I think discussion would be relevant as an extension to his nickname "the Blond Knight of Germany". But things such as "According to Wehner, the latter could be traced to the prevailing attitudes during the Cold War. Further, the political and social consequences of World War II were completely ignored" are simply a review of the book, not about Hartmann's influence in popular culture.
Kyle Delwood ( talk) 12:05, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
The consensus at NPOVN seems pretty clear to me; please see: Section in WWII bio article. -- K.e.coffman ( talk) 03:35, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
...that a section just about reviews of the book which do no not pertain specifically to Hartmann's influence in popular culture is tangential) to mean it was still about the section in its entirety. I did not respond as I understood the matter to have been sufficiently addressed at NPOVN.
Hello fellow editors. I have re-inserted an entry into the In popular culture section of this article:
The character Erica Hartmann from the mixed-media franchise Strike Witches is based on Hartmann. She has the black tulip design from Hartmann's aircraft painted on her striker unit and also has a sister named Ursula, referring to Hartmann's wife.
The insertion had been previously deleted by User:Denniss who said that it was “not real so irrelevant”. Though I would agree that the insertion is “not real”, in the sense that it is from fictional media, it is still relevant as the section is about cultural depictions of Hartmann and the Strike Witches franchise does exist. Currently, the In popular culture section has only one entry on The Blond Knight of Germany so I feel it would be beneficial to expand the section. For anyone who would like to delete this change, feel free to discuss first. Tsushima6 ( talk) 07:45, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for the comments. I will revise the entry in accordance to the Wikipedia guidelines. Tsushima6 ( talk) 09:30, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 17:22, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
I have renominated since the issues were addressed but ignored by the editor seeking the delisting. Dapi89 ( talk) 15:55, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
The person fought to implement Nazi genocides. The page contains Nazi propaganda, please respect millions of victims. Please compare to the German page, which isn't so childish like this one. Xx236 ( talk) 09:58, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
HI, just a quick note about a current discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history (WWII content: Otto Kittel, other GA/FA articles) that editors of this page may be interested in. K.e.coffman ( talk) 22:25, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
This author is used to source some dubious claims.What are his credentials and is he a historian? In publication Przegląd historyczno-wojskowy, Tom 14(page 218) issued by Ministerstwo Obrony Narodowej this author is named as "improving" German versions of events and mixing tales with actual facts [10] -- MyMoloboaccount ( talk) 22:25, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
I have found another source, this time German, that describes Stockert's writing as apologetic
"Eicke: Eine SS-Karriere zwischen Nervenklinik, KZ-System und Waffen-SS
"Ein weiteres typisches Beispiel apologetischer Vertuschungstaktik lieferte Peter Stockert 1996, der in einem mehrbändigen Werk über die »Eichenlaubträger« ." page 20
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.
The article fails criterion #2b "all in-line citations are from reliable sources". The article is largely based on The Blond Knight of Germany which has been criticised as ahistorical and misleading (please see the linked article). The book is also likely to be semi-fictional; please see discussion here: [11]. Given the questionable source, the article also fails criterion 4 as being non-neutral. -- K.e.coffman ( talk) 22:51, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
Extended content
|
---|
Q: How was the meeting with Hitler and receiving the Diamonds different from the previous two encounters?
A: Well Dieter Hrabak and the rest threw a party before I left, and I was so drunk I could not stand the next day. It sounds like we were all alcoholics, but this was not the case. We lived and played hard. You never knew what the next day would bring. I few my 109 to Insterburg, and JG-52 gave me an escort. When I arrived at the Wolfschanze the world had changed. Hitler had already begun the trials and executions of those involved and everyone was under suspicion. You had to enter three areas of security, and no one was allowed to carry a weapon into the last section. I told Hitler’s SS guard to tell the Fuehrer that I would not receive the Diamonds if I were not trusted to carry my Walther pistol. The guy looked like I had just married his mother. He went to speak with von Below, who was a Colonel then, and Below came out said it was all right. I hung my cap and pistol belt on the stand and Hitler came to me, and said, “I wish we had more like you and Ruedel,” and he gave me the Diamonds, which were encrusted upon another set of Oak Leaves and Swords. We had coffee and lunch, and he confided in me, saying ‘militarily the war is lost,’ and that I must already know this, and that if we waited the Western Allies and Soviets would be at war with each other. He also spoke about the partisan problem and he asked me of my experience. Hitler asked me my opinion of the tactics used in fighting the American and British bombers. Since I did not have a lot of experience with this, I simply stated what I thought was a fact. Goering’s orders to combat them and the method employed was in error. I also informed him of the deficiencies in pilot training; too many minimally trained men were simply throwing their lives away. He also spoke about the new weapons and tactics, and then we parted. That was the last time I saw him, 25 August 1944. I flew back to the unit, where an order for a ten days leave waited. I also had to report to Galland, where we discussed the Me-262 situation. I went back to marry my Ushi, that was all that mattered to me.
|
It is clear that Assayer's remarks on this issue are wrong. Hartmann said that was what happened; you may argue that Hartmann embellished aspects of it, or call him a liar. What you may not do is say T&C made it up. See the following: https://migflug.com/jetflights/final-interview-with-erich-hartmann/ Dapi89 ( talk) 18:51, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
I'm just going through the accusations one by one. And the first story complained about was true, at least to the degree Hartmann told it. I'm not going to argue the case for the authors. As it stands, they have been largely removed already. And I'm confident the citation that remain are easy to deal with. Our colleague above maybe getting bent out of shape, but if he is reading this, he should relax. There is plenty out there that can cover this article. Dapi89 ( talk) 21:13, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
Remarks, please. Dapi89 ( talk) 13:42, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the work so far. Some comments, based on the overall changes: diff.
References
-- K.e.coffman ( talk) 04:14, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
All the harvref errors I mentioned prior are still broken, with the addition of "Spick 1996". Raymond Toliver, Trevor Constable, and Gordon Williamson are still listed in the Bibliography despite having no references linking to them. Delete them. – ♠Vami _IV†♠ 06:58, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
Still a few outstanding issues:
-- K.e.coffman ( talk) 00:43, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
all inline citations are from reliable sources—even for non-controversial information. If the sources are not reliable, it fails. b ui dhe (formerly Catrìona) 13:54, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
That's not how Wikipedia works. Dapi, your defense of unreliable source even merited an entry during the WP:ARBGWE case: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/German war effort/Evidence#WWII articles. For the benefits of others, I'm reproducing it here:
Now Kaplan / Stockert are being put forth as reliable sources under the same rationales. I also had concerns about unverifiable anecdotes and swapping of citations, which have not yet been addressed, such as: Does Kaplan contain the exact same content & Hartmann's quote as here: [15] & [16]? Is Kaplan citing T&C then? -- K.e.coffman ( talk) 18:51, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
It isn't. If neither criticism nor praise can be found, then it proves neither. I'm sure that is self evident. So at best we're at an impasse, particularly when one considers Kaplan was published by Pen and Sword; a well know publisher with no links to Nazis or their apologia. I know of no critical reviews levelled at them. Dapi89 ( talk) 20:21, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
FYI. From Pen and Sword's website (this explains how Kaplan did his research; though this is also discussed in the book); This book examines the reality behind the myths of the legendary German fighter aces of World War II. It explains why only a small minority of pilots - those in whom the desire for combat overrode everything - accounted for so large a proportion of the victories. It surveys the skills that a successful fighter pilot must have - a natural aptitude for flying, marksmanship, keen eyesight - and the way in which fighter tactics have developed. The book examines the history of the classic fighter aircraft that were flown, such as the Messerschmitt Bf 109 and the Focke Wulf Fw 190, and examines each type's characteristics, advantages and disadvantages in combat. The accounts of the experiences of fighter pilots are based on archival research, diaries, letters, published and unpublished memoirs and personal interviews with veterans. The pilots included are Werner Molders, Gunther Rall, Adolf Galland, Erich Hartmann and Johannes Steinhoff. Dapi89 ( talk) 20:30, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
Fourth, it appears as if your reading of WP:Burden is selective. It has come to my attention that there is also further guidance from the said page;
Once an editor has provided any source that he or she believes, in good faith, to be sufficient, then any editor who later removes the material has an obligation to articulate specific problems that would justify its exclusion from Wikipedia (e.g., why the source is unreliable; the source does not support the claim; undue emphasis; unencyclopedic content; etc.). If necessary, all editors are then expected to help achieve consensus, and any problems with the text or sourcing should be fixed before the material is added back.
So it would seem, as I suspected, the burden of proof is on those making the claim. Dapi89 ( talk) 23:06, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
A publisher's blurb is not sufficient. The other piece is about an Allied airman fighting on the Western Front; not a related topic. In re: BURDEN, sure, the concerns expressed during this GAR were about the sources being unreliable; undue emphasis; and unencyclopedic content:
Sample content which fails both NPOV and RS:
References
Sources are entitled to refer to the subject for information. You have not proven the source is untrustworthy. Who cares? The opinions of wikipedians are irrelevant. As for anecdotes, if this thing about the mechanic and his rifle and 1944 meeting is such a problem, then it can go. But it is a lame excuse to justify delisting the article. Dapi89 ( talk) 08:25, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
The result of this GAR is delisted. While considerable effort has gone into the article, such as to remove Toliver & Constable's semi-fictional work, there are issues that have not been addressed: POV anecdotes; unreliable sources; etc.
New issues also keep cropping up, such as content failing verification, due to (possibly) swapping of citations without proper checking to make sure that the new sources support prior material; see: #Current state. Once identified, the Zabecki issues have been addressed, but here's the latest example:
References
The source -- STEALTH IS A ZERO-SUM GAME: A SUBMARINER’S VIEW OF THE ADVANCED TACTICAL FIGHTER, Capt James H. Patton, USN, Retired -- is a passing mention of Hartmann and does not mention Roßmann nor what he taught Hartmann. (It also took three tries during this GAR to pry out the author's info, which is concerning).
In this situation, it's hard to assume AGF re: existing content. I recommend that the improvements continue to address the issues identified in this GAR, with the attention to NPOV, proper sourcing, and verification. Then the article can be renominated. -- K.e.coffman ( talk) 03:37, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
You should not have closed this; there is no consensus.
The original vote was taken on the state of the article at that time, not since. And these points can be dealt with. Three sources attribute these tactics to Hartmann's tutor. The source about is reliable as well. Passing mentions in academic sources are just as reputable. You don't get to decide whether they are or not. Dapi89 ( talk) 09:50, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
I have reverted your removal of GA on the article FYI. Dapi89 ( talk) 10:04, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
Other contributors need to get involved. Otherwise it will be another case of one editor making a decision he or she feels is fit. That is not an appropriate way forward. Dapi89 ( talk) 10:22, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
Please note that the talk page is the place for major discussions to take place as to the direction of the article. The recent removal of sourced statements is untenable. FWiW Bzuk ( talk) 00:26, 30 January 2010 (UTC). I've mentioned the reason of removal. Why do you consider it untenable? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.52.101.196 ( talk) 00:31, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
You're supposed to provide some evidence that the source for the deleted info was unreliable. Ian.thomson ( talk) 01:09, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
I am not telling that it is unreliable. It is a view of minority. Try to google another source for the statement. There are lot of books published around nowadays, and a lot of them contain nonsense simply to rise their sales. Russian mass murder and rape of germans at the end of WW2 is a modern fashion among western writers and public. However statistic does not confirm those theories about ugly brutal russians killing and raping everything that moves. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.52.101.196 ( talk) 01:31, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
84.52.101.196 ( talk) 03:57, 30 January 2010 (UTC) <indent>No doubt rape accompanies war, it is a common phenomenon. My concern are:
Just to put us all on the same picture here. The passage that is being challenged is the following.
After being handed over to the Soviets, the German group was split up into groups according to gender. Hartmann witnessed widespread rape and murder of civilians. When the outnumbered Americans tried to intervene, the Soviet soldiers charged towards them, firing into the air and threatening to kill them. Order was later restored, and some of the guilty soldiers were hanged "on the spot" by a Soviet commander.
My understanding of this discussion here is whether this is factual or not. There is no question at least to the fact that this story, whether true or not, can be cited. The information is in Toliver and Constable and various other sources as well. I suggest mediating the wording of the paragraph and suggest rephrasing it slightly, something like this:
Would this work? MisterBee1966 ( talk) 16:44, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
The first thing the Russians did was to separate the German women and girls from the men. What followed was a brutal orgy of rape and debauchery by Red Army soldiers. When the greatly outnumbered Americans tried to intervene, the Russians charged towards them firing into the air and threatening to kill them if they interfered. The raping continued throughout the night. The next day a Russian General arrived at the encampment and immediately ordered a cessation... Later when a few Russians violated the order again and assaulted a German girl, she was asked to identify them from a lin-up. There were no formalities, no court martial. The giulty parties were immediately hanged in front of all their comrades. The point was made.. Philip Kaplan. Dapi89 ( talk) 19:17, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
I have to agree with the earlier editor who wrote "There are lot of books published around nowadays, and a lot of them contain nonsense simply to rise their sales. Russian mass murder and rape of germans at the end of WW2 is a modern fashion among western writers and public." This is the same kind of image of Russians that Hitler foisted on his countrymen. And those editors who continue inserting such rubbish into Wikipedia are perpetuating the same stereotypes. There will always be some authors who will slander various races and countries, and of course it is always possible to argue that as these are "reliable sources" therefore their writings must be included. A measure of the reliability of Kaplan is that he does not even understand the difference between Russian and Soviet. But this crap will remain because Kaplan is after all, a "reliable source". Steel2009 ( talk) 22:44, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Stop being disruptive Steel2009. Stop following me around wikipedia, it comes under wikipedia stalking, now termed Wikipedia:Harassment. You have no interest here and know nothing about the subject. So you and your "comments" will be ignored for the guff they are. If some moron reading this generalises it is not our fault. Philip Kaplan is not a racist. So be careful what you say. The only person at risk of slander here is you. Anyway, I'm not wasting any more energy here. You've failed. Dapi89 ( talk) 23:03, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Steel2009 ( talk) 19:25, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
I've read the Blond Knight of Germany and recall that in one part it talks about how Hartmann was on his way to recon and strafe a Russian troop convoy but on the way they encountered Soviet air forces and engaged them. Can anyone provide other sources that describe air-to-ground operations that he was involved in? Obviously this would exclude the Soviet war crimes allegations. Hartmann is, of course, noted for having the most air-to-air kills but knowledge of air-to-ground actions could be used to make an estimate of how many people he actually killed. XXVII ( talk) 15:49, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
Might this article benefit if a little detail of his personal life was included? The information that's there is a little scattered, so it's hard to know much about his life outside of work -OOPSIE- ( talk) 05:51, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
How exactly does the common cold "progress to" angina pectoris? Last time I checked one's a minor upper-respiratory disease caused by viral infection, and the other's not even a disease; it's a painful symptom of mid-stage obstructive heart disease, caused by cholesterol blocking blood flow to the heart. I'm not sure what kind of medical science they have in Germany, but this is ridiculous and anti-scientific and I'm going to reword it if nobody objects. Bravo Foxtrot ( talk) 01:39, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
Years of service ignore the time spent in Soviet captivity. Hartmann, as every other Wehrmacht POW, would have been in continuing service until such time as he returned to Germany to be de-mobilised. This is an odd and glaring error. Perhaps the author has some reason for having included it? Gr1bble8s ( talk) 00:24, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
On the picture with the caption Oberleutnant he is a Hauptmann. On his right Kragenspiegel you can see three wings. On the Schulterklappen on can see a button and two stars. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.221.19.97 ( talk) 22:46, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
MisterBee1966, could you please provide me a more detailed reason for reverting my edit? Such as why we need an unwieldy and little known term like 'hypocoristic' which even my spellchecker doesn't know, and why, in addition to the reason I gave in my edit summary, in the lead of an article about a famous fighter ace we even need to include the definition of an aerial victory? I'm reverting as I think these are unnecessary complications for the lead. The mayor of Yurp ( talk) 16:32, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
Hartmann's notes say he shot down an "LaGG-5." No doubt the Luftwaffe thought (incorrectly) that's what it was called, given the LaGG-3 designation of its predecessor. However the article is stating what Hartmann shot down, not what his notes say, therefore "LaGG-5" is incorrect. -- FergusM1970 Let's play Freckles 18:19, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
The chapter Civilian life states: " However, fearing a second attack, he became cautious and limited his appearances at public events. He stated: "I am retired and I am a civilian, and now I like to have my rest and peace. I do not live for exhibitions."[50]". I can nowhere find a detail about the first attack, apparently it's related to someone publicly attacking him for having been a Luftwaffe ace. Where has this bit of information went from the article? -- Pudeo ' 20:00, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
According to Toliver / Constable Hartmann asked Gallands Successor as COG Fighters General Gollob to return to his old unit.
One reason for the wish to return to the eastern front was that in the "defense of the Reich" many German fighter aces were killed or wound by supirior, in number and quality, American and British fighters. -- 176.199.13.235 ( talk) 15:49, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
Why should he have been "ashamed of his war service", he should be proud of his achievements. And what does this have to do with his opting "to go on a hunger strike and starve rather than fold to "Soviet will", as he called it"? Royalcourtier ( talk) 07:02, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on
Erich Hartmann. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
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).
Cheers. — cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 02:24, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
I trimmed the list -- some would not be considered RS and some in foreign language and unlikely to be helpful to Eng language readers. Some of the books are discussed here: Unreliable sources, from MilHist archives. Please let me know if there are any concerns. K.e.coffman ( talk) 05:38, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
We can all appreciate an achieving soldier, but is this article seriously more concerned with mocking the Soviet Union than with him being the most deadly Nazi pilot, having shot down and undoubtedly killed many of the pilots of the 352 Allied aircraft he shot down? The introduction reads as if he even needed to be convicted of War Crimes in the SU when he was one of the staunchest tools of Hitler. But no, 10 years in a labour camp is what the article portrays as inhumane... Bataaf van Oranje ( talk) 17:18, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
I agree with the sentiment expressed, even though it's been a while. The sourcing is problematic as well:
From The Myth of the Eastern Front: The Blond Knight of Germany is a "hallmark of romanization", with its "insidious" title suggesting medieval chivalry that "not only fails to characterize the conduct of the German Army in the East, but, indeed, marks its opposite".
Trevor James Constable does not appear to be a serious scholar; the wiki article describes him as:
References
Any feedback or opinions? K.e.coffman ( talk) 23:51, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
I don't think Smeler and Davies, who themselves wax poetic mainly on the name of the book (at lengths!) without pointing out which specific details are wrong historically, can be used as a good basis to judge the book either. As for the name, well, it was a nickname of Hartmann, already used during the war, like Bubi, Black Devil...etc (likely even more famous than those two, considering that the Soviet aces seemed to know him more by that one, according to the bio of the famous woman ace Litvyak. The Soviets in this bio seemed to be impressed by the nickname. Perhaps Toliver and Constable thought it was edgy and sounded like something which helped to sell books - and you cannot blame authors for that). To be fair, aviators, dark types or not, are easy to romanticize, even the Litvyak book does that to Hartmann, with a tinge of romance (not as knight in shining armour of course). Deamonpen ( talk) 15:58, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
Can any experts explain what is a "precision board clock"? ...mentioned in section /info/en/?search=Erich_Hartmann#Knight.27s_Cross_of_the_Iron_Cross "...Hartmann shot down two enemy aircraft before his fighter was hit by debris and he was forced to make an emergency landing. He then, in accordance with Luftwaffe regulations, attempted to recover the precision board clock. As he was doing so, Soviet ground troops approached..."
Or perhaps it is a "precision bombing clock"? 68.35.173.107 ( talk) 00:01, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
I changed the section heading for the second time: diff. After my first edit, editor Dapi89 changed it back to Luftwaffe with this series of edits: diff.
Please note that the Luftwaffe, as used in English wikipedia, ceased to exist in 1945. I consider this to be a POV edit; please refrain from changing it back to Luftwaffe. K.e.coffman ( talk) 09:03, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
The Germans do not refer to the current air force as the "German Air Force"! I suggest some reading is in order for you. The description of the image was put in place to aid blind users. It is not for Wikipedians to remove them at random. Dapi89 ( talk)
German Air Force [3] and Bundesluftwaffe [4] will show you that the "German Air Force" is a term frequently used to refer to the German Air Force of the Nazi Era, as well as the one of the pre-Nazi Era. For example:
-- Deamonpen ( talk) 03:15, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
I believe that this has been sufficiently addressed at the NPOVN: link. Would there be any further objections? K.e.coffman ( talk) 04:31, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
The first thing the Russians did was to separate the German women and girls from the men. What followed was a brutal orgy of rape and debauchery by Red Army soldiers. When the greatly outnumbered Americans tried to intervene, the Russians charged towards them firing into the air and threatening to kill them if they interfered. The raping continued throughout the night. The next day a Russian General arrived at the encampment and immediately ordered a cessation ... Later when a few Russians violated the order again and assaulted a German girl, she was asked to identify them from a lineup. There were no formalities, no court martial. The guilty parties were immediately hanged in front of all their comrades. The point was made.
What does this have to do with Hartmann? Creuzbourg ( talk) 15:45, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
The sources in the article are not suitable for a GA; I would consider some of them to be WP:QS. For example, the main source in the article is The Blond Knight of Germany (1970) by the authors Trevor J. Constable & Raymond F. Toliver. It was described in The Myth of the Eastern Front as "hallmark of romanticism". The German language version of the above book was profiled at the recent conference in Germany, "So was the German Landser"; the commentary on the book is as follows:
JENS WEHNER (Dresden) studied the portrayal of the air war on the Eastern Front in the books of the American authors, Trevor J. Constable and Raymond F. Toliver. He presented on the bestseller Holt Hartmann vom Himmel! The History of the World's Most Successful Jagdflieger, published by Constable and Toliver in 1970 in the USA and 1971 in Germany. The books were very popular. As a general rule, the argumentation concerning the statistics and the war situation on the Eastern Front is contradictory and lacking in reflection [not sure if the right translation]. These included the Nazi propaganda elements of the Fliegerassen and stereotypes about the Soviet Union and communism. According to Wehner, the latter could be traced back to the Cold War and the tensions between the US and the Soviet Union. Furthermore, in the books by Constable and Toliver, the political and social consequences of the Second World War were completely ignored. [1]
References
I'm sure that other sources in the article can be 'unpacked' in similar fashion. If mostly unreliable sources are used, then the level of detail is WP:UNDUE. I will restore the tags. K.e.coffman ( talk) 23:00, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
Hi @ Kyle Delwood: Re this edit: "It is only a couple reviews of a book. It is not enough to have "In popular culture" portion", could you help me understand your objection to this section? K.e.coffman ( talk) 19:28, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
Possibly a section could be named "Nicknames" and cover the "Bubi", "Black Devil", and "Blond Knight of Germany" all in one section? Currently they are interspersed throughout the page and may be difficult to find. In this scenario, there could be mention of The Blond Knight of Germany book without it being a tangential section. For example:
The "Hartmann's youthful appearance earned him the nickname "Bubi" (the hypocoristic form of "young boy" in the German language), and Walter Krupinski, to whom Hartmann was assigned as wingman, would constantly urge him: "Hey, Bubi, get in closer"." sentence could be moved into this new section. Then the "so Soviet personnel consequently nicknamed him Cherniy Chort ("Black Devil")" could also be added. The Los Angeles Times link I put in mentions he was known "to the opposing Soviet pilots on the Eastern Front as "the Black Devil of the South" because of the black-painted nose of his Messerschmitt 109" and "known to his countrymen as "the Blond Knight of Germany"". At this point, then mention "In 1970 Hartmann was the subject of a biography which used The Blond Knight of Germany nickname as its title" and something such as "It was a commercial success and enjoyed a wide readership among both the American and the German public, but has been criticised as ahistorical and misleading in recent American and German historiography. It has been described as one of the works that promoted the Clean Wehrmacht myth."? Kyle Delwood ( talk) 10:24, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
The content is not about Hartmann or his influence "in popular culture", but simply reviews of a book that is about him. It is a leap in connection that was not stated in the section. This is tangential. If the title is renamed to the book's title then this is even more tangential. He did not write the book. In my proposed section introduction of the book would be related to the topic as its title is one of Hartmann's nicknames, and a little discussion may be relevant.
Kyle Delwood ( talk) 19:25, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
Note by a German native speaker: I doubt the book title translation "Fetch Hartmann from Heaven!" is correct. It could also be translated to "Shoot Hartmann down" (vom Himmel holen -- to shoot down [a plane]), which I think is the meaning the title intents. 87.79.160.252 ( talk) 23:38, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
I disagree. You’ve removed a well-sourced section, and inserted material cited to a dubious source (the 1986 L.A. Times article, which seems to be in large part based on the same book). I restored the section pending discussion at WP:NPOVN. Please see the discussion at: Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Section_in_WWII_bio_article. K.e.coffman ( talk) 00:03, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
The book is not a novel, for the record. I am not saying the book is irrelevant to Hartmann but that a section just about reviews of the book which do no not pertain specifically to Hartmann's influence in popular culture is tangential. If you see above, I mentioned that I think discussion would be relevant as an extension to his nickname "the Blond Knight of Germany". But things such as "According to Wehner, the latter could be traced to the prevailing attitudes during the Cold War. Further, the political and social consequences of World War II were completely ignored" are simply a review of the book, not about Hartmann's influence in popular culture.
Kyle Delwood ( talk) 12:05, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
The consensus at NPOVN seems pretty clear to me; please see: Section in WWII bio article. -- K.e.coffman ( talk) 03:35, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
...that a section just about reviews of the book which do no not pertain specifically to Hartmann's influence in popular culture is tangential) to mean it was still about the section in its entirety. I did not respond as I understood the matter to have been sufficiently addressed at NPOVN.
Hello fellow editors. I have re-inserted an entry into the In popular culture section of this article:
The character Erica Hartmann from the mixed-media franchise Strike Witches is based on Hartmann. She has the black tulip design from Hartmann's aircraft painted on her striker unit and also has a sister named Ursula, referring to Hartmann's wife.
The insertion had been previously deleted by User:Denniss who said that it was “not real so irrelevant”. Though I would agree that the insertion is “not real”, in the sense that it is from fictional media, it is still relevant as the section is about cultural depictions of Hartmann and the Strike Witches franchise does exist. Currently, the In popular culture section has only one entry on The Blond Knight of Germany so I feel it would be beneficial to expand the section. For anyone who would like to delete this change, feel free to discuss first. Tsushima6 ( talk) 07:45, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for the comments. I will revise the entry in accordance to the Wikipedia guidelines. Tsushima6 ( talk) 09:30, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 17:22, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
I have renominated since the issues were addressed but ignored by the editor seeking the delisting. Dapi89 ( talk) 15:55, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
The person fought to implement Nazi genocides. The page contains Nazi propaganda, please respect millions of victims. Please compare to the German page, which isn't so childish like this one. Xx236 ( talk) 09:58, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
HI, just a quick note about a current discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history (WWII content: Otto Kittel, other GA/FA articles) that editors of this page may be interested in. K.e.coffman ( talk) 22:25, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
This author is used to source some dubious claims.What are his credentials and is he a historian? In publication Przegląd historyczno-wojskowy, Tom 14(page 218) issued by Ministerstwo Obrony Narodowej this author is named as "improving" German versions of events and mixing tales with actual facts [10] -- MyMoloboaccount ( talk) 22:25, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
I have found another source, this time German, that describes Stockert's writing as apologetic
"Eicke: Eine SS-Karriere zwischen Nervenklinik, KZ-System und Waffen-SS
"Ein weiteres typisches Beispiel apologetischer Vertuschungstaktik lieferte Peter Stockert 1996, der in einem mehrbändigen Werk über die »Eichenlaubträger« ." page 20
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.
The article fails criterion #2b "all in-line citations are from reliable sources". The article is largely based on The Blond Knight of Germany which has been criticised as ahistorical and misleading (please see the linked article). The book is also likely to be semi-fictional; please see discussion here: [11]. Given the questionable source, the article also fails criterion 4 as being non-neutral. -- K.e.coffman ( talk) 22:51, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
Extended content
|
---|
Q: How was the meeting with Hitler and receiving the Diamonds different from the previous two encounters?
A: Well Dieter Hrabak and the rest threw a party before I left, and I was so drunk I could not stand the next day. It sounds like we were all alcoholics, but this was not the case. We lived and played hard. You never knew what the next day would bring. I few my 109 to Insterburg, and JG-52 gave me an escort. When I arrived at the Wolfschanze the world had changed. Hitler had already begun the trials and executions of those involved and everyone was under suspicion. You had to enter three areas of security, and no one was allowed to carry a weapon into the last section. I told Hitler’s SS guard to tell the Fuehrer that I would not receive the Diamonds if I were not trusted to carry my Walther pistol. The guy looked like I had just married his mother. He went to speak with von Below, who was a Colonel then, and Below came out said it was all right. I hung my cap and pistol belt on the stand and Hitler came to me, and said, “I wish we had more like you and Ruedel,” and he gave me the Diamonds, which were encrusted upon another set of Oak Leaves and Swords. We had coffee and lunch, and he confided in me, saying ‘militarily the war is lost,’ and that I must already know this, and that if we waited the Western Allies and Soviets would be at war with each other. He also spoke about the partisan problem and he asked me of my experience. Hitler asked me my opinion of the tactics used in fighting the American and British bombers. Since I did not have a lot of experience with this, I simply stated what I thought was a fact. Goering’s orders to combat them and the method employed was in error. I also informed him of the deficiencies in pilot training; too many minimally trained men were simply throwing their lives away. He also spoke about the new weapons and tactics, and then we parted. That was the last time I saw him, 25 August 1944. I flew back to the unit, where an order for a ten days leave waited. I also had to report to Galland, where we discussed the Me-262 situation. I went back to marry my Ushi, that was all that mattered to me.
|
It is clear that Assayer's remarks on this issue are wrong. Hartmann said that was what happened; you may argue that Hartmann embellished aspects of it, or call him a liar. What you may not do is say T&C made it up. See the following: https://migflug.com/jetflights/final-interview-with-erich-hartmann/ Dapi89 ( talk) 18:51, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
I'm just going through the accusations one by one. And the first story complained about was true, at least to the degree Hartmann told it. I'm not going to argue the case for the authors. As it stands, they have been largely removed already. And I'm confident the citation that remain are easy to deal with. Our colleague above maybe getting bent out of shape, but if he is reading this, he should relax. There is plenty out there that can cover this article. Dapi89 ( talk) 21:13, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
Remarks, please. Dapi89 ( talk) 13:42, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the work so far. Some comments, based on the overall changes: diff.
References
-- K.e.coffman ( talk) 04:14, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
All the harvref errors I mentioned prior are still broken, with the addition of "Spick 1996". Raymond Toliver, Trevor Constable, and Gordon Williamson are still listed in the Bibliography despite having no references linking to them. Delete them. – ♠Vami _IV†♠ 06:58, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
Still a few outstanding issues:
-- K.e.coffman ( talk) 00:43, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
all inline citations are from reliable sources—even for non-controversial information. If the sources are not reliable, it fails. b ui dhe (formerly Catrìona) 13:54, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
That's not how Wikipedia works. Dapi, your defense of unreliable source even merited an entry during the WP:ARBGWE case: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/German war effort/Evidence#WWII articles. For the benefits of others, I'm reproducing it here:
Now Kaplan / Stockert are being put forth as reliable sources under the same rationales. I also had concerns about unverifiable anecdotes and swapping of citations, which have not yet been addressed, such as: Does Kaplan contain the exact same content & Hartmann's quote as here: [15] & [16]? Is Kaplan citing T&C then? -- K.e.coffman ( talk) 18:51, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
It isn't. If neither criticism nor praise can be found, then it proves neither. I'm sure that is self evident. So at best we're at an impasse, particularly when one considers Kaplan was published by Pen and Sword; a well know publisher with no links to Nazis or their apologia. I know of no critical reviews levelled at them. Dapi89 ( talk) 20:21, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
FYI. From Pen and Sword's website (this explains how Kaplan did his research; though this is also discussed in the book); This book examines the reality behind the myths of the legendary German fighter aces of World War II. It explains why only a small minority of pilots - those in whom the desire for combat overrode everything - accounted for so large a proportion of the victories. It surveys the skills that a successful fighter pilot must have - a natural aptitude for flying, marksmanship, keen eyesight - and the way in which fighter tactics have developed. The book examines the history of the classic fighter aircraft that were flown, such as the Messerschmitt Bf 109 and the Focke Wulf Fw 190, and examines each type's characteristics, advantages and disadvantages in combat. The accounts of the experiences of fighter pilots are based on archival research, diaries, letters, published and unpublished memoirs and personal interviews with veterans. The pilots included are Werner Molders, Gunther Rall, Adolf Galland, Erich Hartmann and Johannes Steinhoff. Dapi89 ( talk) 20:30, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
Fourth, it appears as if your reading of WP:Burden is selective. It has come to my attention that there is also further guidance from the said page;
Once an editor has provided any source that he or she believes, in good faith, to be sufficient, then any editor who later removes the material has an obligation to articulate specific problems that would justify its exclusion from Wikipedia (e.g., why the source is unreliable; the source does not support the claim; undue emphasis; unencyclopedic content; etc.). If necessary, all editors are then expected to help achieve consensus, and any problems with the text or sourcing should be fixed before the material is added back.
So it would seem, as I suspected, the burden of proof is on those making the claim. Dapi89 ( talk) 23:06, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
A publisher's blurb is not sufficient. The other piece is about an Allied airman fighting on the Western Front; not a related topic. In re: BURDEN, sure, the concerns expressed during this GAR were about the sources being unreliable; undue emphasis; and unencyclopedic content:
Sample content which fails both NPOV and RS:
References
Sources are entitled to refer to the subject for information. You have not proven the source is untrustworthy. Who cares? The opinions of wikipedians are irrelevant. As for anecdotes, if this thing about the mechanic and his rifle and 1944 meeting is such a problem, then it can go. But it is a lame excuse to justify delisting the article. Dapi89 ( talk) 08:25, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
The result of this GAR is delisted. While considerable effort has gone into the article, such as to remove Toliver & Constable's semi-fictional work, there are issues that have not been addressed: POV anecdotes; unreliable sources; etc.
New issues also keep cropping up, such as content failing verification, due to (possibly) swapping of citations without proper checking to make sure that the new sources support prior material; see: #Current state. Once identified, the Zabecki issues have been addressed, but here's the latest example:
References
The source -- STEALTH IS A ZERO-SUM GAME: A SUBMARINER’S VIEW OF THE ADVANCED TACTICAL FIGHTER, Capt James H. Patton, USN, Retired -- is a passing mention of Hartmann and does not mention Roßmann nor what he taught Hartmann. (It also took three tries during this GAR to pry out the author's info, which is concerning).
In this situation, it's hard to assume AGF re: existing content. I recommend that the improvements continue to address the issues identified in this GAR, with the attention to NPOV, proper sourcing, and verification. Then the article can be renominated. -- K.e.coffman ( talk) 03:37, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
You should not have closed this; there is no consensus.
The original vote was taken on the state of the article at that time, not since. And these points can be dealt with. Three sources attribute these tactics to Hartmann's tutor. The source about is reliable as well. Passing mentions in academic sources are just as reputable. You don't get to decide whether they are or not. Dapi89 ( talk) 09:50, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
I have reverted your removal of GA on the article FYI. Dapi89 ( talk) 10:04, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
Other contributors need to get involved. Otherwise it will be another case of one editor making a decision he or she feels is fit. That is not an appropriate way forward. Dapi89 ( talk) 10:22, 18 January 2019 (UTC)