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.
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
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:
[1]. 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)
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: [5] & [6]? 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)
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.
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
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:
[1]. 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)
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: [5] & [6]? 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)