This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Erich von Manstein article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5Auto-archiving period: 90 days |
Erich von Manstein is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed. | ||||||||||||||||
Erich von Manstein has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | ||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
Current status: Former featured article, current good article |
This
level-5 vital article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Material from Erich von Manstein was split to Trial of Erich von Manstein on 04:04, September 29, 2012. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted so long as the latter page exists. Please leave this template in place to link the article histories and preserve this attribution. |
This article was edited to contain a total or partial translation of Erich von Manstein from the German Wikipedia. Consult the history of the original page to see a list of its authors. |
This article has been
mentioned by a media organization:
|
The Crimea Shield on its own may not have been a major award. But what I wrote in the article was the Golden version, though. Only two gold Crimea Shields were made, and Manstein was one of the two recipients. Seems major enough for it to be added. I made a separate section on the CS article on this, and thoroughly sourced it. Torpilorul ( talk) 17:15, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
Quote "Germany's fortunes in the war began to take an unfavourable turn later in 1942, especially in the catastrophic Battle of Stalingrad,... " - so this isn't about the article person, but this statement isn't quite true, is it ? Yes - Stalingrad wasn't a fortunate even for Nazigermany, but Stalingrad is more of a symbol of the turning point than actual. Although von Manstein possibly thought some kind of victory could be achieved in Russia as late as a few months before his dismissal, it is more than difficult to understand how. Especially in the light of USSR's military production far far away in Siberia. No - but the main crush to the "great idea" of Germany invading the Soviet Union came already in December 1941, the so called
Battle of Moscow. That was when Nazigermany's firm trust in a fast victory vanished. After Moscow Germany managed to assemble yet another summer offensive - but with very limited goal compared to the year before. But it was already apparent that "Germany's fortunes" ended at Moscow 1941. Again Stalingrad was more of a symbol. (Also including not so few traces of later Stalinist history falsifications. Not at least due to the name of the city.) In the light of this, and as the quote not really has a bearing on the person the article is about, I propose: either change or delete at least the beginning of the quote in question.
Possibly to "Germany's initial fortunes in the war were long gone, especially in the catastrophic Battle of Stalingrad,... "
It's the idea of "just everything changed at Stalingrad" I disapprove of, nothing else.
Boeing720 (
talk)
19:42, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
Replying to Szzuk's post on my talk page. I don't see the point of a subsection on "war crimes" that simply repeats points already covered elsewhere in the article. Hence I've removed some content on the commissar order. The second paragraph of the "Trial" section makes it clear that although Manstein says otherwise, the prosecution found evidence that he did follow the commissar order. That gives a balanced view; I don't think it's our place to say definitively what he did or did not do based on the content of one biography. — Diannaa 🍁 ( talk) 21:49, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
Articles about generals usually include postwar assessments of their military skill, but this article doesn't seem to have them. It only mentions it in an offhand way, like "postwar writings have focused on Manstein's military feats and ignored his political/ethical dimensions" (I paraphrase) but never actually gives due weight to such writings. When reliable sources talk about Manstein's military skill (or lack thereof) that should be explicitly included in an "aftermath" or "legacy" section. Tbqh I don't think should be rated as a "Good" article right now because it is a fairly significant omission for an article about a general. 47.28.101.28 ( talk) 19:52, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
Second this. This article in it's current state is more of a teardown of "Manstein Myth" than a biography. Furthermore, there is almost zero context to this, it assumes the reader is already familiar with it without providing any explanation as to the substance behind it, real or imagined. 2601:19B:B80:3330:E072:1FD9:4759:ACD4 ( talk) 17:53, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
Hello, Diannaa.
You've removed my latest edit because of the fact not being entirely certain. I've provided a reliable source, however. Don't you think my edit could stay, considering that it's not a well-known fact and should receive some more attention? The fact that it's a speculation doesn't mean it's not true, after all. Lupishor ( talk) 15:13, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
Intro should be simplified. He was war criminal, no need to say for how many years he was sentenced etc there, it is in the details. 173.63.235.70 ( talk) 14:50, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Erich von Manstein article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5Auto-archiving period: 90 days |
Erich von Manstein is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed. | ||||||||||||||||
Erich von Manstein has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | ||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
Current status: Former featured article, current good article |
This
level-5 vital article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Material from Erich von Manstein was split to Trial of Erich von Manstein on 04:04, September 29, 2012. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted so long as the latter page exists. Please leave this template in place to link the article histories and preserve this attribution. |
This article was edited to contain a total or partial translation of Erich von Manstein from the German Wikipedia. Consult the history of the original page to see a list of its authors. |
This article has been
mentioned by a media organization:
|
The Crimea Shield on its own may not have been a major award. But what I wrote in the article was the Golden version, though. Only two gold Crimea Shields were made, and Manstein was one of the two recipients. Seems major enough for it to be added. I made a separate section on the CS article on this, and thoroughly sourced it. Torpilorul ( talk) 17:15, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
Quote "Germany's fortunes in the war began to take an unfavourable turn later in 1942, especially in the catastrophic Battle of Stalingrad,... " - so this isn't about the article person, but this statement isn't quite true, is it ? Yes - Stalingrad wasn't a fortunate even for Nazigermany, but Stalingrad is more of a symbol of the turning point than actual. Although von Manstein possibly thought some kind of victory could be achieved in Russia as late as a few months before his dismissal, it is more than difficult to understand how. Especially in the light of USSR's military production far far away in Siberia. No - but the main crush to the "great idea" of Germany invading the Soviet Union came already in December 1941, the so called
Battle of Moscow. That was when Nazigermany's firm trust in a fast victory vanished. After Moscow Germany managed to assemble yet another summer offensive - but with very limited goal compared to the year before. But it was already apparent that "Germany's fortunes" ended at Moscow 1941. Again Stalingrad was more of a symbol. (Also including not so few traces of later Stalinist history falsifications. Not at least due to the name of the city.) In the light of this, and as the quote not really has a bearing on the person the article is about, I propose: either change or delete at least the beginning of the quote in question.
Possibly to "Germany's initial fortunes in the war were long gone, especially in the catastrophic Battle of Stalingrad,... "
It's the idea of "just everything changed at Stalingrad" I disapprove of, nothing else.
Boeing720 (
talk)
19:42, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
Replying to Szzuk's post on my talk page. I don't see the point of a subsection on "war crimes" that simply repeats points already covered elsewhere in the article. Hence I've removed some content on the commissar order. The second paragraph of the "Trial" section makes it clear that although Manstein says otherwise, the prosecution found evidence that he did follow the commissar order. That gives a balanced view; I don't think it's our place to say definitively what he did or did not do based on the content of one biography. — Diannaa 🍁 ( talk) 21:49, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
Articles about generals usually include postwar assessments of their military skill, but this article doesn't seem to have them. It only mentions it in an offhand way, like "postwar writings have focused on Manstein's military feats and ignored his political/ethical dimensions" (I paraphrase) but never actually gives due weight to such writings. When reliable sources talk about Manstein's military skill (or lack thereof) that should be explicitly included in an "aftermath" or "legacy" section. Tbqh I don't think should be rated as a "Good" article right now because it is a fairly significant omission for an article about a general. 47.28.101.28 ( talk) 19:52, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
Second this. This article in it's current state is more of a teardown of "Manstein Myth" than a biography. Furthermore, there is almost zero context to this, it assumes the reader is already familiar with it without providing any explanation as to the substance behind it, real or imagined. 2601:19B:B80:3330:E072:1FD9:4759:ACD4 ( talk) 17:53, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
Hello, Diannaa.
You've removed my latest edit because of the fact not being entirely certain. I've provided a reliable source, however. Don't you think my edit could stay, considering that it's not a well-known fact and should receive some more attention? The fact that it's a speculation doesn't mean it's not true, after all. Lupishor ( talk) 15:13, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
Intro should be simplified. He was war criminal, no need to say for how many years he was sentenced etc there, it is in the details. 173.63.235.70 ( talk) 14:50, 2 July 2023 (UTC)