![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Mölders's last rank was Oberst, not General. This is a very usual mistake, because Mölders's last post was General der Jagdflieger -- but it was a post, not rank. I've edited the article accordingly. - Mikko H. 10:32, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
The article says " 3rd squadron of J-88 Group". I have no idea what that refers to. III./JG88? 3./JG88? Something else? Can somebody who knows Mölders' career clarify? Trekphiler 04:36, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
The article had been altered to include the use of the word "Lieutenant", that is not the correct rank for a German Luftwaffe Officer. The rank is equivalent to the modern US Airforce Rank of Second Lietentant, but is spelt and pronounced "Leutnant".
To Emphaside this I have altered the link and spelling, so as to go to the German Army Rank listing (which is the same as the Luftwaffe listing), and corrected the spelling.
I have also made the link for Major also point to the same German Rank reference. Though the spelling in that case is the same.
- Xelous - 13th June 2007.
More terminology needs to be translated. Forex, Staffel and Jagdgruppe. What unit is this II./Infanterie-Regiment ? There should be a regimental number. This needs to be copy edited as there are numerous problems with the text. And what is the WP:MOS guidance on possessives when the name ends in s? Many instances of no possessive when Molders owned or did something. Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 02:35, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
lead
early life comments and questions
I've made a bunch of tweaks and smoothed out some text, fixed some colloquialisms.
More later. Auntieruth55 ( talk) 20:55, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
how about summarizing his units in the text, and focusing on his aerial victories, rather than every unit he served in, moved here on whenever, and there on whenever. Add a separate section on units, just a list or a table. That would shift the focus to his notability, rather than on the units he was with. Even with the English version (and the German in parens), the focus is on what unit he was in (because of the sheer volume of text), rather than what he did in that unit. ?? Auntieruth55 ( talk) 16:22, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
The new paragraph in legacy is very good info. I've fixed some obvious Germanisms (hope that's okay). I also added a few other translations and took out 2 redundancies elsewhere Auntieruth55 ( talk) 16:30, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
English-language source commenting on Mölders' falling out of favour in 2005: [1]; this mentions that he was posted to Spain well after Guernica. I've updated that part of the article accordingly, there wasn't doubt as to whether he'd participated, he wasn't even there. The bombing of Guernica was on April 26, 1937; Mölders went to Spain in April 1938. JN 466 23:13, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
A few of the heading titles in this article seem to be improperly capitalized. According to the Manual of Style, "Capitalize the first letter of the first word and any proper nouns in headings, but leave the rest in lower case." Thus, the following may need to be changed:
Usually I do this myself, but since this is a featured article and has presumably been copy-edited a lot already, I thought I'd ask here first to avoid accidentally de-capitalizing any proper nouns. Note that if the "Eastern Front" header is in fact correct (as it seems to be based on its article), instances of "Eastern front" in the text should be corrected instead. tk tk tk 07:40, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
If this was the recipient of a British or Commonwealth award, one would expect to see the initials VC, MC, DSO or whatever after his name. Surely that should also be the case here. Amandajm ( talk) 01:39, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
This page will receive many visits today and there have already been nefarious edits - if someone could put some sort of anti vandalism measure on this page I'm sure it will stop a lot of grief and save a lot of time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.19.24.152 ( talk) 04:07, 22 November 2009 (UTC) -- Ongoing /b/ raid target. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.207.247.50 ( talk) 04:50, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
Just got vandaled again. This page needs protection. Oh, and the vandalism was addition of a section titled "wIKIPEDIA is evil". Starbox ( talk) 19:39, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
There seems to be a misunderstanding in the article concerning the reason why Mölders' grave was levelled in 1975. The Invalidenfriedhof was not just located somewhere in East Berlin, but at the border to West Berlin. As border fortifications expanded over time, Mölders' grave came to lay within the "death strip" of the Berlin Wall. The order by East German officals to level graves on Invalidenfriedhof was restricted to graves in the "death strip"; so not all graves on the cemetery were affected. In other words: It was not a political step directed against a Wehrmacht officer (or against German militarism in general), but a border security measure.
Another point (just for general interest): As the article correctly shows, the rebuilt grave with a heavy marbled grey stone slab (as chosen by Mölders' family) looks completely different than the originally plain grave marker. Since Mölders' grave was the first to be rebuilt in the devasted parts of the cemetery, this sparked a controversy among conservators as to how preservation and reconstruction of this historic site could be reconciled with the preferences of the families of the dead. There was also some anxiety that too lavishly decorated reconstructed graves could attract Neo-Nazis. This lead to a resolution that lost graves on Invalidenfriedhof should only be marked with small standardized restitution stones. Exceptions are made if the original outlook of the grave is known and reconstruction is possible and desirable. This is the reason why Mölders' grave remains the only one on Invalidenfriedhof with a "contemporary" appearance. -- Beek100 ( talk) 07:47, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
This is very interesting information indeed. I will read the respective passage and maybe even buy one of the books mentioned. I suggest adding a small paragraph detailing the background and reasoning. I will post a suggestion here before adding to the article. Thanks for pointing this out. MisterBee1966 ( talk) 11:08, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
The reasons for grounding the most succesful fighter pilot ever should be very clear. The article mentions "propaganda" reasons in the lead-in which are not mentioned again. The body paragraph where the banning is mentioned suggests that it might have been part of his promotion to Oberst. What's the story? -- Atkinson ( talk) 10:01, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
Why does this article read as though the various military actions this fascist fuck did were glorious? The rebels in Spain didn't exactly have an airforce, so besides Guernica, why did Franco employ nationalist, German, air fighters? Altontacoma ( talk) 17:18, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
Nice... ;) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.73.247.37 ( talk) 20:57, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
Why do you assume that I think pages on US pilots are good? US servicemen have committed atrocities too, and I would hope that the relevant articles reflect them. Does "organizing history so we can apply it" mean that we should leave out the massive civilian deaths done by the German airmen in the Spanish civil war? And another thing, where did you get that I think all Germans are fascist? Quit reading into what people write. Altontacoma ( talk) 05:48, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
I find your assessment of Mölders character a little too one-dimensional. Interesting is that your conclusion after reading the article (I assume you read it) reduces him to a fascist fuck. To some degree I can follow this reasoning. By nature German soldiers who had fought for the Third Reich must be fascists and evil to some degree or other. This seems to be a common misconception, especially in Germany today. Clearly Mölders had talents that were much needed by the officials of Nazi Germany. I would probably even go as far as to say that he prospered in this environment. However, he did show character traits that many others did not have, stepping up for those close to him. Unfortunately fate denied us to find out how far his opposition and resistance would have taken him. All said I am always open for suggestions on how to improve the article. MisterBee1966 ( talk) 10:28, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Quoting 69.121.24.191: Why do any US fighter pilots have pages? Should we judge history relative to who won, or should we recall, learn about, and organize history so that we can apply it to the present? Oh wait, I forgot, you're an American, you don't learn history. In answer to that: Sooooooo you're saying that just because we won, that means our pilots can't have pages? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.235.27.73 ( talk) 00:04, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Nice article, worthy of this soldier's soldier.-- Murat ( talk) 20:16, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
The article states that he was "awarded the 2nd Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross with Oak Leaves (Ritterkreuz des Eisernen Kreuzes mit Eichenlaub) on 21 September 1941". However, this is mentioned in the "Battle of Britain" section of the article. Could it be that he was awarded this medal on 21 September 1940, not 1941? Regards, -- Kjetil_r 13:40, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
I'd say the usage of the expression "christened" for commemorative namings here seems to be somewhat unfortunate. (→Etymology) -- CaffeineCyclist ( talk) 23:20, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
It says he became the first pilot to surpass 100 in July 1941. But he already had 14 victories in Spain. He passed the 100 mark a month earlier. Dapi89 ( talk) 18:04, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
I'm with the IP that this is superfluous information:
References
I was not able to find information that it was a recognised award, and the "mentioning in the Wehrmachtbericht" is not covered in 3rd party sources that I could locate. This is currently cited to the collection of Wehrmachtbericht transcripts (primary source), and its value in the article is questionable. K.e.coffman ( talk) 17:20, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
@ Assayer: I would be interested in seeing what Felix Römer has to say on the subject, as his book ( Kameraden) was well reviewed. K.e.coffman ( talk) 06:05, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
This article is dated when it comes to the literature being used. Obermaier/Held is from 1982 (1st. ed.) and considered to be "hagiographic". The most respected biography is by Kurt Braatz of 2008, only listed here under further reading. See the review by Heiner Möllers from the MGFA ( H-Soz-Kult, in German) and also Martin Moll's review in Militärgeschichtliche Zeitschrift 68 (2009), pp. 224-226. Important essays, particularly on the question of "Reversal of honours" are Klaus Schmider, "German military tradition and the expert opinion on Werner Mölders: opening a dialogue among scholars." In: Global War Studies (formerly World War Two Quarterly), Vol. 7 (2010), Nr. 1, pp. 6-29. Bernd Lemke, "Moral Micrology vs. Subsumption: A methodical perspective on the "Mölders Case"," in: Global War Studies, Vol. 7 (2010), Nr. 1, pp. 123-134. More recent Wolfgang Schmidt, "Organisiertes Erinnerung und Vergessen in der Bundeswehr. Traditionspflege am Beispiel der „Causa Mölders“." In: Nina Leonhard u.a. (ed.), Organisation und Gedächtnis. Soziales Gedächtnis, Erinnern und Vergessen – Memory Studies, Wiesbaden 2016, pp. 183-223. Available online are Klaus Schmider, "Werner Mölders und die Bundeswehr: Anmerkungen zum Umgang mit der Geschichte der Wehrmacht," Portal Militärgeschichte and Heiner Moellers, "Mölders und kein Ende? Eine Replik auf Klaus Schmider," doi: 10.15500/akm.05.09.2016. Simply using Hagena is not enough.-- Assayer ( talk) 19:48, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
I removed the citations to Seemen. It's a dated, less than RS source; in any case, two remaining sources are plenty for material that's unlikely to be challenged.
Specificly on Seemen, pleas see this 2013 discussion: Recent deletions of unreliable sources. K.e.coffman ( talk) 05:04, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
K.e.coffman, I object to your unilateral deletions etc of material in Featured Articles. This seems like it has one intent: to drive a specific discussion of WWII pilots in the direction you want, not to present the information that the original editor/s deemed relevant to a biography of the individual. This seems clearly the intent, especially since the better part of the "discussion" you present is cut and pasted from other "discussions" of similar articles, regardless of previous efforts to mediate this behavior, and regardless of previous efforts to discuss this with you! auntieruth (talk) 13:42, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
Unilateral deletions, editsdo you specifically object to in this article? K.e.coffman ( talk) 14:24, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
The article is using a number of POV & less than RS sources:
The author is not to be criticized for the fact that no scientific literature has been used, because there are none. Serious military historians are concerned with other things. According to WP:Q, the lack of scientific literature points to a lack of relevance.
In view of these concerns, and the amount of excessive intricate detail, the tags added by Creuzbourg are justified. I'll restore the them. Please also see Talk:Werner_Mölders#Update_on_the_literature immediately above. K.e.coffman ( talk) 04:45, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
Preserving here by providing this link; pls see edit summaries for rationale. K.e.coffman ( talk) 01:46, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
I trimmed the section on post-war commemoration. The article veers at times into editorialising and possibly synthesis, such as here, by using the subject's membership in the Catholic youth organisation (in 1925-1931) as evidence of an ambivalence towards the regime:
References
Please see diff for other examples. Please let me know if there any concerns. K.e.coffman ( talk) 03:44, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
Hi @ K.e.coffman:, I'm reading your deletions labeled as "trimming excessive detail" etc and finding that your trimming is actually cutting out information that might be interesting. I'm never sure if I'm citing edits correctly, but I think this is one here. I understand your goal to insure that the Nazi hagiography is not promoted, however, I'm wondering if we are throwing out the baby with the bathwater here. Do others find this to be the case? @ Peacemaker67:, & @ Ian Rose: & @ Sturmvogel 66: & @ MisterBee1966: and @ WP:MILHIST coordinators: @ Kierzek: & @ Creuzbourg: & @ Assayer: (I'm pinging a lot of people so that no one feels left out!) Cheers, auntieruth (talk) 19:32, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
I confess I'm a little confused about the purpose of this discussion. If it is purely about deletion of overly detailed information, I'd agree with most of the deletions. If it is about deleting material because it comes from sources that are consider NR because they are POV, I might have something to say. -- Lineagegeek ( talk) 00:03, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
lovely little details that make a person seem human, that illustrate character and foibleshave the potential to turn biographical articles into trivializations of evil, regardless of ideology. That's less an issue with Mölders, but was (and maybe will be again) an issue with, e.g., Rudel, whose post war Nazi activities had been dealt with as Sport and political ambitions. And, yes, when Luise Baldauf and Werner Mölders came together Luise was widowed.-- Assayer ( talk) 23:45, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
This is the flag (and practice) which which I have the most problem right now: This article may contain an excessive amount of intricate detail that may only interest a specific audience. If some detail may only interest a specific audience, and doesn't interest another audience, people have the ability to stop reading. No one is holding them to the computer/screen (whatever) to make them read the details. It is possible to skip down, move ahead, or move on. However, there is acknowledgement of a specific audience that will have an interest in the level of intricate detail included. When that detail is included they are free to read on, or not. It is, fundamentally, a choice. If I'm browsing, I might read only the lead, which gives me a summary of what is in the article. If I want something specific, I might skip directly to that particular section. So my tendency is on the side of more detail, not less. auntieruth (talk) 19:18, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
Summary style is based on the premise that information about a topic need not all be contained in a single article. WP:DETAIL has three layers: 1.) quick summary of the most important points in the lead, 2.) moderate amount of information on the topic's more important points in the main body of the article, and 3.) Some readers need a lot of details on one or more aspects of the topic (links to full-sized separate subarticles) . But in fact, that's not really the issue here, because no one, I guess, would expect subarticles on Mölder's family or the like. So this discussion is about the question, if anything that can be reliably sourced even ought to be included in the article, because it may find an interested readership. That's a strong laissez-faire attitude. Fair enough, but taken to the extreme, that position would warrant the transformation of a biographical article into a full scale biography, probably several hundred pages long in its printed form. Webspace is unlimited and anyone not interested in the details could skip those, right? So, where do you draw the line? On another level I would make the argument that you cannot simply assume that the facts and their narrative representation are the same. Facts or events exist as prelinguistic phenomena, but the way in which they are represented imbues them with a certain meaning and thus their narration is also an interpretation. That's why I pointed to the problem of trivialization. For example, by reading the chapter Condor Legion, does any reader get any information why that later became a problem for the Bundeswehr? Besides, there is also the issue of readability and accessibility. If you have to skip through articles because of intricate details that annoy you in search of information that interests you, that does not speak for readability of the article in question. It should not be up to a reader not familiar with the topic to sort out the issues under piles of details. A matter of taste? Certainly. But that's also the case with that "lovely little details".-- Assayer ( talk) 16:41, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
: K.e.coffman ( talk · contribs) has started work on reduction of detail on another article (see Helmut Wick tags, and I've asked him to hold off on his energetic pursuit of details until we resolve this here. Perhaps we should move this whole discussion to the MilHist page? Or....? thoughts? @ WP:MILHIST coordinators:
@ Creuzbourg:, @ Iazyges: & @ Assayer:. auntieruth (talk) 13:53, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
Having been on break for most of the year, I haven't been following this discussion, but I've commented unfavorably on K.e.coffman ( talk · contribs)'s habit of deleting pertinent detail in various biographies in the holy name of concision. Here's a diff from Joachim Helbig that he made about six months ago that deletes the exact units to which he was assigned, his unique method of getting his pilot's wings and other things of interest to even general readers: [3] He insists on enforcing his own ideas on what the appropriate level of detail is for these biographical articles without regard to the opinions of other editors, and tends to prevail through the willingness to expend vast amounts of energy than those editors with differing views. I forget which article it was that MisterBee1966 had nominated, but he'd added the type of crops grown by the subject's father and a bunch of extraneous detail. That sort of crap needs to be deleted, but the stuff that coffman deleted from the Helbig article needs to remain, although I'm very doubtful that we'll be able to phrase an RFC precisely enough to forbid an editor from deleting he regards as excessive detail.-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 01:50, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
I have commented on a number of articles where there have been similar discussions as a result of notifications at MILHIST. To this extent, I am a largely uninvolved editor. Through these involvements, I would observe that K.e.coffman ( talk · contribs) clearly has an agenda in which he is supported by a small number of like-minded editors. There is a pattern to this agenda: banner bombing, parsing on the claim of relevance, unnecessary detail or "reliability of sources" and ultimately, deletion, if an article can be so reduced by the afore. While there may be some benefit to subject articles as a result of K.e.coffman ( talk · contribs)'s attentions, for the most part, these are generally against a broader consensus, as is being demonstrated here. The "excessive zeal" sails close to Wikipedia:POV warrior, Wikipedia:Wikilawyering and Wikipedia:Troll - perhaps indistinguishably so. I note the comment by Sturmvogel 66: "He insists on enforcing his own ideas on what the appropriate level of detail is for these biographical articles without regard to the opinions of other editors, and tends to prevail through the willingness to expend vast amounts of energy than those editors with differing views." My observation is that pursuit of this agenda is disruptive to the project and WP more generally and that the detriment to both far exceeds any value to either by this ongoing pursuit. Regards, Cinderella157 ( talk) 02:54, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
absolutely classic Luftwaffe propaganda. The article was ultimately delisted. K.e.coffman ( talk) 03:12, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
I agree the maintenance tag should be removed as there does not appear to be a consensus that the issues it identifies even exist in this case. Anotherclown ( talk) 10:03, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Mölders's last rank was Oberst, not General. This is a very usual mistake, because Mölders's last post was General der Jagdflieger -- but it was a post, not rank. I've edited the article accordingly. - Mikko H. 10:32, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
The article says " 3rd squadron of J-88 Group". I have no idea what that refers to. III./JG88? 3./JG88? Something else? Can somebody who knows Mölders' career clarify? Trekphiler 04:36, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
The article had been altered to include the use of the word "Lieutenant", that is not the correct rank for a German Luftwaffe Officer. The rank is equivalent to the modern US Airforce Rank of Second Lietentant, but is spelt and pronounced "Leutnant".
To Emphaside this I have altered the link and spelling, so as to go to the German Army Rank listing (which is the same as the Luftwaffe listing), and corrected the spelling.
I have also made the link for Major also point to the same German Rank reference. Though the spelling in that case is the same.
- Xelous - 13th June 2007.
More terminology needs to be translated. Forex, Staffel and Jagdgruppe. What unit is this II./Infanterie-Regiment ? There should be a regimental number. This needs to be copy edited as there are numerous problems with the text. And what is the WP:MOS guidance on possessives when the name ends in s? Many instances of no possessive when Molders owned or did something. Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 02:35, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
lead
early life comments and questions
I've made a bunch of tweaks and smoothed out some text, fixed some colloquialisms.
More later. Auntieruth55 ( talk) 20:55, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
how about summarizing his units in the text, and focusing on his aerial victories, rather than every unit he served in, moved here on whenever, and there on whenever. Add a separate section on units, just a list or a table. That would shift the focus to his notability, rather than on the units he was with. Even with the English version (and the German in parens), the focus is on what unit he was in (because of the sheer volume of text), rather than what he did in that unit. ?? Auntieruth55 ( talk) 16:22, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
The new paragraph in legacy is very good info. I've fixed some obvious Germanisms (hope that's okay). I also added a few other translations and took out 2 redundancies elsewhere Auntieruth55 ( talk) 16:30, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
English-language source commenting on Mölders' falling out of favour in 2005: [1]; this mentions that he was posted to Spain well after Guernica. I've updated that part of the article accordingly, there wasn't doubt as to whether he'd participated, he wasn't even there. The bombing of Guernica was on April 26, 1937; Mölders went to Spain in April 1938. JN 466 23:13, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
A few of the heading titles in this article seem to be improperly capitalized. According to the Manual of Style, "Capitalize the first letter of the first word and any proper nouns in headings, but leave the rest in lower case." Thus, the following may need to be changed:
Usually I do this myself, but since this is a featured article and has presumably been copy-edited a lot already, I thought I'd ask here first to avoid accidentally de-capitalizing any proper nouns. Note that if the "Eastern Front" header is in fact correct (as it seems to be based on its article), instances of "Eastern front" in the text should be corrected instead. tk tk tk 07:40, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
If this was the recipient of a British or Commonwealth award, one would expect to see the initials VC, MC, DSO or whatever after his name. Surely that should also be the case here. Amandajm ( talk) 01:39, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
This page will receive many visits today and there have already been nefarious edits - if someone could put some sort of anti vandalism measure on this page I'm sure it will stop a lot of grief and save a lot of time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.19.24.152 ( talk) 04:07, 22 November 2009 (UTC) -- Ongoing /b/ raid target. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.207.247.50 ( talk) 04:50, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
Just got vandaled again. This page needs protection. Oh, and the vandalism was addition of a section titled "wIKIPEDIA is evil". Starbox ( talk) 19:39, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
There seems to be a misunderstanding in the article concerning the reason why Mölders' grave was levelled in 1975. The Invalidenfriedhof was not just located somewhere in East Berlin, but at the border to West Berlin. As border fortifications expanded over time, Mölders' grave came to lay within the "death strip" of the Berlin Wall. The order by East German officals to level graves on Invalidenfriedhof was restricted to graves in the "death strip"; so not all graves on the cemetery were affected. In other words: It was not a political step directed against a Wehrmacht officer (or against German militarism in general), but a border security measure.
Another point (just for general interest): As the article correctly shows, the rebuilt grave with a heavy marbled grey stone slab (as chosen by Mölders' family) looks completely different than the originally plain grave marker. Since Mölders' grave was the first to be rebuilt in the devasted parts of the cemetery, this sparked a controversy among conservators as to how preservation and reconstruction of this historic site could be reconciled with the preferences of the families of the dead. There was also some anxiety that too lavishly decorated reconstructed graves could attract Neo-Nazis. This lead to a resolution that lost graves on Invalidenfriedhof should only be marked with small standardized restitution stones. Exceptions are made if the original outlook of the grave is known and reconstruction is possible and desirable. This is the reason why Mölders' grave remains the only one on Invalidenfriedhof with a "contemporary" appearance. -- Beek100 ( talk) 07:47, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
This is very interesting information indeed. I will read the respective passage and maybe even buy one of the books mentioned. I suggest adding a small paragraph detailing the background and reasoning. I will post a suggestion here before adding to the article. Thanks for pointing this out. MisterBee1966 ( talk) 11:08, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
The reasons for grounding the most succesful fighter pilot ever should be very clear. The article mentions "propaganda" reasons in the lead-in which are not mentioned again. The body paragraph where the banning is mentioned suggests that it might have been part of his promotion to Oberst. What's the story? -- Atkinson ( talk) 10:01, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
Why does this article read as though the various military actions this fascist fuck did were glorious? The rebels in Spain didn't exactly have an airforce, so besides Guernica, why did Franco employ nationalist, German, air fighters? Altontacoma ( talk) 17:18, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
Nice... ;) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.73.247.37 ( talk) 20:57, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
Why do you assume that I think pages on US pilots are good? US servicemen have committed atrocities too, and I would hope that the relevant articles reflect them. Does "organizing history so we can apply it" mean that we should leave out the massive civilian deaths done by the German airmen in the Spanish civil war? And another thing, where did you get that I think all Germans are fascist? Quit reading into what people write. Altontacoma ( talk) 05:48, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
I find your assessment of Mölders character a little too one-dimensional. Interesting is that your conclusion after reading the article (I assume you read it) reduces him to a fascist fuck. To some degree I can follow this reasoning. By nature German soldiers who had fought for the Third Reich must be fascists and evil to some degree or other. This seems to be a common misconception, especially in Germany today. Clearly Mölders had talents that were much needed by the officials of Nazi Germany. I would probably even go as far as to say that he prospered in this environment. However, he did show character traits that many others did not have, stepping up for those close to him. Unfortunately fate denied us to find out how far his opposition and resistance would have taken him. All said I am always open for suggestions on how to improve the article. MisterBee1966 ( talk) 10:28, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Quoting 69.121.24.191: Why do any US fighter pilots have pages? Should we judge history relative to who won, or should we recall, learn about, and organize history so that we can apply it to the present? Oh wait, I forgot, you're an American, you don't learn history. In answer to that: Sooooooo you're saying that just because we won, that means our pilots can't have pages? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.235.27.73 ( talk) 00:04, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Nice article, worthy of this soldier's soldier.-- Murat ( talk) 20:16, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
The article states that he was "awarded the 2nd Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross with Oak Leaves (Ritterkreuz des Eisernen Kreuzes mit Eichenlaub) on 21 September 1941". However, this is mentioned in the "Battle of Britain" section of the article. Could it be that he was awarded this medal on 21 September 1940, not 1941? Regards, -- Kjetil_r 13:40, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
I'd say the usage of the expression "christened" for commemorative namings here seems to be somewhat unfortunate. (→Etymology) -- CaffeineCyclist ( talk) 23:20, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
It says he became the first pilot to surpass 100 in July 1941. But he already had 14 victories in Spain. He passed the 100 mark a month earlier. Dapi89 ( talk) 18:04, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
I'm with the IP that this is superfluous information:
References
I was not able to find information that it was a recognised award, and the "mentioning in the Wehrmachtbericht" is not covered in 3rd party sources that I could locate. This is currently cited to the collection of Wehrmachtbericht transcripts (primary source), and its value in the article is questionable. K.e.coffman ( talk) 17:20, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
@ Assayer: I would be interested in seeing what Felix Römer has to say on the subject, as his book ( Kameraden) was well reviewed. K.e.coffman ( talk) 06:05, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
This article is dated when it comes to the literature being used. Obermaier/Held is from 1982 (1st. ed.) and considered to be "hagiographic". The most respected biography is by Kurt Braatz of 2008, only listed here under further reading. See the review by Heiner Möllers from the MGFA ( H-Soz-Kult, in German) and also Martin Moll's review in Militärgeschichtliche Zeitschrift 68 (2009), pp. 224-226. Important essays, particularly on the question of "Reversal of honours" are Klaus Schmider, "German military tradition and the expert opinion on Werner Mölders: opening a dialogue among scholars." In: Global War Studies (formerly World War Two Quarterly), Vol. 7 (2010), Nr. 1, pp. 6-29. Bernd Lemke, "Moral Micrology vs. Subsumption: A methodical perspective on the "Mölders Case"," in: Global War Studies, Vol. 7 (2010), Nr. 1, pp. 123-134. More recent Wolfgang Schmidt, "Organisiertes Erinnerung und Vergessen in der Bundeswehr. Traditionspflege am Beispiel der „Causa Mölders“." In: Nina Leonhard u.a. (ed.), Organisation und Gedächtnis. Soziales Gedächtnis, Erinnern und Vergessen – Memory Studies, Wiesbaden 2016, pp. 183-223. Available online are Klaus Schmider, "Werner Mölders und die Bundeswehr: Anmerkungen zum Umgang mit der Geschichte der Wehrmacht," Portal Militärgeschichte and Heiner Moellers, "Mölders und kein Ende? Eine Replik auf Klaus Schmider," doi: 10.15500/akm.05.09.2016. Simply using Hagena is not enough.-- Assayer ( talk) 19:48, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
I removed the citations to Seemen. It's a dated, less than RS source; in any case, two remaining sources are plenty for material that's unlikely to be challenged.
Specificly on Seemen, pleas see this 2013 discussion: Recent deletions of unreliable sources. K.e.coffman ( talk) 05:04, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
K.e.coffman, I object to your unilateral deletions etc of material in Featured Articles. This seems like it has one intent: to drive a specific discussion of WWII pilots in the direction you want, not to present the information that the original editor/s deemed relevant to a biography of the individual. This seems clearly the intent, especially since the better part of the "discussion" you present is cut and pasted from other "discussions" of similar articles, regardless of previous efforts to mediate this behavior, and regardless of previous efforts to discuss this with you! auntieruth (talk) 13:42, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
Unilateral deletions, editsdo you specifically object to in this article? K.e.coffman ( talk) 14:24, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
The article is using a number of POV & less than RS sources:
The author is not to be criticized for the fact that no scientific literature has been used, because there are none. Serious military historians are concerned with other things. According to WP:Q, the lack of scientific literature points to a lack of relevance.
In view of these concerns, and the amount of excessive intricate detail, the tags added by Creuzbourg are justified. I'll restore the them. Please also see Talk:Werner_Mölders#Update_on_the_literature immediately above. K.e.coffman ( talk) 04:45, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
Preserving here by providing this link; pls see edit summaries for rationale. K.e.coffman ( talk) 01:46, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
I trimmed the section on post-war commemoration. The article veers at times into editorialising and possibly synthesis, such as here, by using the subject's membership in the Catholic youth organisation (in 1925-1931) as evidence of an ambivalence towards the regime:
References
Please see diff for other examples. Please let me know if there any concerns. K.e.coffman ( talk) 03:44, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
Hi @ K.e.coffman:, I'm reading your deletions labeled as "trimming excessive detail" etc and finding that your trimming is actually cutting out information that might be interesting. I'm never sure if I'm citing edits correctly, but I think this is one here. I understand your goal to insure that the Nazi hagiography is not promoted, however, I'm wondering if we are throwing out the baby with the bathwater here. Do others find this to be the case? @ Peacemaker67:, & @ Ian Rose: & @ Sturmvogel 66: & @ MisterBee1966: and @ WP:MILHIST coordinators: @ Kierzek: & @ Creuzbourg: & @ Assayer: (I'm pinging a lot of people so that no one feels left out!) Cheers, auntieruth (talk) 19:32, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
I confess I'm a little confused about the purpose of this discussion. If it is purely about deletion of overly detailed information, I'd agree with most of the deletions. If it is about deleting material because it comes from sources that are consider NR because they are POV, I might have something to say. -- Lineagegeek ( talk) 00:03, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
lovely little details that make a person seem human, that illustrate character and foibleshave the potential to turn biographical articles into trivializations of evil, regardless of ideology. That's less an issue with Mölders, but was (and maybe will be again) an issue with, e.g., Rudel, whose post war Nazi activities had been dealt with as Sport and political ambitions. And, yes, when Luise Baldauf and Werner Mölders came together Luise was widowed.-- Assayer ( talk) 23:45, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
This is the flag (and practice) which which I have the most problem right now: This article may contain an excessive amount of intricate detail that may only interest a specific audience. If some detail may only interest a specific audience, and doesn't interest another audience, people have the ability to stop reading. No one is holding them to the computer/screen (whatever) to make them read the details. It is possible to skip down, move ahead, or move on. However, there is acknowledgement of a specific audience that will have an interest in the level of intricate detail included. When that detail is included they are free to read on, or not. It is, fundamentally, a choice. If I'm browsing, I might read only the lead, which gives me a summary of what is in the article. If I want something specific, I might skip directly to that particular section. So my tendency is on the side of more detail, not less. auntieruth (talk) 19:18, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
Summary style is based on the premise that information about a topic need not all be contained in a single article. WP:DETAIL has three layers: 1.) quick summary of the most important points in the lead, 2.) moderate amount of information on the topic's more important points in the main body of the article, and 3.) Some readers need a lot of details on one or more aspects of the topic (links to full-sized separate subarticles) . But in fact, that's not really the issue here, because no one, I guess, would expect subarticles on Mölder's family or the like. So this discussion is about the question, if anything that can be reliably sourced even ought to be included in the article, because it may find an interested readership. That's a strong laissez-faire attitude. Fair enough, but taken to the extreme, that position would warrant the transformation of a biographical article into a full scale biography, probably several hundred pages long in its printed form. Webspace is unlimited and anyone not interested in the details could skip those, right? So, where do you draw the line? On another level I would make the argument that you cannot simply assume that the facts and their narrative representation are the same. Facts or events exist as prelinguistic phenomena, but the way in which they are represented imbues them with a certain meaning and thus their narration is also an interpretation. That's why I pointed to the problem of trivialization. For example, by reading the chapter Condor Legion, does any reader get any information why that later became a problem for the Bundeswehr? Besides, there is also the issue of readability and accessibility. If you have to skip through articles because of intricate details that annoy you in search of information that interests you, that does not speak for readability of the article in question. It should not be up to a reader not familiar with the topic to sort out the issues under piles of details. A matter of taste? Certainly. But that's also the case with that "lovely little details".-- Assayer ( talk) 16:41, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
: K.e.coffman ( talk · contribs) has started work on reduction of detail on another article (see Helmut Wick tags, and I've asked him to hold off on his energetic pursuit of details until we resolve this here. Perhaps we should move this whole discussion to the MilHist page? Or....? thoughts? @ WP:MILHIST coordinators:
@ Creuzbourg:, @ Iazyges: & @ Assayer:. auntieruth (talk) 13:53, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
Having been on break for most of the year, I haven't been following this discussion, but I've commented unfavorably on K.e.coffman ( talk · contribs)'s habit of deleting pertinent detail in various biographies in the holy name of concision. Here's a diff from Joachim Helbig that he made about six months ago that deletes the exact units to which he was assigned, his unique method of getting his pilot's wings and other things of interest to even general readers: [3] He insists on enforcing his own ideas on what the appropriate level of detail is for these biographical articles without regard to the opinions of other editors, and tends to prevail through the willingness to expend vast amounts of energy than those editors with differing views. I forget which article it was that MisterBee1966 had nominated, but he'd added the type of crops grown by the subject's father and a bunch of extraneous detail. That sort of crap needs to be deleted, but the stuff that coffman deleted from the Helbig article needs to remain, although I'm very doubtful that we'll be able to phrase an RFC precisely enough to forbid an editor from deleting he regards as excessive detail.-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 01:50, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
I have commented on a number of articles where there have been similar discussions as a result of notifications at MILHIST. To this extent, I am a largely uninvolved editor. Through these involvements, I would observe that K.e.coffman ( talk · contribs) clearly has an agenda in which he is supported by a small number of like-minded editors. There is a pattern to this agenda: banner bombing, parsing on the claim of relevance, unnecessary detail or "reliability of sources" and ultimately, deletion, if an article can be so reduced by the afore. While there may be some benefit to subject articles as a result of K.e.coffman ( talk · contribs)'s attentions, for the most part, these are generally against a broader consensus, as is being demonstrated here. The "excessive zeal" sails close to Wikipedia:POV warrior, Wikipedia:Wikilawyering and Wikipedia:Troll - perhaps indistinguishably so. I note the comment by Sturmvogel 66: "He insists on enforcing his own ideas on what the appropriate level of detail is for these biographical articles without regard to the opinions of other editors, and tends to prevail through the willingness to expend vast amounts of energy than those editors with differing views." My observation is that pursuit of this agenda is disruptive to the project and WP more generally and that the detriment to both far exceeds any value to either by this ongoing pursuit. Regards, Cinderella157 ( talk) 02:54, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
absolutely classic Luftwaffe propaganda. The article was ultimately delisted. K.e.coffman ( talk) 03:12, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
I agree the maintenance tag should be removed as there does not appear to be a consensus that the issues it identifies even exist in this case. Anotherclown ( talk) 10:03, 11 November 2017 (UTC)