Talk:Hans-Joachim Marseille/Archive 1

message: this is about the following paragraph in the article:
Many, like Adolf Galland considered him to be the best ace of the war. Marseille scored most of his victories against the Tomahawks, Kittyhawks, Hurricanes and Spitfires of the well-trained RAF and Commonwealth pilots in North Africa, whereas the majority of the other German aces scored most of their victories in the Russian theatre, where targets where much more numerous.
now can anyone prove that? to the best of my knowledge, Tomahawks were outdated by the start of the war, being sent in lend-lease because that's all the yanks had extra before they joined.  as well the aircraft sent to Africa were second line, as the best and newest fighters were all being used at home to protect Britain, so this paragraph has no purpose but to continue the standard western stereotyping of the Soviets. (I am from Canada, so I am not a bleeding heart in Russia trying to make my country seem great).  the Highest scoring Russian ace had 80 victories, the highest western ally: 32. Somewhere in there facts dont match with the speculation put out in the article.  and I dont like the terming of the last sentence "targets" implies that they were basically sitting ducks.  the Russian fighters were not obsolete, sure the I-16 and others at the start of Barbarossa were outdated, but tehy were being phased out at the time, and by the end of teh war the Russians were using soem great flying machines, not to mention that through lend-lease they were flying American planes, so claiming they were obsolete is, well ludicrous.
--Jadger 05:49, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've got no opinion on what was/wasn't outdated, as I really know very little about the craft.  I'll point out the POV fact that it's possible Soviet aces numbers were exaggerated as per Vassili Zaitsev or something, though of course that can always cut both directions...but I do definitely agree about the word "targets" having a pov implication, and it should be changed. Sherurcij (talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject) 05:55, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: unsourced and speculative

message: The article says his last mission was a bomber escort, but the essay referenced at the bottom says it was a fighter sweep. Just wanting to make sure the article is right, which was it?
:Well spotted, I have another source that calls the mission 'a patrol'. In the absence of a definitive answer I will generalise the wording of the article to 'mission' unless you can think of a better solution?Mumby 19:45, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Last Mission

message: I'm not one her fans, so I don't get the Joke.
Yes infact it was ironic. Luftwaffe forces in North Africa were outnumbered from May 1942 onwards, and flew comparable numbers of missions until its defeat in Tunisia. My point was that since there were just as numerous targets in May-August 1942 as there were in September 1942 Marseille was far more productive in those thirty days as he had been over the previous six months. Infact what makes it more ironic is that Allied Pilots were far better trained and 'more aggressive in the air' as Marseille himself said, in the latter half of 1942 than they were before, but he was not shot down. Unlike the early days when with experience from the Battle of Britain and seven kills to his name against inferior aircraft (Hurricane's mostly) he got shot down a couple of times..........thus its ironic.
Hence I added back the sentence.
Dapi89 13:50, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, no offence meant, I was just trying to illustrate the aspect of 'point of view', that is not necessarily my point of view.  I totally agree though, I think we have taken this conversation far enough!  I must get a good book on Marseille so we can make the article better.Mumby 19:11, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ironic Death Reply 

message: Guys,
In Franz Kurowski's German Fighter Ace: Hans-Joachim Marseille (1994, p208) it clearly states his last mission as a Stuka escort mission. Also Fritz Dettmann, Mein Freund Marseille (1944)refers to this being the case as does jerry Scutts in BF109 Aces of North Africa and the Mediterranean(p33). Infact the overwhelming number of reliable soures I have looked at quote it as being 'Stuka escort'. There are some mistakes as in Uwe Feist's The Fighting BF109, but as this is not about the Pilot himself this can be attributed to error. I can only attribute this to the fact that Marseille's squadron had parted with the Stuka's and were directed toward enemy fighters, but the enemy refused to take up combat -source Franz Kurowski's book. This may explain the confusion and why it was refered to as a sweep by mistake.
Just out of interest the former mentions a telephone call made to Marseille by Erwin Rommel on the 28th September, asking him to go with him to Berlin to meet Hitler at the Berliner Sportsplatz on the 30th. Marseille refused this offer. When he was falling to death he could have been safely back in berlin!
Dapi89 13:56, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Dapi89, thanks for the useful information. Since you have some good book references, could you please add these to the article as in-line references, the article really needs good references!  To do this, after the part where it says "stuka escort mission" (the bit you just added), add the citaion template 
  and fill in the fields.  Then, in the notes section lower down the page, add the tag  and rename the section 'notes and references' to reflect this.  If you can do this with anymore references throughout the article that would be great!Mumby 14:41, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

text: p.s. See this page WP:CITET for more information on citation templates.Mumby 14:48, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

text: No problem!  It was just a case of putting everything in the same format.Mumby 19:11, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Last Mission 

message: Mumby 
I have added and amended some of the beginning and end of this article. I will try to flesh out and add some more to the middle section and hs military service. Info is hard to come by on this pilot but i do have some great quotes and interesting and otherwise unknown info about marseille i could put in. In particular a couple of lines out of a conversation with his friend 
Hans Arnold Stahlschmidt- about his attack methods.
Dapi89 22:03, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK great, thanks for taking the effort to expand this article.  It is much longer now, perhaps we should think about the layout and arrangement?  For example, the Biography section could be split into 'Early Life' and 'Military Career'.  And of course, the more references the better, if you have anything from the Osprey series of books they are normally quite good because they are often written by noted historians e.g Alfred Price.  What is the source for the quotes you mention?Mumby 22:40, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Expanding the middle Parts 

message: I made some edits throughout the article to bring style and tone in line with the Manual of Style, particularly Information style and tone : "the tone, however, should always remain formal, impersonal, and dispassionate."
I noticed there is quite a bit of jargon in the article.  I removed references to the  Luftbery circle for example as this term is not explained in the article.  Some of the German ranks that are mentioned but have no article of their own could also be explained (I have no idea myself!).  The same goes for some of the unit definitions.  Finally, a note on British/American English.  I don't think it matters which is used, but since it was mostly in British English I have brought all spelling in line with that, e.g. manoeuvre (B.E.) vs. manouvre (A. E.)Mumby 21:02, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Tone, style, and jargon.

message: Perhaps this would be a good place to discuss the dispute over how we present the victory tally, rather than having a to-and-fro in the main article.Mumby 22:17, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I find it odd that you mention arrogance and presumption after you have made allegation after allegation about my pov and my intentions without the least amount of evidence. On this issue I really I have no particular pov. I especially take issue with your comment that I have not provided any counter-arguments, you very well know that that is false. I have never said that the claims were inaccurate, in fact I think that the chances are, they were accurate. However, it simply cannot be stated with absolute certainty as your quote implies. Anyone who has the least amount of knowledge on the subject would understand that that claim is so outrageously silly as to actually be comical. I have attempted to engage you several times with civilty, and yet you have been nothing but rude since the very beginning. Your condescending disrespect may actually be aggravating if it weren't for the feebleness of your position.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 15:24, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

text: If you believe your initial "request" was civil, then I hope I never encounter you again in real life or wikipedia. Also in response to your remark about not breaking wikipedia guidelines, I did not say you did, I said you were one revert away from doing so. As per WP:3RR you may be blocked if you revert an article more than three times within 24 hours, you reverted exactly 3 times and therefore I gave a customary warning to notify you. Also, just because a passage has a source that passes reliability guidelines (your source was a little iffy) it does not automatically guarantee inclusion. I hope now we can put this matter to rest and move on.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 22:43, 24 April 2007(UTC)
The quote at the bottom of this article you removed has been re-added. It was referenced properly, and added much weight to the segment. Please do not remove things that are referenced and relevant on a whim.
This was what I said, which followed the 'ridiculous' accusation, and was more polite than you deserved.
I was fully entitled to revert the info back as it was legitimate, as I have explained time and time again. 
I am glad you have recognised that fact that you seem to acknowledge the quote did pass the reliability guidelines - it was exact and extremely relevant to that part of the article - therefore it was not 'iffy'.
To echo your comment on not wanting to encounter each other again, at last we agree on something.
Dapi89 18:10, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Get over it, I'm done, there is no reason to try to continue with this dispute. Its time you moved on with your life.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 15:00, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Disputes over claims

message: I propose a cleanup of this section. For example multiple references from the same source can be combined (as well, the numerous errors can be corrected) : e.g. 3. a.b. Kurowski,Franz. German Fighter Ace Hans-Joachim Marseille. Atglen, PA: Schiffer Military History, 1994. p. 15. . Bzuk 23:45, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. Bzuk 18:16, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: References and Notes

message: Why are we not using the template:cite book? I tried to introduce this here but my edits were reverted. If we have this template I feel we should make use of it.MisterBee1966 20:37, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure who reverted it, but unless anybody raises a specific reason to reject it, I suggest you re-insert it. Perhaps in a separate edit not adding/removing/changing any information which perhaps is being reverted, thus inadvertantly removing the citation updates. Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead)  21:03, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a template and shouldn't be used to replace legitimate "scratch" cataloging references and citations. Templates are not mandated and are used as an aid when editors are unable to edit references on their own. When the references were properly done and then another editor revises them to insert a template, then it's nonproductive editing. Check the citations and references and you will see they are properly cited. FWIW Bzuk 21:06, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citing 

message: No need to wikilink years when they appear without month and day. [Dates] doesn't expressly endorse or denounce it but the link adds absolutely no meaning to the article. If you click on the link it doesn't lead you to any new information about Marseilles. It doesn't help the year conform to user preferences, either; that's the main reason for date links. Binksternet (talk) 18:58, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Unlinking of the years in the infobox "Years of service" conforms to the established style of other holders of the Knight's Cross such as Erwin Rommel, Gordon Gollob, Hermann Graf, Walter Nowotny, Werner Mölders, Adolf Galland and Wolfgang Lüth. Binksternet (talk) 22:16, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You might have to define what is meant by "large number"... of the 27 Knight's Cross with Oak Leaves, Swords, and Diamonds holders I found only 2 with linked years in the infobox. 25 have the years unlinked, 24 if you don't include our dear departed master of deflection shooting, "Jochen". Binksternet (talk) 03:57, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Individual years are not generally linked as they do not have relevance specifically to the topic or subject. Bzuk (talk) 03:43, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Links should only be used if they are relevant to the context (see Wikipedia:Only_make_links_that_are_relevant_to_the_context). It is unlikely that users would like search for other events on the day when a fighter pilot was promoted. As a general rule within Wikipedia, only date of birth and death as well as significant dates are linked. Inwind (talk) 21:44, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The dates in the article are linked so that foreign users can identify them clearly and for individuals with browser preferences set to see the dates in their preferred form. This is an article that is constituted under a format that has been established by the WP:Aviation Project Group. The reason for using this variation is that dates are not the same in the 2007-05-10 format as it does not mean the same thing to foreign users. Is it October 5, 2007 or May 10, 2007? When you specify day, month, year, there is no ambiguity, it matches all the dating conventions within the text, and is already the agreed upon format of the WP:Aviation Group. FWIW, please see the question below. Bzuk (talk) 21:51, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

text: In response to third opinion, per MOS:DATE, there is no consensus to outright remove the link to a year. However, in terms of Wikipedia:Only_make links that are relevant to the context#Dates, it makes no valid sense to link to a year when it only serves to overlink, and only dates that have a month and day should be linked, per guideline. Also of note, the linking of the year does not serve to deepen the understanding of the topic, and therefore serves no real purpose. The reason that just because the date is linked on other pages is incorrect -- if that is the case, then those date-year links should be removed in accordance to the MOS. Hope this helps,  Seicer (talk) (contribs) 05:20, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You are missing the point, we are not linking dates, the WP:Aviation Group is making the dates readable for users who have their browsers set to a specific date preference. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 05:47, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't believe so, per comments made above that were in direct relation to what I discussed, and per what was posted at third opinion. If you wish, please provide a link to the appropriate discussion so that other editors and mediators part of the dispute resolution process can provide a timely and accurate answer.  Seicer (talk) (contribs) 06:19, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the clarification. To whit: no sense in linking years that have no day and month if the link doesn't deepen understanding of the topic. Binksternet (talk) 07:15, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

text: It seems that User:Bzuk (as a speaker for WP:Aviation Group) would like to use Interwiki links to display dates in a user specific format. Since normally the full name for the month is used, the date is described unambiguously and no additional linking is required. I believe that making the dates readable for users who have their browsers set to a specific date preference is not sufficient reason for linking all dates through Interwiki links. This has a few side-effects some people may find undesirable. One example is the function What links here used on a date like  June 8 will point to so many articles that it can no longer be used to find significant events for this day. Inwind (talk) 13:11, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Regardless of your preferences, the convention for date formats that has been adopted for aviation articles has been established by consensus and reflects hundreds if not thousands of articles already in place. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 13:23, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Regarding guidelines, I don't see too large of an issue where the article is overlinked and date-linked to pages that are not relevant. Per date format, it is currently styled in accordance to MOS:DATE, so there is not a large issue. I don't see why you are escalating the issue further by stating, "regardless of your preferences," given that the convention adopted is fine as it is.  Seicer (talk) (contribs) 14:36, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Seicer, whoops, I think I am replying to a different editor's comments. I agree with you in that there is not much of an issue here. I was commenting on the overall revision of the article with changes to spelling of a prominent aviatior's name as well as the deletion of all date-links. Sorry for the confusion. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 17:09, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Year links

message: An editor with a German background has recently changed many of the spellings of German  names: for example: Werner Schröer to Werner Schroer. Is this correct? What is the generally accepted usage? FWIW Bzuk (talk) 21:32, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Google count (1900 for '"werner schroer" pilot' versus 190 for '"werner schröer" pilot) as well as :de:Liste der Fliegerasse are in favour of Schroer. Inwind (talk) 21:58, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That doesn't answer the question as to correct spelling, are most authoritative sources in accordance to the change in spelling? Google searches are inconclusive. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 22:03, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Recent changes to spelling