Talk:Manfred von Richthofen/Archive 1

message: Portrait taken from http://www.awm.gov.au/1918/people/38931.htm
The image seems ro be copyrighted :
http://www.awm.gov.au/services/image_sales/user_photo_art.htm
:According to a discussion I once had in the Village Pump, other guys recommended me that the process of digitalizing an image does not allow it to be copyrighted - the image is old, and the person who scanned it didnt make any creative effort. Yves
::Although creative effort is required to create copyright in many jurisdictions, it is not the case in all. The UK, for example, simply requires that some work had to be done (The "sweat of the brow" test), not that it be creative work. The example used in the seminar where I learnt this (run by copyright lawyers!) was of creating a list by extracting names according to a rule from the (printed) telephone directory. It merely requires effort, not creative effort. Scanning, which may involve selecting material, scanning it, manipulation of the scanned image to rectify and/or crop it and possibly descreening, contrast/colour enhancement and so on certainly qualifies. So, whether or not copyright subsists in a scanned image of an original out of copyright depends on the legal jusridiction in which it was done!--APRCooper 22:48, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

message: I have removed the alias "der rote Kampfflieger". In 15 years, I have never ever
come across this term where it was meant to refer to the red baron. In fact, 
the term would rather be associated with a red plane than the red baron. 
Also, the term "Kampfflieger", while basically correct, is one of those 
german words that would never appear in any official document or 
encyclopedia because it can be considered low-level german and therefore
hints at poor speaking skills of the person who is using it (no offense).
"der rote Baron", the red baron, is the name he is known by. Any other
terms, while they might exist, will be very uncommon at best and therefore
do not belong here.
LoneWolfJack 23:34, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Then I guess in 15 years you have never read Richthofen's own AUTOBIOGRAPHY which he happened to title Der Rote Kampfflieger ? Ckaiserca 23:27, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The book you are referring to was written 90 years ago. ninety! Also, like you pointed out correctly, the title was chosen by himself, and it is quite possible that he was using that title to actually refer to the plane, not himself, even though he probably knew that everyone would associate this title with him. I will not display the same arrogance as you and just change the article back, assuming I can be nothing but right. But you should consider that the term "der rote Kampfflieger" will make every german's skin crawl. Also, it is not unlikely that a german confronted with this title will not initially know what you are talking about, while the term "red baron" will instantly hit home. LoneWolfJack 03:17, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Putting the title of Richtofen's own autobiograhy in an article about him is "arrogance?"  That's a new one!  Arrogance to me would be making a comment about the poor speaking skills of someone who would use a term like Der Rote Kampfflieger when Richthofen himself used it to title his own autobiography!  Have you read the article about him on the German Wkipedia?  Look for Der Rote Kampfflieger.  It's in there!  I don't think it's making their skin crawl.  BTW.  Take note of my name.  See the "Kaiser" in there?  Skin's still in the same place. . .Ckaiserca 18:35, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "der rote kampfflieger" 

message: According to Lincoln College, Oxford, Richthofen was a distinguished alumnus of the College. The article doesn't mention when he was at Oxford. Does anyone know? Tonusperegrinus 19:55, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Couldn't find anything about Richthofen at the Lincoln College website, or on Google in connection with “Lincoln College” or “Oxford University”, except Wikipedia Rip-offs and Oxford University press books about him. -- chris_73 08:31, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

text: I couldn't find anything on this either.  For one thing this implies that Richthofen spoke English.  Has anyone seen any reference for that?  Cjrother 03:05, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

text: It would not be at all unusual for a German aristocrat to attend an English university.  It is certainly not unusual for one to speak English!--Ckaiserca 02:47, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm aware that it wouldn't be unusual but I don't think I've ever seen a reference to Richtofen speaking English or for that matter going to Oxford.  Does anyone have any references on his attending Oxford or should we remove this from the article? --Cjrother 21:09, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It turns out that there was a Richthofen at Oxford, but it was not Manfred von Richtofen.  It was in fact a 7th cousin of his!  The Lincoln von Richthofen was Baron Wilhelm Friedrich Adam Lothar Max von Richthofen (1888-1962). He matriculated in 1913, so only spent one year in Oxford.  According to Internet sources, his battels (accounts of Oxford college, especially for provisions.) bill was the highest for that year.Ckaiserca 15:57, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lincoln College, Oxford 

message: NOVA did a story, "Who Killed the Red Baron?" in 2003.  (spoiler coming up) It gives about 40 minutes of biography and 15 minutes of forensics.  They explain that the bullet had to come from a distance - about 600 yards away - for the autopsy to show the path of the bullet.  Further, its trajectory from below the right armpit up, exiting below the left nipple indicates a shot from the ground, right side.  Buie and Evans, "by their own testimony,... were firing face on to the triplane so they could not have hit von Richthofen on the right hand side."  Based on gunner position, timing and trajectory, NOVA credited Popkin, albeit with (IMO way too much of) a nod to uncertainty.   -- Ke4roh 01:33, 21 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: The Discovery Channel must have this thing on high rotation! It seems to be based on the false premises that (1) Richthofen was shot from close range and (2) that Popkin only fired once.  the PBS documentary, which came out after the Discovery program, supported a long range shot from Popkin on the baron's right hand side. The logic is explained in this article. It's difficult to see how Evans could have managed it. Or Buie, they were both in the same unit. I suggest you read Dr Geoffrey Miller's article, as linked from the article, which goes through the technicalities of the scenarios in detail.  Grant65 | Talk 03:51, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who Killed the Red Baron? 

message: There is a Manfred von Richthofen who's the president of the Deutscher Sportbund. Is he related? Maybe that's someone to put on the page under Relatives of note. Really the only thing I've found for him is: http://www.dsb.de/index.php?id=535. BigBen212 21:40, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  current Manfred von Richthofen 

message: In the Discovery Channel Series Unsolved History they pretty much rule out Bassett Popkin based on his own writings and a hand drawn map where he states that he did not shoot at Richthofen's plane at an angle that would have caused the fatal wound .  The program gives the credit to Australian machine gunner Snowy Evans. There is more about the program to be found in this History News Network Article from the Ottawa Citizen --Ckaiserca 02:07, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmm, I've read a lot on this over the years. Evans's claim is barely mentioned, compared to his friend Robert Buie, in most of the literature, although I note that the German Wikipedia states that it was Evans who killed Richthofen! However, Popkin was the only one of the machine gunners named who fired at the right time and from the right distance. Grant65 01:12, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

text: This is an interesting article, as it suggests that the official original (British) autopsy was flawed. (There were at least two autopsies.) Dr M. Geoffrey Miller, 1998, "The Death of Manfred von Richthofen: Who fired the fatal shot?"  Grant65 01:20, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unsolved History Season 1 - Death of The Red Baron 

message: "Von Richthofen then made a hasty but controlled landing...His Fokker was not damaged by the landing"
"Australian soldiers and airmen with the wreckage of von Richthofen's plane"
"The engine from von Richthofen's aircraft is on display...It still bears the damage sustained in that final crash."
This looks like a real problem. DanielCristofani 14:43, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The caption on the photograph claims that the damge was done by souvenir hunters, just as an observation. Zerbey 22:59, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inconsistency. 

message: Not sure of the proper process, but I deleted a dead link http://www.the-underdogs.org/game.php?id=4845. -nvalley 02:23, 1 May 2006.
The link should've been http://www.the-underdogs.info/game.php?id=4845 . I don't know where to put it though. 203.199.207.3 08:12, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead Link 

message: Education for him?anyone know~Caleb Napier 14:22, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello. You used the  template. How may we help you? When you have asked your question, please put the template back so we know to check back. Cheers, Tangotango 14:24, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm sorry, we can only help newcomers with Wikipedia technicalities with the  feature. If you wish to discuss an article with someone, please leave a message on the talk page of the article. Thanks, Tangotango 14:34, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Hi - think  is only used for Wikipedia technical problems.  If you have any general questions, you just leave comments on the discussion page as you've done.  Regarding the Red Baron's education, I remember reading he was being educated in England before the war started, but obviously came back home to Germany when it started.  Not sure where I found this info, or what I could refer you to.  If I find anything I'll post an update.  FranksValli 18:06, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Help 

message: I think it is more correct to state that von Richtofen was "credited" with 80 kills as that fact cannot be disputed.  What is at dispute is whether or not he actually did it - it is even possible he had more than 80 due to the stringency of German claim requirements. The article states that later scholarship can only "prove" 73. Yet his total of 80 is famous. Therefore, the article should state he was officially credited with 80, not that he actually shot down 80, as that is impossible to prove. Not to denigrate his record, but simply to present facts as NPOV as possible.Michael Dorosh 23:01, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Incidentally, look at the article on Billy Bishop for use of that type of phrasing. In my opinion, that should be standard for articles on flying aces.Michael Dorosh 23:02, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  80 Kills 

message: Note really relevant here but apparently a great great grand children killed his parent according to this article 
The relativeness of the Brazilian von Richthofen family to Red Baron is discussed. It was based on a interview the deceased Manfred gave to the Brazilian TV, but brazilian historians do not agree.
According to the article in question she is not his direct decedent but a decedent of his great nephew. "Suzane von Richthofen, 22, whose father was a great nephew of fighter pilot Baron von Richthofen" Colincbn 12:16, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suzane von Richthofen 

message: "Manfred Albrecht Freiherr von Richthofen [...] is still regarded today as [...] a national hero of Germany." - By who? I've never come across anyone in Germany who does; and while the article technically doesn't say that he is regard a national hero *in* Germany, it sure sounds like. Should be deleted or at least cleared up (with a proper citation), I think. -- Schnee (cheeks clone) 17:28, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course this is nonsense, most Germans would be hard pressed to mention any "national hero" at all as the concept of national heroes is not very popular in Germany. I think the vast majority of Germans alive today wouldn't even know Richthofen's name. I'm taking out the phrase in question. --  mawa 05:06, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hero? 

message: The popular culture section was far too long and detailed.  If a link exists to an article on a song, movie or video game, there is no need to describe it in detail in this article.  There was also a lot of unsourced and speculative stuff, which counts as original research which I've removed.  How do we know the Enemy Ace was modelled after the Red Baron? The similarities are obvious, but unless an article can be quoted where the creator admits the similarities were purposeful, we cannot conclude that was his intention.Michael DoroshTalk 15:21, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Popular Culture 

message: In Death section I see: His Fokker was not damaged by the landing. 
Few lines later I see: The engine from von Richthofen's aircraft is on display in the Imperial War Museum in London as part of the War in the Air Exhibit. It still bears the damage sustained in its final crash.
So was crashed his Fokker or not? Current text does not make sense. (Unsigned comment by User:82.142.75.102.)
:You are right. There was no "crash" and the plane was taken apart by souvenir hunters. I have fixed this and altered the text to reflect the facts. Grant65 | Talk 12:10, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Undamaged Fokker? 

message: I may just be mis-reading, but was his squadron Jasta 2 or Jasta 11?  It looks like it's called both in the article.  Anyone know? --TheOtherBob 19:48, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It was both - he joined as a member of Jasta 2 and then later commanded Jasta 11.  See the start of the "Piloting career" section and then the start of "The Flying Circus" section.  :) FranksValli 20:06, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah - that makes perfect sense.  Thanks for the help! --TheOtherBob 20:15, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jasta 2 /11 

message: It says Arthur Brown's nickname was "Snoopy."  Given the Peanuts character that just seems too pat.  I cannot find any reference elsewhere for this.  Citation?
----  It's not.....some moron added it in.  I attempted to correct it, but on the edit page the name shows up correctly.  I've no idea how to correct it.
---------
On the 'red barron pop culture references' page it also states snoopy was the nickname of arthur brown. I don't know myself so I just wanted to point it out.SummerOtaku 16:20, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arthur (Roy) Brown's nickname? 

message: Two different people (Snowy Evans and Cedric Popkin) are identified as having definetly fired the shot which killed von Richthofen in this section, and a third person (Robert Buie) is identified as a candidate but immediately dismissed. It would be great if someone who is knowledgeable about von Richthofen's death sorted out this section - perhaps by highlighting the fact that all the competing claims have at least a degree of validity and the exact identity of the person who fired the shot will never be known? (unless this isn't the case, of course!). --Nick Dowling 02:48, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  'Who fired the fatal shot?' section 

message: There appears to be doubt about the authenticity of claims that Richthofen's family was of partial Jewish ancestry.  Many say stories that Richthofen was part Jewish are unfounded rumors and there is no evidence to back up the assertion otherwise.  See this forum for discussion:
http://www.theaerodrome.com/forum/archive/index.php/t-13753.html
I'll let the reference stand for now, but it would be nice to see some corroboration and further evidence for this detail.
24.113.82.222 08:41, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Damned right you'll let the reference stand. It's a book, which is infinitely higher on the list of reliable sources than any Internet forum.--chris.lawson 16:17, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll agree that Internet forums usually aren't a thing to be taken with much reliability, but theAerodrome's forums do hold some regard when it comes to WWI aviation.  There are a few important WWI aviation historians and authors that frequent and contribute to the forum.  So don't poo-poo it just because it is an Internet forum. Some of the topics and responses on theAerodrome do hold their own, and do cite a variety sources more often than not.  That's just my two cents. Scarlett Lily 23:34, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:RS is pretty clear about what does and does not constitute a reliable source. Internet forums, no matter their membership, do not meet any definition of "reliable".--chris.lawson 03:35, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Nowhere does the article claim anything about the Nazis' intentions to kill him had he survived the war. I have no idea where you're getting that straw man argument from, but your anti-Semitic tone is not appreciated.--chris.lawson 12:22, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

text: There seems to be just one claim that Richthofen had Jewish ancestors, which is in a book that is not directly about Richthofen. None of his biographies seem to mention anything about Jewish ancestors, and there is no evidence that any of his four grandparents were Jewish, so the claim that more than one of them was Jewish should come from a stronger source (or even better, several independent reliable sources) than what is presently used. I will remove the claim for now. Kusma (talk) 09:34, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jewish ancestry? 

message: This statement: "It has been calculated that Richthofen lived for less than a minute after he was hit"
and this one: "After being hit (probably by ground fire), Richthofen managed to make a hasty but controlled landing in a field on a hill near the Bray-Corbie road" seem to be conflicting. I am no expert on how fast one can make a "Hasty" landing in a WWI era triplane but less than a minute seems extreamly short. Colincbn 13:27, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contradicting Statements 

message: The quote from the book as included in the article reads "The famous Baron Manfred von Richthofen and his brother, Lothar, would have been liquidated by Hitler as non-Aryans." My proposal is to reword the current version "Dagobert D. Runes claims he was of partial Jewish ancestry" to "Dagobert D. Runes claims he would have been liquidated by Hitler as non-Aryan" or maybe something like "Dagobert D. Runes hinted at a partly non-Aryan ancestry of Richthofen/the Richthofen family". As Clawson pointed out, that leaves us with the need to find a more approriate place to include it. My idea is to rename the "relatives" section to "Richthofen family" and also to rework it a bit and to include the Runes citation there. Please give me your opinions, I'm open to any ideas, as I'm not exactly familiar with the subject matter. I offer to work out a version, in case of a consensus. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 14:21, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I just wasted some time on Google books, where I found the Runes quote and another claim that the Red Baron had Jewish blood. Searching the available Red Baron biographies for "Jewish" or "Jew" produced no results, though. I guess that (since the Richthofen family is very large and confusing; there exist already three notable Manfred von Richthofens: the Red Baron, a WWI general, and an influential sports functionary, see :de:Manfred von Richthofen) somebody mixed up several of them; there appears to have been a DNVP (a nationalist party) Reichstag member von Richthofen who had a Jewish grandmother. The family history is extensive and interesting; until we have a complete treatment that gives a definite answer, we should probably include that isolated claims of Jewish ancestry exist (it is pretty obvious given the context of the books that "non-Aryan" is supposed to mean "Jewish") but not state as a fact that he had Jewish ancestors until we actually figure out who they were. Kusma (talk) 14:53, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally, I agree on mentioning the isolated claims, but in case they are contested, we'd have a hard time justifying the inclusion of such a statement. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 15:02, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I refer to my statement above concerning minority viewpoints. The post from Jimbo is a copy&paste from the NPOV policy page.Colincbn 15:20, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Which makes you the first user to contest inclusion of that proposed statement. Accepted, but I believe we can safely assume that apart from the exact words of the quote we have, Kusma is probably right insofar as Runes probably hinted at non-Aryan=Jewish. We cannot quote that as fact (which is why we're having this discussion), but we should then at least mention the title of the book within the text, to give the reader a fair chance at making up their own mind. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 15:33, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Colincbn, I see that you are still sceptical of inclusion of this source. But, hey, it's there, and it's reliable, and it actually mentions Richthofen by name. We're not going to sell Runes' quote as fact, but we should definitely include it for the sake of diversity. Nothing more, nothing less. E.g. like "In his book 'The Hebrew Impact on Western Civilization', Dagobert D. Runes hints at a partly non-Aryan ancestry of the Richthofen family." Something along those lines. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 15:54, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Put that (with the actual author Mackensen found) in the "Relatives" section (perhaps rename it "Family") and it should be okay. It doesn't seem to be of any importance in Richthofe n's life, though. Kusma (talk) 16:03, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not that we know of. But we're not going to quote it out of proportion, and it's still nice to have one more source to flavour the article with. I'm going to work a preliminary version into the section and wait for your comments. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 16:10, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I just feel that, considering the large amount of biographical data concerning MvR, a single source claiming that he is of Jewish decent (and apparently not backing up that claim) is not enough to satisfy the above stated guidelines of "Majority or Significant Minority". It seems to me to fall under "Undue Weight". However if other editors feel it is important enough to add to the article I will by no means delete it either. Colincbn 16:13, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Interesting! Like I said above, it's probably safer not to sell that as fact, but it's a source. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 15:56, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: On the other hand, it's not-so-big news in that in WWI many Jews were fighting in the German army, as far as I'm informed. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 16:03, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dagobert D. Runes "The Hebrew Impact on Western Civilization" 

message: I've got the abridged edition of the book in front of me, but it does contain the quotation in question. The actual author isn't Dagobert, who edited the book, but William B. Ziff, who contributed an essay entitled "The Jew as Soldier, Strategist and Military Adviser." He begins the paragraph by stating that "Of the handful of German fliers, 200 were Jews." He does not, however, give an indication of where he got this information. Mackensen (talk) 15:47, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting! Like I said above, it's probably safer not to sell that as fact, but it's a source. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 15:56, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: On the other hand, it's not-so-big news in that in WWI many Jews were fighting in the German army, as far as I'm informed. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 16:03, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Actual source 

message: Kusma, I believe you fount the answer. If there was Richthoven of Manfred's generation who was a grandson of Jewish woman it is safely assume that he and Manfred came from the same stock and Richthoven a politician was a cousin (did Manfred has another brother besides Lothat?) User: BBG2. 20 March, 2007 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.74.186.255 (talk) 16:21, 20 March 2007
:There is an extensive family tree at http://www.richthofen.de (all in German, though), see this image. The politician was from a completely different branch (Praetorius, born 1879, last common ancestor with the Red Baron was Samuel, born 1708). Kusma (talk) 16:34, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 68.74.186.255, please post your concerns here before making an edit like this, we're trying to establish consensus to end this discussion and your opinion is most welcome, just like everybody else's. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 17:18, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  User Kusma fount the answer 

message: This has to be one of the more absurd arguments on wikipedia. The Red Baron is a Jew? I seem to recall seeing a few things about him including oh...his biography and I've got to say that if the historians and the fact checkers over at A&E make no mention of his being Jewish than that is good enough for me. Oh, and the other thing that is good enough for me is that there is only one, single, little citation claiming Jewish lineage to be true...but there are HUNDREDS making no mention of it or directly refuting it. I think I'll go with the hundreds..... Chairman Meow 07:12, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I feel I should point out that the important thing is not whether he is or is not Jewish, the important thing (for me at least) is the NPOV policy on Undue weight. I have no Idea what the "Truth" is, for all I know the source in question could be 100% correct. I simply feel that this single reference is not enough to satisfy the requiermenst of falling under a "Majority" or "Significant Minority". I am in no way suggesting that anyone here has an agenda or ulterior motive either, I just feel that considering the large amount of biographical data on MvR that a claim like this should be backed up by no less than two (preferably more) independent sources. Also as a personal request I would like to remind everyone to try to assume good faith and remember we are all working for the same goal of making WP better. As such we are all on the same side. Colincbn 13:53, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Colincbn, thank you very much for bringing some sensibility to this debate. I absolutely agree with your argument as to undue weight and with your comment as to AGF. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 18:57, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Absurd 

message: The Aryan scum JohnHistory is back!!! His only earlier distinction was to delete from this "discussion" page my  mentioning of literature about Jews in German nobility or army. So I believe I have a right to call him "Aryan scum."  
For him and his likes. Fools, you cannot change facts by voting. In your logic Nazi Germany won the WWII, you would be eager to vote for this. Do not debase Wikipedia. Ziff was too important man to lie, otherwise the book "The Hebrew Impact on Western Civilization" would only damage its authors. Could he get wrong information?  Ziff consulted major "Prussian" military historian Adolph Caspay while writing about Jews in the German army. And do not play  with terms. When Ziff mentioned Richthoven he did not think that he was Mongolian or any other non-Aryan. 
Here is a citation from Ziff: "Of the handful of German fliers, 200 were Jews. Among these were... (a list of names) The famous Baron Manfred von Richthoven and his brother, Lothar, would have been liquidated  by Hitler as non-Aryans. So would General von Mossner, commander of Wilhelm's Hussar Guards; General Max Hoffman, who played a leading role at the great German victory at Tannenberg; and General Otto Liman von Sanders, who won the title "Lion of Gallipoli...    
The sad question: why Wikipedia attracts some dregs of society like JohnHistory, etc. They shall go direct to Aryan nation web sites. 
Personally, I do not care about origins of Richthoven. The another Richthoven, Ferdinand, a  scientist,  for example, was much more important and fascinating figure/. The German web site of Richthoven's family justly exhibits a portrait of Ferdinand, not of Manfred.  But because German anti-Semitism of Richthoven's generation it is an ironic fact that  most acclaimed WWI German hero was part Jewish. User: Tracadero. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.74.152.15 (talk • contribs) 00:40, 24 March 2007  (UTC)
I am not even going to respond to this sort of garbage, by someone who is clearly out of their mind. I never deleted anything!  BTW, You have proven my point.  You are flat wrong and a liar!  The only thing you have made clear is that your out of control and not to be tolerated or taken seriously.  You missed all the points that many people have brought up on this subject at this page already.  Quite frankly, your not worth explaining anything to either.  Watch your mouth, and grow up!  JohnHistory 08:51, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  You cannot change facts by voting 

message: According to William B. Ziff who consulted in his writing about Jews in German army a major German military historian Adolpf Caspary, Richthoven was in part  of Jewish descent. See Ziff's article in Dagobert D. Runes, ed., The Hebrew Impact on Western Civilization, New York: Philosophical Library: New York, 1951, p. 744. User: Tracadero. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.74.152.15 (talk • contribs) 00:44, 24 March 2007  (UTC)
No!  JohnHistory 08:46, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: John, please be civil and let other editors speak their mind. And please start indenting your comments for better readability. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 09:04, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  It should be stated in the article 

message: Kncyu38.  Why do you upset that I cited JohnHistory outrageous racist statement? Wikipedia is a public domain and everyone can cite statements made on  its discussion pages. Of course I have a revulsion against racism and it is appropriate to point it out, citing racist startements. 
Well, I look the  discussion page again and I see this statement is moved into an archive subpage. So JohnHistory is now "clean."
:I'm not upset. It's just not a racist statement and even if it was, including it here does nothing to advance the discussion on this article talk page. Please see Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 13:23, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Do not try to put the racism under the carpet 

message: I have reverted some edits made by an unregistered "editor" most (or all) of whose edits to date, when I went to have a look at them, have been mischievous or unconstructive if not downright vandalistic. I have in this case nonetheless "assumed good faith" and addressed his implied questions so far as this was possibly justifiable.Soundofmusicals (talk) 09:35, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur that the issues raised seemed specious but your additional referencing appears to satisfy any concerns. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 12:02, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference requests 

message: I am requesting a third opinion. User:Soundofmusicals is in (amicable) dispute with me over the inclusion of the following paragraph in the article about Richthofen
:A study published in the Journal of Mathematical Sociology claims that much of Richthofen's success could be explained by luck. M. V. Simkin; V. P. Roychowdhury Theory of Aces: High Score by Skill or Luck?  The Journal of Mathematical Sociology, Volume 32, Issue 2 April 2008 , pages 129 - 141 .  German records list 2,894 WWI fighter pilots, who together scored 6,759 victories and only 810 defeats. The authors used the numbers to analyze the pilots' chance of being shot down after each flight. That rate started off at 25 percent for the first flight, and then fell sharply.   By the 10th flight it had leveled off below 5 percent, consistent with weaker pilots being picked off and the remaining aces having similar skills. At that rate, the researchers conclude that the odds of one in 2,894 pilots achieving an 80-win streak are about 30 percent.  David Biello, JR Minkel and Nikhil Swaminathan Was the Red Baron Just Lucky?, SCIAM, May 2, 2008 
The analysis is from the article Theory of Aces: High Score by Skill or Luck?  which is published in The Journal of Mathematical Sociology, a peer reviewed journal.  The article is citied by Scientific American Was the Red Baron Just Lucky?. I feel the conclusions are relevant to an article about Richthofen, User:Soundofmusicals feels they are not--Work permit (talk) 20:51, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The Scientific American article oversimplifies Simkin & Roychowdhury's analysis.  They also found that Manfred von Richthofen most likely had an intrinsic defeat rate of 2.5%. According to the distribution of intrinsic defeat rates derived in the article, about 27% of German pilots had a defeat rate of 2.5% or lower. This means that MvR is most likely merely in top 27% according to his skill. --Work permit (talk) 19:13, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Requesting third opinion

message: whts the dob of red borron?plz reply at earliest  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.162.55.150 (talk) 05:18, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: plz rd 1st sence of articl Soundofmusicals (talk) 09:19, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  date of birth? 

message: This is described in detail - and referenced - so why change the heading I have no idea. I have further edited the heading so it once more makes some kind of sense. A trivial point either way perhaps - but it really needs to be reverted to the original (clearer, more descriptive) form.  Soundofmusicals (talk) 02:48, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Richthofen's "poor judgement". 

message: The section Richthofen wounded in combat Says he was wounded in July 1917, but later, under Theories about Richthofen's last combat (2nd paragraph) it says this happened in June 1917. Does anyone know which is right? --MiguelMunoz (talk) 02:22, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry to be so late fixing this - have noticed it repeatedly and meant to "get a round tuit". A quick check of several references indicates that the combat in which Richthofen was wounded (and, incidentally, very nearly shot down and killed) was indeed 6 July 1917 - hence the reference later in the article to "June 1917" is an error and has been corrected. Thanks for noticing this. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 20:41, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Timing of his head injury 

message: I grew up believing Brown shot down Richthofen. It's what all the "Boys Own Annuals" used to say, isn't it! There is now a great deal of evidence (just some of it referenced in this article) that this is almost certainly just not so. This is not something into which legitimate scholarly debate can be injected, I'm afraid. READ SOME OF THE REFERENCES PROVIDED (you can get most of them at your local library!!). Several of them are much more convincing than the famous television documentary.
The facts (we'd put something like this in the article but its a bit POV!) seems to be that
* 1. Brown knew very well he didn't shoot down the Baron - and in his original combat report didn't even claim to do so!
* 2. Because of the great stress German propaganda had placed on Richthofen's feats - the British government was very keen to capitalise to the full extent on the propaganda effect of his being shot down - the fact that an ace pilot like Brown was in the vicinity meant this could be best done by crediting his downing with a "Baron meets his match" headline. Brown's commanding officer altered Brown's combat report to indicate a "decisive" combat (in other words, a victory claim). He, the commanding officer, was very probably ordered to do so by his superiors - and Brown himself had no say in the matter either. The Germans, incidentally, had already done something very similar when Ball was killed - crediting his downing to Lothar von Richthofen when it was most likely due to engine failure or vertigo. It was just more romantic that way.
* 3. Statements and accounts in various publications at the time and since describing "how Brown shot down the Baron - some of which have been claimed to be by Brown - have been conclusively shown NOT to be the work of Brown (or any other pilot) if only because they contain aeronautical and logical absurdities - and evidence that the actual writers were not familiar with the organisation of the RAF, the names of its formations, or the relative ranks of its officers.
* 4. Brown (and some of his brother officers) were most wary and equivocal in later years when asked about the facts of the case afterwards - it seems likely, in view of what we now know about what actually happened, that they were simply being loyal to the orders they had been given in 1918.
It is NOT (and never will be) known for certain which Australian soldier scored the very unlikely hit that actually killed the Baron - but that is quite obviously a completely different question.
--Soundofmusicals (talk) 07:00, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting how the above comment uses barely disguised sarcasm, basically calling those who stick to historical facts, and not nationalistic fervour, to make a Wikipedia argument. As if those who believe in the truth, which is that Brown shot down the Baron, are some sort of fanboys making a stink over the PS3 versus the obviously superior Xbox 360. The actual reason Brown is "now" not considered "by many historians" (a dubious term used without a single reference) to be the one who shot the Baron down is that Canada refused to join the United States in their invasion of Iraq, and are currently suffering the backlash of an insensate regime. Australia, having knuckled under to American concessions over the past 30 years so as to resemble another foreign holding, is given the credit as a further insult to Canadians, who are superior in intellect and historical import. Eventually the truth will again emerge, and once the stories of dingo rape get out, Australia will again be relegated to crocodile g'daying anonymity.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.13.40.27 (talk) 15:13, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Nationalistic fervour? Your response is saturated with it. Be civil and don't attack other editors/nationalities. "Dingo rape" is never a civil thing to say, and if you keep it up you'll be blocked from editing. Have I made myself clear? Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 19:00, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: When I started this one we were having a spate of "Brown shot down Richthofen" edits/vandalism and I was irritated and flew off the handle a little. My post was NOT the most sensible I have ever done, to be honest (although it is, as always with me, pretty spot on, hem hem). I think the point of the "answer" to this is that we are childishly quibbling over obscure and basically very trivial historical detail (which is actually the case, of course). Why do we bother? Basically, I suspect, because it is fun! Or shouldn't I take YOUR response frightfully seriously either? --Soundofmusicals (talk) 01:56, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Brown fans please go home 

message: The page has been reverted to its state before the last batch of edits, that rendered it incomprehensible - partly by the insertion of frequent interlinear comments, hard to distinguish from the original - and partly by insertion of large blocks of unrelated text.
To the editor concerned:
IF you genuinely feel you have a case to state - please enter it here -
NOT by editing the comments of others - which is what your technique of interlinear interjection comes down to (!) but by saying what you want in your own time and in your own words rather than by editing and interjecting on what others have said. Keep to the point, and bear in mind that however much others may be concerned about your obvious personal problems with reality, that is not the point here - we're simply trying to make this article (and the brave experiment of Wikipedia itself) as good as we possibly can.
This is about Richthofen's autopsy, which most serious editors of this page have read - and which may be found in the published and freely available sources cited. Please, BEFORE slahing out at all and sundry again, read this report. It is in English, so my poor French and non-existant German are irrelevant to the case. The complete text of the autopsy is NOT the sort of detail we want here, frankly - nor is it necessary. This article is very well referenced already.
Finally , keep any nasty personal comments to yourself. If anyone is polite to you - online or in "real life" - it is very probably with motives of genuine kindness rather than snide or sarcastic ones. Even if this is not the case, it never hurts to be polite back. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 22:42, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Reversion of this page

message: In relation to the last submission, a modicum of decorum should prevail even in talk page discussions. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 17:08, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Talk page comments 

message: An assessment of all these factors must include the circumstances of the time. At the time of Richthofen's death the front was in a highly fluid state, following the initial success of the German offensive of March–April 1918. The Baron may have been acutely aware that the battle he was engaged in was part of Germany's last real chance to win the war — in the face of Allied air superiority, the German air service was having great difficulty in acquiring vital reconnaissance information, such as the positions of batteries, and could do little to prevent Allied squadrons from completing very effective reconnaissance and close support of their armies.
:This entire paragraph is uncredited and smack of personal point of view. If Richthofen was brain injured as the Lancet suggests, why should anyone believe he was doing active reconnaissance of the enemy's artillery battery? Sounds to me like he had a boner for shooting down May, got careless, and got his ass handed to him for his troubles. This whole paragraph should be terminated with extreme prejudice unless someone can find a cite to back it up.139.48.25.60 (talk) 18:06, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I concede that your recent edits to this paragraph improve it greatly from an "encyclopediac" view. I would probably have excised that last sentence myself it anyone else had written it - and certainly have no intention to revert it!! On the other hand this paragraph, or something like it, is probably needed to round off the section. It is actually very close to the general conclusions of Franks and Bennett - and could easily have a cite to that effect appended. What do you think? Or we could very easily put in cites for the central facts - the German offensive, initially very successful, was running out of steam, among other reasons because the Allies had air superiority.  --Soundofmusicals (talk) 01:00, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Personal research and editorializing 

message: May went on to score eleven victories (not to mention his career as a pioneer of Canadian civil aviation). But this was his very first operational flight, so he WAS a novice. We all have to start somewhere, don't we? Please read context BEFORE editing.--Soundofmusicals (talk) 23:31, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  May WAS a novice at the time!! 

message: A rather silly tag has been put on the statement that Richthofen was facing fighters (Sopwith Camel and SE.5a) superior in most respects to either Albatros D.V and Fokker Dr.1. (Hardly controversial or OR that one, surely!!) But has anyone a simple one line reference to replace the tag with? --Soundofmusicals (talk) 21:11, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fact Tag on "Fighter aircraft superior to his own" - anyone have a reference to this one? 

message: Surely its not unknown information right?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.255.78.10 (talk) 23:49, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who were Richthofens parents?