Talk:Erich von Manstein

message: The Crimea Shield on its own may not have been a major award. But what I wrote in the article was the Golden version, though. Only two gold Crimea Shields were made, and Manstein was one of the two recipients. Seems major enough for it to be added. I made a separate section on the CS article on this, and thoroughly sourced it.  Torpilorul (talk) 17:15, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Crimea Shield 

message: Replying to . I don't see the point of a subsection on "war crimes" that simply repeats points already covered elsewhere in the article. Hence I've removed some content on the commissar order. The second paragraph of the "Trial" section makes it clear that although Manstein says otherwise, the prosecution found evidence that he did follow the commissar order. That gives a balanced view; I don't think it's our place to say definitively what he did or did not do based on the content of one biography. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 21:49, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: The refs are direct and unambiguous. The trial section hedges around the issue - he was convicted of these crimes but the article tries to say maybe he wasn't really guilty. Szzuk (talk) 04:14, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: ( Removed PA - Per consensus on WP:AN) DuncanHill (talk) 11:07, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: It's outside the purview of Wikipedia to say whether or not he was guilty; that would be original research and outside the scope of what Wikipedia is supposed to do. In my opinion what we should do is report on the evidence presented in the trial and then report on the verdict, without making an independent judgement on whether or not that verdict was correct.  It's not up to us to declare him guilty. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:22, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

text: (Removed PA - per consensus on WP:AN) DuncanHill (talk) 16:29, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Please withdraw this personal attack. I am not a Nazi apologist. I gave what I thought was a good policy-based reason (WP:OR) - we can report what the defense said at the trial, what the prosecution said, and what the verdict was. But it's not our place to state in Wikipedia's voice that he actually committed the crime of which he was found guilty: carrying out the commissar order. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 18:32, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I wish you wouldn't copy your responses all over the place, especially when, as here, you fail to make it clear that it's a response to something I said on my talk page. (Removed PA, per consensus on WP:AN) DuncanHill (talk) 20:32, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  Considering Diannaa's record in protecting all sorts of articles from the edits of Nazi sympathizers, neo-Fascists and the like, your personal attack against her is all the more inappropriate.  She is truly one of the "good guys" in this respect, and does not in any way deserve your remarks.  Her reasons for removing the section were strictly based on common sense editing practices, and are not in any way indicative of a desire on her part to protect the reputation of a Nazi war criminal.  I suggest that you withdraw your remarks and apologize, before you are subject to a block for making a blatant personal attack. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:55, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Correcting ping  Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:58, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

text: The Commissar Order is one of the war crimes of which von Manstein was convicted. To not mention it in the War crimes section is to suggest either that Wikipedia does not regard it as a war crime, or that Wikipedia thinks he was innocent. DuncanHill (talk) 09:29, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: What you may not realize is that the article did not have a war crimes section until Szzuk created it on July 9. If it's going to be complete, it will duplicate material already present elsewhere in the article. That would be pretty pointless in my opinion, and if such a section existed at the time of a Good Article nomination, we would likely be asked to remove it and integrate any non-duplicated content into the appropriate sections of the article. I think it needs to be completely removed, and any useable content integrated in with the other prose. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:26, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  War crimes section and Commissar order 

message: Articles about generals usually include postwar assessments of their military skill, but this article doesn't seem to have them. It only mentions it in an offhand way, like "postwar writings have focused on Manstein's military feats and ignored his political/ethical dimensions" (I paraphrase) but never actually gives due weight to such writings. When reliable sources talk about Manstein's military skill (or lack thereof) that should be explicitly included in an "aftermath" or "legacy" section. Tbqh I don't think should be rated as a "Good" article right now because it is a fairly significant omission for an article about a general. 47.28.101.28 (talk) 19:52, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Such a section is not a GA requirement. Perhaps for a Featured Article — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:50, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Record as a commander 

message: Hello, Diannaa.
You've removed my latest edit because of the fact not being entirely certain. I've provided a reliable source, however. Don't you think my edit could stay, considering that it's not a well-known fact and should receive some more attention? The fact that it's a speculation doesn't mean it's not true, after all. Lupishor (talk) 15:13, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Who is Mark Axworthy? Is he a notable expert on the topic, notable enough that his speculation about Manstein's dismissal should appear in the article? If such content were present at the time of a Good Article nomination, I would likely be asked to remove it.— Diannaa (talk) 21:57, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: His works are based on archive documents. Maybe speculation can't be added, but his sources are definitely reliable when it comes to actual events. Lupishor (talk) 22:21, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Speculation 

message: Intro should be simplified. He was war criminal, no need to say for how many years he was sentenced etc there, it is in the details. 173.63.235.70 (talk) 14:50, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't need to be simple. Many people only read the opening paragraph, so it needs to be a little more comprehensive than your version in my opinion.  — Diannaa (talk) 15:24, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

text: The opening paragraph is what's included in the Google knowledge panel on the right of the page when performing a Google search. Many people will only read that and never click through to our article.  — Diannaa (talk) 15:32, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intro - war criminal