Talk:Wolfgang Lüth

message: Donitz was never the Fueher, he was President. Although the term only means Leader I seem to recall from reading the article he noticeably didn't use it, so I'm changing it to the President gave a few words at his funeral. There, from the Donitz article "Significantly, Dönitz was not to become Führer. Instead, Dönitz became President (Reichspräsident), a post Hitler had abolished years earlier.".  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.137.207.191 (talk) 16:21, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Question - Was 15 war patrols a lot ? -Jim Sweeney (talk) 10:23, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Take a look here List of successful U-boat commanders. 15 is on the high end for German WW2 commanders. MisterBee1966 (talk) 12:17, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes I see --Jim Sweeney (talk) 15:04, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  War Patrols 

message: Having copyedited this article, one thing I have come across is the laughable 'translations' of Kriegsmarine officer ranks. For example, Korvettankapitän becomes "Corvette Captain", Fregatttenkapitän is apparently a "Frigate Captain" and, my favorite: Kapitän zur See turns into "Captain at Sea"! Does this make a Kapitänleutänant a "Captain Leiutenant"?!
This list is not complete. 
Having looked up some of the individual articles, it is quite obvious where the 'translations' have come from; but the Kriegsmarine article and my reference are more sensible, i.e. "Lieutenant Commander", "Commander", "Captain" and so on.
But before I change them all, I thought a bit of consensus might be a good thing.
RASAM (talk) 20:45, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: This was one of the first articles I had worked on here on the English Wiki. So what you call laughable was my best attempt as a non native English speaking person. Please feel free to correct my ignorance. MisterBee1966 (talk) 18:28, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Officer ranks 

message: Wolfgang Luth was a committed National Socialist and not to be revered. When he sank The Empire Lake in the Indian Ocean there were 5 survivors aboard a raft, he surfaced, one of his men enquired as to the name of the ship, where it was bound and what cargo it was carrying. He later wrote in his log 'Due to the high seas and the distance from land (180 miles), they will probably not survive'. He made no offer to tow the raft closer to the land, no offer of provisions, many U-Boat commanders did tow rafts to some measure of safety. I am sorry to see he has a memorial in Flensberg, I feel Germany should face up to he was.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.31.167.16 (talk) 16:30, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wolfgang Luth 

message: I tagged the article with Unreliable sources tag; it contains multiple citations to Franz Kurowski & Karl Alman (same author); these accounts are likely to be semi-fictional. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:32, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unreliable sources tag 

message: I'm submitting the above disagreement to WP:3O. The disagreement concerns this edit: 
*"It's not for you to decide. Opposed by re-assessment discussion. Start being honest."
The revert concerns two areas:
#Minor details of the subject's career
#Restoration to the article of the source Gordon Williamson (writer) which was removed as part of the GAR above (Talk:Wolfgang Lüth#Community reassessment) and is currently not used for citations. 
K.e.coffman (talk) 03:47, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Third opinion request

message: I've not commented on this dispute thus far, nor was I involved in the GAR, so I hope I can be objective here.  I've looked over the GAR in light of the points mentioned above and:
*Re. "minor details", I don't see a discussion of that in the GAR, so while anyone is entitled to remove what they see as over-detailing (which I think is always in the eye of the beholder), they have to be prepared to see it reverted and then justify it in a subsequent discussion. Now, to step out of my position as disinterested observer of the GAR and offer my opinion on an example of "intricate detail" being removed, I have to admit I don't see why exact dates shouldn't be used if available and cited to a reliable source, or why advances in rank shouldn't be noted; I can't recall ever being accused of over-detailing when I've done that in Commonwealth pilot bios, many of which I've taken to FA. 
*Re. Williamson, it appears to me that  pointed out reasons to retain him, and  recommended caution re. removing him.  recommended removing, and  mentioned possible alternatives to him (and others). Assuming I haven't misinterpreted anyone's position, that doesn't suggest to me consensus for removing. Again, moving from observation of the GAR to offer an opinion, I've never written or co-written a German military bio and I don't know Williamson; I can only speak from experience re. Osprey as I've used several of their books to write on Commonwealth pilots and generally found their authors to be careful and as objective as one can reasonably expect in the presentation of their subjects.
Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:15, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment by Ian Rose

message: The British forces occupied Flensburg on 5 May 1945; initially, nothing changed in the daily routine at the Mürwik Naval Academy.
:Why had nothing changed? All the weapons should have been handed in at once. Valetude (talk) 00:06, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarify, please 

message: Preserving here by providing this link: ; my rationale was: "Per the Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history/Archive_163#Appropriateness_of_kill_lists_in_submariner_bios discussion, such lists are undue in skippers' bios". Additionally, the list of mid to jr promotions is not needed. --K.e.coffman (talk) 03:41, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  November 2021 edit