Talk:Manfred von Richthofen

Reference requests

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)

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).

Probability

I doubt if the bit about the "probability" of R's score was ever meant to be taken seriously - on the same grounds anyone could stand on a baseball plate and hit 80 successive home runs if he only stood there long enough!! Soundofmusicals (talk) 03:38, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

It is serious. The article Theory of Aces: High Score by Skill or Luck? is published in The Journal of Mathematical Sociology, a peer reviewed journal. The article is also citied in Scientific American's article Was the Red Baron Just Lucky?. Can you cite an article that supports your point of view? If not, can we agree not to enter into an edit war and reinstate your deletion?--Work permit (talk) 06:31, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Let's take this seriously for a moment then. Mathematical sociology (in other words applied statistics) can tell us quite a lot about people en masse - or groups of people. It can really tell us nothing whatever about any particular individual person. For instance, we can say that the life expectancy in a given community is 50 - but there will be lots of people who will die much younger than 50 - or live much longer. Nor does the article, as reported in the Scientific American, claim to tell us anything specifically about the Red Baron. The conclusion it draws is that it is reasonably likely - given the number of air aces in WW1, and the number of their victims, that someone would get to 80 victories, and it is thus fairly unremarkable that someone did. So what? And what connection has this with Richthofen anyway? There were at least two Allied aces with victory counts in the seventies - wouldn't the Journal of Mathematical Sociology's article apply (or fail to apply) just as forcibly to them? The Red Baron gets a mention in the article NOT because the statistics have anything specifically to do with him, but because he is the most famous ace - and statistically the most likely one to occur to anyone looking for an example. I just don't see the career of any particular fighter pilot (or any other person whatsoever, except perhaps a professional gambler) having this kind of connection with statistical analysis. Soundofmusicals (talk) 11:41, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

It can really tell us nothing whatever about any particular individual person. For instance, we can say that the life expectancy in a given community is 50 - but there will be lots of people who will die much younger than 50 - or live much longer. It tells us about the mean AND the variation, and the statistical liklihood of outliers.--Work permit (talk) 19:13, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

The conclusion it draws is that it is reasonably likely - given the number of air aces in WW1, and the number of their victims, that someone would get to 80 victories, and it is thus fairly unremarkable that someone did. So what? And what connection has this with Richthofen anyway? In particular, 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 have the 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)

There were at least two Allied aces with victory counts in the seventies - wouldn't the Journal of Mathematical Sociology's article apply (or fail to apply) just as forcibly to them? The analysis in the article is on the statistics of German Aces, because the German scoring system was the cleanest scoring system. During WWI British Empire Air Force fully credited its pilots for moral victories (For example, forcing the enemy aircraft to land within enemy lines, driving it down ‘‘out of control’’, or driving it down in damaged condition). In addition, British Air Force fully credited its pilots for shared victories. That is, if for example, three British airplanes shot one German airplane, all three were credited with a victory. The French did not count moral victories but allowed for shared ones. The Americans were either under French or British command and had the corresponding rules applied to them. In contrast, the Germans had ideal scoring system. They did not count moral victories. The opponent aircraft had to be either destroyed or forced to lend on German territory and its crew taken prisoners.--Work permit (talk) 19:13, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I just don't see the career of any particular fighter pilot (or any other person whatsoever, except perhaps a professional gambler) having this kind of connection with statistical analysis. The subfield is about the analysis of high achievers and their intrinsic skill vs luck. This article is specifically about MvR and his skill measured against his contemporaries--Work permit (talk) 19:13, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm citing a peer reviewed article that analyzes Manfred von Richthofen within the context of his peers. Certainly this deserves mention. Is there some rewording of my orginal entry that would work? ''A study published in the Journal of Mathematical Sociology claims that much of Richthofen's success could be explained by luck.. 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. --Work permit (talk) 19:13, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

The article, and the entire subfields, is about the analysis of high achievers and their intrinsic skill. That's the point - if you like. Richthofen is merely cited as an example - so at best the whole thing is pure trivia in this context. It could be equally applied, not only to Allied air aces, but to all high achievers. The "purity" of scores of the aces is another subject altogether - it is quite irrelevant to this argument, which could be equally applied to ANY other field of endeavour. The whole concept is very close to pure mathematics and, to belabour a dead horse, no particular relevance to any individual. It may have a place in the article on statistics??? Soundofmusicals (talk) 20:19, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

That's not what I said. I said the subfield is about the analysis of high achievers and their intrinsic skill vs luck. This article specifically analyzes MvR and his skill measured against his contemporaries. It analyszes him because of his great achievement of 80 kills. --Work permit (talk) 20:38, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Exactly! he is an example - the original article is only about him in the most tangental way! Incidentally - it IS precisely what you said, since I pasted it from your response - if it's not what you meant then that's fair enough. For me, you still haven't shown how the Journal of Mathematical Sociology has anything specifically to say about Richthofen. Forgive me for paraphrasing rather brutally, but this article seems to "prove" several things:

1. If you were a (fighter) pilot in WW1 there was a strong element of luck in merely surviving long enough to gain competence, much less exceptional skill. A lot of novice pilots were killed very quickly. (All too true, of course). Richthofen WAS lucky in serving his apprenticeship on the Eastern Front - where air fighting was much less intense - but then this sort of fact is not what the JOMS article is about.

2. The ratio between victories scored by German fighter pilots and recorded "defeats" of German (fighter?) pilots is very heavily weighted (the researchers themselves said "suspiciously" heavily weighted). I would have said ridiculously weighted - unless we ARE only looking at German fighter pilots - which in turn renders the statistics meaningless - since most "victories" were over reconnaissance and bomber pilots. (Who did incidentally score occasional victories, but not to anything like the same extent as the "experts".) Incidentally - a large proportion of Richthofen's victories were NOT over opposing single seat fighters but over "opponents" like the B.E.2 and R.E.8 (the same kind of thing could be said for most ace pilots, to be fair).

3. Based on this (admittedly suspicious) ratio, and the total number of German (fighter ?) pilots 80 victories is not really that unlikely. Being not that unlikely, it can be attributed as much to luck as skill. (???)

I repeat - So what, and how would you justify including all this in an article on Richthofen? IT ISN'T specifcally about him at all - in fact the only data relating to him is his official score (i.e. the number 80).

Soundofmusicals (talk) 21:33, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure where you are reading this from the article. Have you purchased it? I have. I don't find the words suspiciously anywhere in the article. The article simply sets up a mathematical framework to study skill vs luck for German fighter pilots. It them applies this framework to the fighter pilots in general, and MvR specifically. To quote the abstract We find that the variance of this skill distribution is not very large, and that the top aces achieved their victory scores mostly by luck. For example, the ace of aces, Manfred von Richthofen, most likely had a skill in the top quarter of the active WWI German fighter pilots and was no more special than that. This conclusion I think is relevant to MvR.--Work permit (talk) 21:51, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I have only read the Scientific American report of the article, and am assuming that this is a fair summary of the argument - so you may have me there. My main response is - assuming the statistics, (which are actually highly questionable) are 100% accurate what can be meaningfully drawn from them about R. himself? Any high achievement obviously has a luck factor - but just how relevant is this to a meaningful assessment of an individual achievement? Just as a life expectancy of (say) 35 in late eighteenth century Austria (this is a hypothetical guess incidentally) would tells us nothing material about the death of Beethoven - the chances of a WW1 fighter pilot reaching a particular score tell us nothing about the score of Richthofen - and even less about anything else about him. Soundofmusicals (talk) 22:10, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Not sure the Beethoven analogy is relevant, since beethoven is known for his music, not his age. A better analogy is your home run hitting one. Statistics would say that someone hitting 80 home runs in a row is truely remarkable. While MvR's achievement is great, is it statistically remarkable? Can we say with statistical certainty that he was more skilled then Ernst Udet, Werner Junck, Max Immelmann, or Kurt Wissemann?--Work permit (talk) 22:57, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

No analogy is perfect of course - the point is that statistics prove nothing about individuals. Responsibly applied statistics don't try to prove anything about individuals. Richthofen is "known" by "lay" people (non-WW1 enthusiasts) because he flew a red plane and achieved 80 credited victories (a lovely round number, and more than anyone else). And, let me add - because he caught the imagination of the creator of the "Peanuts" characters!!! He was also the subject of a great deal of wartime propaganda, which went down very well with the German populace - and made him unusually well known among his opponents also. His achievements, as viewed by enthusiasts, lie more in his record as one of the great fighter leaders (he was THE pioneer of fighter "wing" tactics) than the actual number of his victories. It is probably true enough that he did have a fair bit of luck - including very bad luck in the way he died - basically from an single extreme range hit from a ground based Vickers gun. Statistical analysis however can't say anything meaningful about how much luck and how much skill - only the unremarkable fact that it wasn't that unlikely that someone would get to 80 victories... well, doh? so what? The reasons for fame - both ephemeral and lasting, are indeed VERY capricious. This is a fair enough conclusion - but one that is far from being specifically relevant to Richthofen!! It could no doubt be said with equal justification for 90% of the people mentioned in Wikipedia!!! Soundofmusicals (talk) 23:38, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Requesting third opinion

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.. 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.

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)

I'm glad you consider this dispute "amicable" - it certainly is from this side! Yes, I'd like to see what some of the other WW1 aviation "fans" think - not to mention any mathematicians out there! Soundofmusicals (talk) 21:44, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

• Basically, I appreciate the discussion points that have been raised as to the theory that was proposed and considering the contentious nature of an esoteric theory being introduced, the comportment of both editors is admirable. As to the validity of introducing this statement, essentially, the concern I have is that the theory being forwarded is applicable to fighter pilots in general and although World War I combat veterans are the focus, the example of Manfred von Richthofen cannot be considered valid without a comprehensive analysis of individual combats. If I was to make a decision as to its retention as a key component of the life and legacy of Richthofen, the theory has to be considered peripheral. The passage is best suited to an article on fighter pilots rather than Manfred von Richthofen. FWiW, further elaboration may be required as this is not a summary judgment but merely an initial impression. Bzuk (talk) 02:24, 5 May 2008 (UTC).

• Yes, it's good to see a debate being conducted both amicably and forcefully. I think the World_sport_context section of Don Bradman's article is instructive here. It makes a strong case that Bradman was a uniquely successful player in the context of all major ball sports. It compares him to great players in other sports such as Pelé, Ty Cobb, Jack Nicklaus, and Michael Jordan, noting that none of their statistics were remotely as exceptional. Looking at the articles for those players, not one of them notes that although they were (perhaps) the best player of their sport, they were not as exceptional as Bradman. From this I conclude that we tend to only include such statistical background when it adds to the uniqueness of that individual's record, not when it might be might make them seem less exceptional in a broader context. This suggests that omitting such contextual information from the Red Baron's article would not be unusual. Personally I think it's an interesting (though not entirely surprising) detail, but as a statistician I'm probably not a typical reader. -- Avenue (talk) 04:12, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

• The problem with Simkin & Roychowdhury's theory, as reported by Scientific American, is it downplays the fact that surviving, as long as Richthofen did, was more than a matter of luck. Clearly, a major successful fighter pilot is not only one who shoots down enemy aircraft; he/she is also good at avoiding being killed. Grant | Talk 04:15, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

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)

• [Came here from 3rd opinion] It's a lot to base on only a single article, analyzing only a single aspect of the question (mathematical statistics). If that's all there is, I would prefer to see only a couple of sentences, referring the reader to an interesting external link. If there is more discussion about this, I would like to see it based on reference to both the popular Scientific American article and the original study. Ideally it would at least mention limitations that the original authors might discuss, and it may mention any positive or negative published responses to the article. But this is interesting and potentially significant, so it should be included in some form. Regards, and thanks for keeping it clean, folks. —Michael Z. 2008-05-09 07:28 z

• Its no doubt an interesting theory and makes fascinating reading, but surely belongs more in an article on the general topic of 'acedom' or what makes an 'ace'; concepts like 'situation awareness' etc, can then be included in a collective way, and a reference taken from the von R entry here, which strictly speaking should be about the man and his career etc. Just me thoughts...Harryurz (talk) 10:00, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I think that the study is fascinating - A 30% chance that he just got lucky? Wow! And I thought he must have been a genius. But that is merely my opinion. However, the fact that there is a peer reviewed article in a well respected journal about Richthofen and the number of kills is justification enough. --Timtak (talk) 09:41, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

---

While all of the above discussion of the probability of Richthofen's victories is very interesting, all of it is so intrinsically flawed as to be meaningless.

While math theories work on carefully gathered data, the victory claims of World War I aces are anything but that. Highly stressed men, difficulties in vision, vagaries of weather and terrain all made reports of victory more of a guessing game than an accurate accumulation of fact. Some combat reports state only EA--enemy aircraft--as the target; some lack even a date; many lack a time of day. There are historians who attempt to match up reported losses with combat reports with an eye toward validating the scores of individual aces, and they always fail.

Passage of time and subsequent loss of records further erodes credibility and accuracy.

The comparison of fleeting observations in the air to sporting events witnessed by multitudes is so basically fallacious as to be laughably unbelievable. It is not even a comparison of apples and oranges; it is more like a comparison of pomegranates and bananas.

In short, if you allow "garbage in garbage out" into the mathematical realm, you can prove most anything.

Georgejdorner (talk) 21:59, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

date of birth?

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)

plz rd 1st sence of articl Soundofmusicals (talk) 09:19, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Richthofen's "poor judgement".

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)

Timing of his head injury

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)

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)

Brown fans please go home

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)

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)

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)

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)

French report of R's autopsy

I have cut out the new bit about a French report of R's autopsy (in spite of its being cited) as it seems to have little relationship to the one in Franks and Alan The Red Baron's last flight - which described the Baron as having been hit by a single bullet - other injuries (to the face and legs) having been received when the triplane crash landed. According to Franks and Alan there were two autopsies by different doctors - in fact this whole bit struck me when I read it as pretty sickening and distressing, and I strongly wished they hadn't done it at all, but treated a hero's body with a bit more respect. For instance they poked around in his chest cavity with a bit of wire to determine the path of the bullet, and so on - all very crude and nasty. The single bullet was found lodged in his clothing, having passed through his body. None the less - the whole consensus about exactly when and how R. was hit would be thrown back into the melting pot if this latest report were to be taken into account. If we really don't know if R was hit by one or three bullets, for instance - well, what do we know??

I think we have to accept that an enormous amount of absolute rubbish has been published about R. (including one article "by an eyewitness" that stated R. was flying a biplane, not a triplane, and "leapt from the cockpit to shake his captor's hand"). Sadly, I fear this comes into the same category.

Even if the French account is totally honest and based on real evidence rather than fantasy, it is at best second hand and hearsay - and I think this needs to be taken into account when comparing it with the direct documentation of the doctors performing the autopsy, as documented by Franks and Alan.

--Soundofmusicals (talk) 22:28, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

That seems to be a fantasy. I have only read of two autopsies being carried out, both by Australian (or possibly British) doctors. Grant | Talk 10:08, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd be surprised if the French ever got involved; vonR was primarily engaged against the RFC/RNAS/RAF portion of the lines, and came down in 'British held' territory- the French certainly did'nt have jurisdiction over captured airman or aircraft found in the British zone of the front, so why over a dead emeny ace? sounds very fishy to me. Harryurz (talk) 10:33, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

To be fair - the edit never said anything about a "French autopsy" - it was a French report about the British/Australian autopsy that was IMHO at least, based on what I have read - extremely inaccurate. I have changed the section heading to make this clear. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 13:31, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

To make this quite clear - here is the addition to the article that I reverted:

The autopsy report states that not one, but three bullets were found in the body: one in the heart, one in the stomach and another in the knee. This is consistent with a burst from Sgt Popkin's Vickers. Note that Popkin was still pressing his claim in the Melbourne evening newspaper at the end of the '50s.

The editor who inserted the above inserted this reference/footnote

Hareux> [Hareux, Jean-Michel: Villers-Bretonneux, SERHAM, Montdidier, 2007, tome 1, p. 319], Le 21 avril.

VON RICHTHOFEN au commande de son « Fokker » est abattu par un tir de mitrailleuse. Son corps est transporté à Bernay puis à Poulainville où un médecin militaire anglais procède à l'autopsie : une balle au cœur, une dans le ventre et une autre dans le genou. La carrière de l'as de l'aviation allemande a cessé 11 jours avant son 26ème anniversaire.

My (bad) French translates this (fairly freely) as:

Von Richthofen, flying his "Fokker", was brought down by a burst of machine gun fire. His body was moved to Bernay and then to Poulainville where a British military doctor performed an autopsy. (There was) one bullet in the heart, one in the belly, and another in the knee. The career of the German Ace pilot ended 11 days before his 26th. Birthday.

This, as I have said, contradicts the actual autopsy as reported in Franks and Alan - which stated that Richthofen was hit once - and that his other injuries (to his face and legs) were superficial, and caused by crashing with his safety belt undone. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 13:53, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Reversion of this page

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)

Extract of actual content out of vandalistic thrashing about on this page referred to above

– The answer is: in that case little or nothing; back to square 1. The whole consensus about more important things, such as the shape of the world and the relative motion of it and the sun, has after all several times been fundamentally disturbed and we have got over such traumatic experiences. The fact that the anatomising R.M.O.s found only one bullet is, if it is a fact, in the circumstances inconclusive:

The interpretation of Hareux’s version I offered on this page yesterday was that three bullets of a burst from Sgt Popkin’s MMG penetrated Richthofen’s body. One of them, the fatal one, went right through and was stopped in his clothes. I hypothesize for argument’s sake that it was stopped not BY his clothes but by the armour-plating of the seat, and that the other two passed out again through the plywood and fabric of the flimsy machine. The well-documented fact that the aeroplane was landed by Richthofen practically undamaged and immediately after the removal of his body thoroughly cannibalised for souvenirs by enthusiastic Diggers would explain even the disappearance of bullets lodged elsewhere in it. It may even be that they were found and carried off discreetly by their finders as the most precious of the souvenirs. On the other hand some of the pieces of the machine exhibited in the Australian War Memorial in Canberra are so big that they cannot possibly have been smuggled home by individual soldiers in their kitbags, any more than the tank Mephisto now in Queensland was. Again, it is certain that almost all English and most other British infantry and Flying Corps officers of the time, possibly including even some Australian staff officers, would have done everything in their power to conceal the fact, if it were a fact, that this famous, aristocratic and highly-decorated ace pilot was brought down by a simple machine-gunner from Melbourne who spoke uneducated English with a barbarous accent and apart from his machine-gun thought of little besides beer, two-up, V.F.L. football and the sheilas. Pamino (talk) 13:09, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

The above is what Pamino apparently meant to say - this has been extracted from the hopeless muddle to which the page was reduced by his/her sequence of edits. To answer his/her points one by one:

The British army doctors who examined the body found only one bullet wound. A wound caused by the bullet of a military rife or machine gun is distinctive, it very unlikely to be mistaken, especially on close inspection by a doctor, for an injury caused by collision with machine gun butts or the structure of an aeroplane, especially when such injuries have been caused by a relatively mild crash. And anyway the French report refers to three bullets IN the body, not three wounds. The seat was thin aluminium and not armoured - it still exists, (in Canada) and is undamaged. A row of holes in the back are in fact for bolts or rivets that originally held the seat in position. Any assumed presence of "other bullets" is pure speculation. (in "Wiki-speak" "original research").

Also specualtion (and totally irrelevant, not to mention racist) are the comments about the "typical British officer" and the "typical Australian digger". I agree that the evidence (the real evidence, not Pamino's wild guesses) points to an Australian machine gunner on the ground rather than Brown (read the article!!). This is bourne out by the actual autopsy (READ IT) just as much as by the French (per)version of the same autopsy. The RAF (or maybe even the civil authorities) DID have reasons for saying that Richthofen "met his match" in a duel with an opposing ace rather than falling victim to ground fire. It was obviously much better propaganda. But the idea that this was based in snobbery is not only speculation, but silly - Brown himself was a not an English gentleman, but a "mere colonial" (he was Canadian). --Soundofmusicals (talk) 00:58, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and incidentally, if I may be excused for addressing Pamino directly for a moment - Wikipedia is very patently NOT a forum for discussing new theories of our own (however sound we my think them to be) - certainly not on such matters as "the shape of the world and the relative motion of it and the sun", nor on the truthfulness of the doctors who examined Richthofen's body - whom you are calling liars, or else fools who knew less about the case than you do!! Such things belong to a different class of literature to a popular general encyclopedia. And I don't like snide abuse about my use of the words "please" and "thank you". Lack of manners (whether to "superiors or "inferiors") betrays ill breeding and ignorance - aggressive defence of such bad manners betrays something I'd rather not mention!! --Soundofmusicals (talk) 02:35, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Talk page comments

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).

Personal research and editorializing

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)

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)

May WAS a novice at the time!!

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)

Fact Tag on "Fighter aircraft superior to his own" - anyone have a reference to this one?

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)

Who were Richthofens parents?

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

• It's in the article. LewisWasGenius (talk) 18:31, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

kaputt

I have changed again the translation given for kaputt from "*destroyed* or *broken*" to *finished*. The word *kaputt* has many meanings - all with a negative slant, such as *destroyed*, *broken*. LANGENSCHEIDT English/German gives four : broken, ruined, worn out, all in. However, by checking an online German/German dictionary, ones gets more meanings highlighting in a Google search the words :tot, gestorben, kaputt; then kaputt comes up with the definitions meaning also dead:

Bedeutung: tot | Art: Adjektiv

abgestorben, eingeschlafen, kaputt, vorbei, verblichen, gefühllos, hin, heimgegangen, unbeseelt, blutleer, entzwei, hingeschieden, mausetot, leblos, verloren, verschieden, abgeschieden, empfindungslos, entseelt, verstorben, selig

I inserted a hidden statement beside *finished*

"Another eye witness, Sgt Ted Smout of the Australian Medical Corps, reported that Richthofen's last word was "kaputt" ("finished").

hidden statement: "It was Richthofen who was *kaputt* not his aircraft, and when he said *kaputt*, he was saying that HE was *finished*, that HE *was dying*, not that his aircraft was *broken* or *destroyed*/FW"

and gave the following online reference of a German dictionary: http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:SzqjSgxjO6AJ:synonyme.woxikon.de/synonyme/gestorben.php+kaputt+ist+synonymer+tot+sein&cd=3&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a

Frania W. (talk) 03:17, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

All of the definitions could very easily be interpreted as Richthofen referring to himself as "destroyed", "defeated" or "broken". BTW, "kaput" is the usual spelling. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 03:25, 18 May 2009 (UTC).

Making a big deal out of this is not really necessary - it is far from certain that Richthofen's last word WAS "kaput" anyway (see Franks and Bennett). This is only on the somewhat doubtful authority of Sgt. Smout, who was first to reach him - and who himself spoke no German. Assuming it WAS what he said, I think any speculation about exactly what he meant is just that, pure speculation, and not really a matter for an encyclopedia article. I would delete the hidden text myself.--Soundofmusicals (talk) 07:57, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Translation of "kaputt": (1) have you ever heard a military man on the point of dying saying that he is "destroyed" or "broken"? (2) if Richtfhofen did say "kaputt" and it is highlighted in the text, then he is being quoted in his mother tongue & the word should be spelled the German way with two *t*. Frania W. (talk) 12:40, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree its pretty obvious what he meant - that's the point! Just stating the facts and letting the reader draw the obvious conclusion is however preferable to a specific statement that is (at least technically) speculation. Can't find my copy of Franks and Bennett offhand (if you could see state of my study you would not be overly surprised) but I think from memory that Smout's account of what R said simply wasn't German - although it MIGHT (given a non-German speaker's hearing) have been something like Alle ist kaputt (sorry if that's wrong, but my German is probably worse than Smout's), or "It's all over". Anyone with an accessible copy of Franks and Bennett like to correct this??? --Soundofmusicals (talk) 01:58, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Please find your Franks & Bennett with the exact quote! Then just state the facts & we can fight over the translation of *kaputt* later. On the other hand, I do have a problem with this. If the bullet touched Richthofen's heart, would not he be dead... on arrival ??? Frania W. (talk) 04:01, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

He was, more or less. His wound was from an almost spent bullet that ploughed diagonally through his chest cavity and exited in his armpit, lodging in his flying coat. In the last second or so of life he just managed to crash land - turning off his engine and easing back the stick a little (he was, remember, already at very low altitude). Personally, I would not be the least surprised if he really was dead by before anyone could reach him, and the story of his last words could well be just that, a story. Anyway, has anyone else a copy of the book in question? Mine has been missing for a while - I was searching for it the other day to confirm something or other.--Soundofmusicals (talk) 07:00, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I love your "he was more or less" because *dead* is like *pregnant*: you either are or are not... Imagine someone with a wound in his heart (even if the bullet had only effleuré son cœur) crash landing his aircraft, which must have been quite a physical shock & still able to utter something... If not unconscious by that time, he must have been Superman. Too bad we cannot grill Smout. Frania W. (talk) 15:14, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

According to the people who still say Brown might have shot him down he flew for nearly 2 minutes after the bullet ploughed through the heart and both lungs - and it wasn't a little pistol bullet either - but a military rifle/machine gun bullet! I agree Smout's account is a bit far fetched. The crash landing was severe enough for R to have injuries to his face and legs, incidentally. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 03:30, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I know - lower jaw dislocated & teeth knocked out, if I read correctly, which would make it hard for him to hold much of a conversation. Frania W. (talk) 03:57, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I am am open minded about the last words. A .303 bullet (7.7 mm) is brutal, but considerably less so after travelling 600 yds/m. A broken jaw is a serious impediment to speech but "kaputt" is not difficult to mouth and Smout had likely acquired some German as a result of his work as a medic. Grant | Talk 07:51, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Not a witness to the scene, I was not originally arguing about Richthofen's supposed last word(s) but on the translation and orthography of the word *kaputt*. As for Smout's proficiency in German... no one needs a crash course in that language to know the meaning of kapput. More of my concern in all this: after a bullet went through his chest, his effort to land the aircraft without crashing it to pieces, plus having his lower jaw dislocated by whatever smashed his face as he hit the ground, in how much pain was Richthofen?

Oops! Looks like I had forgotten to sign, FW

Frania W. (talk) 13:52, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

A gory detail, and not awfully relevant, but a rifle bullet after travelling 500m makes a WORSE mess in a person's chest cavity than at close range - up to 200-300m it tends to fly straight through - at a greater range it "wobbles about". Back on topic - personally I would omit the whole bit about his "last words". It's just possible he did say something to Smout - and if so it's not at all unlikely that what he said included the word "kaputt" - but is such doubtful information encyclopediac? As for what he meant (if that's what he said) - assuming we leave that bit in I would prefer NOT to translate it at all - but leave the reader to look it up if he has never encountered the word before. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 23:22, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

After discussing this back & forth, I was coming to the same conclusion. Let's say that he was heard by Smout to say "kapputt" and leave it at that. Since you have been working on this article more than I have, à vous l'honneur! Frania W. (talk) 02:31, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

OK, 'tis done!--Soundofmusicals (talk) 12:04, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Completely off-topic, but you mentioned his facial injuries. As he was thrown forward (all WWI pilots automatically undid their safety belts before a crash - they had a horror of being trapped in a burning wreck) his face piled into his machine gun butts. This was a very common injury among WWI fighter pilots on both sides - it was known in the RFC as "Camel Face". --Soundofmusicals (talk) 12:14, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! It was nice discussing with you, a rather long discussion for such a small word, supposedly Richthofen's last. Let our last be Auf Wiedersehen! Frania W. (talk) 14:06, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Number of victories revisited

Copyedit: "The final paragraph in this section that goes: "It is also significant that while Richthofen's early victories and the establishment of his reputation coincided with a period of German air superiority, the majority of his successes were achieved against a numerically superior enemy, who were flying fighter aircraft that were on the whole better than his own" sounds like a primary school textbook material, this has to be backed up with some serious references in my opinion. O.W this paragraph should be removed to improve the quality of the article —Preceding unsigned comment added by Enisbayramoglu (talk • contribs) 20:56, 18 April 2009 (UTC) "

While I don't necessarily disagree with editor's sentiments or the reasoning behind the requested removal of the aforementioned statement; the passage was subsequently tagged with a citation request. The entire sentence was recently removed and reverted. Can a discussion arise first on this statement. Is it facutally based? Are there reference sources that can verify the statement? FWiW, the statement in various forms existed in the article for two years and originally had sources including: ref>M.V. Simkin, V.P. Roychowdhury. (2006). Theory of Aces: Fame by chance or merit? Journal of Mathematical Sociology, v.30, no. 1, pp 33 - 42, and this more comprehensive statement: Something that also lends credibility to this claim is the fact that over half of his victories were scored against planes such as the B.E.2C and the F.E.2C, which weren't made to be fighters, only observation or reconnaissance planes. from Cross and Cockade Journal, Vol 2 No. 2, p. 180 (Summer 1966). The article breaks down Richthofen's score by each plane type: 16 B.E.2C/2D, 13 F.E.2B/2D, 8 R.E.8, 8 Sopwith Camel, 5 Bristol Fighter, 6 Nieuport 17, 5 Spad 7, 3 B.E.12, 4 D.H. 2, 3 Sopwith 1.5 Strutter, 3 S.E.5A, 2 Sopwith Pup, 1 F.E. 8, 1 D.H. 5, 1 Martinsyde, 1 Armstrong-Whitworth FK8. Bzuk (talk) 01:29, 4 June 2009 (UTC).

I find the statement so overblown as to be essentially meaningless. However, if a reputable source can be cited, it could stay, so far as I am concerned.

For my analysis of the "garbage in garbage out" approach of the article cited directly above, scroll up to my 13 February 2009 entry under "Requesting third opinion".

In short, I disbelieve this particular article as a reliable source.

Georgejdorner (talk) 04:43, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Didn't realise this was being discussed when I removed the paragraph in question. However, the above few posts don't make it seem to me any more likely to be sourcable or less like the oversimplistic and misleading POV of whoever originally wrote it. Having been challenged, Wikipedia policy is quite clear that it needs to be removed unless it can be sourced, and the burden of evidence is on those wishing to keep it. Cheers, Miremare 18:58, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

If you read the statement and source above, a reasonably verifiable article lists all of Richthofen's victories by type which shows 35 of the victories were over observation or bombing aircraft, and while the listing does not specify the dates of the actions, it does provide a source. This topic seems to be one of interest and although a number of sources have been provided over the last two years, numerous editors have reverted or removed the reference sources, leaving the statement "hanging there." From the list, it is apparent that Richthofen did have success against more modern types and fighting scouts as well. The original author/editor claimed that he had scored "kills" against numerically and technologically superior aircraft, which is borne out by seeing the SPAD 7, SE.5A, Bristol Fighter and Sopwith Camel for a total of 21 in the victory column. FWiW. "I have no horse in this race." Bzuk (talk) 19:21, 4 June 2009 (UTC).

I see what you mean, but rather than assume which planes are superior to which other planes, and seeing as we don't know what he was flying when he downed most of these, we still need a source to state that he was "flying inferior machines". Also, I'm not entirely sure what the "outnumbered" bit is referring to - is it the numbers of aircraft in the average engagement, or strength of the opposing airforces in general? Miremare 20:58, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

If paragraph is tagged with "citation needed", why not leave it "hanging there" & give someone the possibility to come up with a verifiable source (not legend)? Frania W. (talk) 14:47, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Instead of playing the reverting game, why not change the sentence to something like:

***It is also significant that while Richthofen's early victories and the establishment of his reputation coincided with a period of German air superiority, the assertion (by some) that the majority of his successes were achieved against a numerically superior enemy, who were flying fighter aircraft that were on the whole better than his own, needs to be irrefutably verified.***

The paragraph could even be put as a footnote. Just a thought.

Frania W. (talk) 17:59, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid I am the "guilty" one who inserted the original paragraph! The intent of the paragraph is to counter the picture of Richoften as a hawk swatting butterflies. I should have "answered" the reference request earlier, but was never sure about exactly what it actually related to. I have added a reference to a complete itemised list of R's victories in a reputable souce (copies and versions of this list also exists elsewhere). We DO know exactly when, what and where each victory claimed was - and we also know more or less which fighter type R was flying when he shot down each one. Up to June 1917, when German air superiority can be said to have begun to fade, R was credited with 56 enemy aircraft - 24 of these during "Bloody April". He shot down another 24 during the period of general Allied superiority from (say) June 1917 to his death on the 21st of April 1918. Thus "the majority of his successes" is innaccurate and I will change it (in a moment) to "many of his successes". The great bulk of R's victories were of course scored using the famous Albatros "D" fighters - the D.II, D.III and D.V. It probably does NOT need a reference to confirm that while the Albatros types were superior to the Nieuport 17, the F.E.2b, DH.2, FE.8, DH.5, and Sopwith 1 1/2 strutter, and was also superior in at least some respects to the Sopwith Pup, Triplane, SPAD S.7, early Bristol F2a and SE.5 - it was seriously outclassed by the Sopwith Camel, Bristol F2b and the SE.5a. The Fokker triplane, which R flew exclusively from early 1918, was inferior in most respects to either main British Fighter, although it had the edge in some chacteristics. Overall, the Germans were badly outnumbered in the air - especially during 1918 - although one takes the point that this would not necessarily apply to every particular air fight. I DON'T think all this belongs in R's article, even as a footnote, although the paragraph could well need editing to make it clearer what we are talking about. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 23:20, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Linkspam

Long overdue link cleanup. Several Polish and German language links must be moved to wiki.de and wiki.pl, several of the links were inactive. A few of the links were removed because they were blatant commercial linkspam, links to online shops hawking everything from DVDs to other merchandise. The remaining links were nonspecific, i.e. they were generic pilot sites with little to no information on the Red Baron, and the links themselves weren't even to the specific sections mentioning him. A few links were MFA sites, Made For Adsense, and blatantly advertisement driven. Wikipedia is not a link repository, the links that are there are noncommercial and informational. 74.248.89.30 (talk) 01:13, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't see all of them as linkspam, but you have made your case sufficiently. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 01:25, 16 June 2009 (UTC).

Since this now appears to be a crusade, identify each link's problem, one by one, in the edit history rather than making massive deletions. Any large scale alterations of this nature should first be talked through on a talk page. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 11:22, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

User reported as non-communicative on talk page See report, now claiming reversion due to vandal attacks. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 21:07, 20 June 2009 (UTC).

Guynemer

The sentence about Guynemer's last flight DOES seem slightly suss. I have checked a few sources and Guynemer's fall seems to have been a bit of a mystery - which would preclude him being a good example of the "well-known ace falls to momentary carelessness" syndrome. On the other hand the original author of the paragraph may well have had an excellent source in mind - the "mystery" of Guynemer's death could well be Gallic hype for all I know!

Give people a reasonable opportunity to find a ref before deleting the sentence, however. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 03:33, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Agree...thank you for checking. I thought the IP made a good attempt at posting a citation request so I took the liberty of placing it for prudence's sake. I'd say 'fair' to pulling the sentence after 10-14 days.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 03:46, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I added a couple of references about the day Guynemer went missing. Unfortunately they don’t specifically mention "target fixation/CCS" nor the exact way he was killed. They do however cover the two-seater and the flight of Fokkers though. Also one of them covers the German claims about his death as well. All in all I think it’s still a bit mediocre as far as a link to target fixation and CCS, but I will keep looking for a more direct connection. Colincbn (talk) 06:45, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Bolko

After a bit of work on the question of Bolko von Richthofen it seems almost certain that there are two near contemporaries with this name - one is Manfred's little brother - the other a distant cousin of theirs. The two are naturally frequently confused. I have added a disambiguation page and moved the page on the cousin (more famous in his own right - although of no concern to us here whatsoever). --Soundofmusicals (talk) 06:10, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Illustrations

I have fiddled about with these to try to get a reasonably decent display - if they are now really hopeless in some screen definitions I suppose we will have to try again? --Soundofmusicals (talk) 19:54, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Unhistorical POV nonsense about Richthofen's death

Allowing recent edits would make this article (and Wikipedia) a laughing stock. PLEASE read any reputable source on the subject - there are quite a few in the references at the bottom. The only reason why anyone could suppose Richthofen was NOT shot down by groundfire is simply that somehow it is more "romantic" to suppose that he "met his match" in the air. By 1918 groundfire was in fact very dangerous indeed, and quite a high percentage of casualties among airmen on both sides was caused by it. By all means bring the question up here - but don't rush to edit this particular section without some kind of rationale, together with your actual evidence - because it will just get reverted on the spot. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 13:26, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Snoopy and the Red Baron

Should the fact Snoopy, has an obsession w/ the Red Baron, be mentioned in this article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.72.211.134 (talk) 02:25, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Good Faith edits by "SluggoOne"

These were evidently made in good faith - several were at worst harmless, and one or two probably an improvement. On the other hand most of them were at best unnecessary - and a few needed reverting, as they either deleted information or introduced ambiguities. If the changes were to be reintroduced in smaller batches we might be able to discuss them point by point. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 04:44, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I couldn't disagree with this more if I tried. What's key here is that I didn't remove one bit of highly consequential information, and the article is now more streamlined and readable. The WP:NOR-violating mentions of various other nations' flying aces aside, I was particularly galled at repeated references to Richthofen as "the Baron" or "the Red Baron;" had he been captured by Canada, Britain, Australia, or the US, he would've been executed as a war criminal and we'd have had another template to add to the bottom of the page. I've been ill at ease for a very long time at the admiration Richthofen has gained amongst people who he would've killed had they been fighters in WWI. Sure, he's no Hitler, but if he fought for Germany, his death could've have happened fast enough.

Gotta love the word "evidently" up there. Its use is blatant, textbook assumption of bad faith, and garbage like "one or two probably an improvement" violates WP:AGF even more, coming close to violating WP:NPA. You obviously didn't check my edit history. I understand, since such a process is devastatingly complicated and difficult, but had you, you would've learned that I am miles and miles from a bad faith actor. Please do not, under any circumstances, revert anything until you've gotten into detail about any of your concerns. (You know. Like I just did there, and like I did in my original edit summary, and like I did in my ensuing edit summary, etc. Substance is hard to come by, I know!) Şłџğģő 06:04, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Pardon me, SluggoOne:

"[...] had he been captured by Canada, Britain, Australia, or the US, he would've been executed as a war criminal [...]"

Are you sure? The following is more likely:

"[...] had he been captured by Canada, Britain, Australia, or the US, he would've have been made a prisoner of war [...]"

--Frania W. (talk) 14:02, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree with the majority here, the recent edits by SluggoOne are inconsequential and do not IMHO further the development of the article. FWiW, re: "I've been ill at ease for a very long time at the admiration Richthofen has gained amongst people who he would've killed had they been fighters in WWI"; is there a whiff of WP:NPOV in the edits? Bzuk (talk) 16:14, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Confusing italics

"Manfred Albrecht Freiherr von Richthofen" -- why the italics? Is this something customary in German? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.229.61.134 (talk) 00:14, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Good question. See above; I've removed "Freiherr" from his name altogether, and explained what it means. Groogle (talk) 04:03, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Prolific??

"Prolific" is a word used to describe (for instance) a mother who has many children, or a composer who produces a great deal of music, an artist who paints many pictures, an author who publishes many books. In other words it implies creation and life - the exact opposite of he success of an air ace which is measured, after all, in destruction and death. So while I appreciate the good intentions of the editor who wanted us to say that Richthofen was the most "prolific" ace rather than the most "successful" I think this is really about the worst possible word. It may be possible to improve on the word "successful" - but I really don't think this word is especially "loaded".--Soundofmusicals (talk) 22:27, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. I don't think the term 'prolific' can really be applied here. 'Successful' means literally 'full of success'. If we count each of Manfred's confirmed victories as a success, he has 80 successes. What is not a success would be getting killed/shot down. I believe this happened two or three times. This still leaves us with at least 77 successes if we subtract non-successes from successes, so Manfred is still the most successful ace of WW1. Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 23:53, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

"Of all my accomplishments I may have achieved during the war, I am proudest of the fact that I never lost a wingman." - Erich 'Bubi' Hartmann

--Tdadamemd (talk) 03:41, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree that successful is not pejorative but an objective measure, merely the recounting of the success of being a fighter pilot with the most aerial victories. FWiW, changing a descriptive term when you have no consensus, as evidenced by the "string" above, is not conducive to the development of this article. Bzuk (talk) 04:32, 6 May 2010 (UTC).

As for that Bubi quote- that has nothing to do with objective "success", rather, it deals with subjective camaraderie. He is not saying "I am successful because I didn't die", he is saying "I care more about the fact that I didn't let my friends die than the number of victories/successes that I achieved". Thus, it really doesn't prove anything in regards to the nature of "success". Go find another quote, one that actually supports your position.Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 18:06, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Latest nonsense about confirmed air victories

PLEASE anyone who wants to have another go at messing around with the magic "80" of Richthofen's confirmed victories bring it up here first!!

It is true that British records indicate that at least 76 of the Baron's victories seem to coincide with British losses (the others may very well be French or Belgian - only the British kept loss records that are detailed and accurate enough for this sort of thing! - Strange but true!) This however is the work of later historians - the official British line was always that the Baron's score was inflated for propaganda purposes. To repeat - the Allies in general and the British in particular never "confirmed" anything - got it yet???

The "confirmed" bit is from Luftstreitkräfte records - and is there to distinguish the kills recognised by Richthofen's own superiors from his other "unconfirmed" victories that failed their (quite stringent) criteria. Any other figure is essentially guesswork - it may well be fun, but it doesn't belong in an encyclopedia.

This is the lead paragraph - Richthofen's actual "confirmed" score is what belongs here. Questions raised by his score are in fact discussed in adequate detail further down. Please read down to the end before you go changing a very well researched and referenced article on the strength of the first website on the subject that you can find!!

As someone else has remarked - there is a great deal of nonsense published about Richthofen - we try very hard here to avoid this rubbish where we can. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 23:48, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Talk about missing the point. I have experience of flying ace articles. Just because the German air service credited him with 80 does not mean they were "confirmed". It is the most inappropriate word to use in any flying ace article. It is always "claimed" or "credited with". As it blatantly obvious there is no consensus on this aspect, one side should not be presented over the other. Dapi89 (talk) 00:18, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

And personal opinions about sources by annons off the internet are useless and worthless. Fanboy nonsense. Dapi89 (talk) 00:19, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Lastly, It is absurd to attribute the notion of "confirmation" to the side making the claim. Its the most flawed concept ever known. Dapi89 (talk) 00:21, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Since all you can do is repeat and revert, I can't do very much except repeat myself - the victories WERE "confirmed" by Luftstreitkräfte records!! - it is important to note this to distinuish them from "claimed". Of course this does not mean that the claims were 100% accurate - but then in this sense we haven't a "confirmed victory total for anyone, have we? In the the interests of reconciliation and getting on to more important things we'll omit the word, but the other stuff you added to the lead is unnecessary here as (to once more repeat myself) covered further down the article. There is no "British" or "Allied" confirmations of anything. (A third repeat - will you read what I am actually saying please, to avoid having to repeat myself again!!)--Soundofmusicals (talk) 00:38, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me, I think I've done more than that. The reply above is a riddle of contraditions right ontop of each other. It seems you're trying to defend the indefensible. The point is that the German military were in no position to confirm anything. They can only accept the claim. So you are wrong to say the victories WERE "confirmed" by Luftstreitkräfte records. Fortunately, you contradict yourself to the correct view Of course this does not mean that the claims were 100% accurate. This is telling because it completely defeats the idea that there can be "confirmed kills". And you are absolutely right, but then in this sense we haven't a "confirmed victory total for anyone, have we. This is the sad truth of aerial warfare, particularly when dealing with large total claims. Dapi89 (talk) 00:54, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Talk about the "fog of war"! Mark Sublette (talk) 15:05, 9 May 2010 (UTC)Mark SubletteMark Sublette (talk) 15:05, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Removal of "confirmed"

Given the very latest edit, I'm satisfied. Dapi89 (talk) 00:30, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

So I should hope! But semantic quibblety-poo remains a silly waste of time! --Soundofmusicals (talk) 22:34, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

"However"

There may well be a rule in somebody's style book that you don't begin a sentence with a conjunction like "and", "but", or "however". Circumstances alter cases, however. Cutting all leading conjunctions from a passage of perfectly good prose can seldom be accomplished without distorting its meaning - or at least making that meaning less clear. I'm certainly not going to get into a revert war over this but read the whole paragraph! The last "removed however" is not only appropriate but its absence doesn't ring TRUE, somehow - what the text is trying to make clear is that he wasn't an exceptional pilot HOWEVER he was a superb shot. Somehow "He wasn't a great pilot; he was a good shot", while technically it carries the same meaning just looks strange - I mean why mention these two things together? - oh yes, they were contradictory aspects of the the abilities that made him a top ace. Stick a "however" or "but" in there and its just that little bit clearer though, isn't it? --Soundofmusicals (talk) 04:43, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I understand what you are saying here, but where the original "however" was placed in the sentence, it seemed to imply his marksmanship contrasting with his tactical and leader, not that his leadership, tactical, and marksmanship skills stand in contrast to the fact that he was not a spectacular pilot. However, I have retooled the sentence and added 'however' at the beginning to give the section the proper flow and improve clarity. I think this should be desirable for all parties involved. Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 08:09, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Spot on!! I actually thought the "however" was in its logical place (where you have put it) before we got into this - certainly that's where it belongs. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 22:05, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Mannock's score

I think there isn't any discussion about Mannock's number of victories shown in this article. I haven't got informed about this special case but i don't think it's correct to show a number here and link to an article (list of aces) where we can find another number. I understand this kind of subjects are hard to make clear, tho...just wanted to note it. --Mezod (talk) 21:24, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Mannock's score is a special case. Read the section about his score in his article for details. Richthofen is probably the only other ace who has had his score so rigorously "researched" - without there being any definitive answer. I think it would be best to simply to take "officially credited" score - to be consistent with other aces (most of them really) in the same situation. In any case, I agree that its untidy, at best, to seem to endorse more than one of his supposed "scores" in different articles. Feel free to "tidy this up" yourself if you like! --Soundofmusicals (talk) 22:22, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Ghost writer?

I think, on re-reading Burrows at least, that this borders on OR, in that it is an attempt to summarise quite a bit of existing evidence of at least one "other hand" in Der rote Kampfflieger. The original translator into English (J. Ellis Barker) characterised it as "the writings of a gentleman got up by a journalistic hack". Several other commentators since have noticed passages that seem to be interpolated purely for propaganda purposes, or that express opinions we know (from his letters for instance) R did not have. There are other parts that reveal quite plainly that they were NOT by R. - since they reveal a layman's lack of knowledge of flying and/or an unrealistically romantic idea of battle. Given that we want a fairly succinct summary rather than a full review of the evidence I think that ditching our hypothetical ghostwriter and simply stating that work was heavily censored and edited (as agreed by all references to little book that I can locate) will have to do. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 08:14, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

It WOULD be lovely to know what the "Intelligence and Press" (i.e. propaganda) department of the Luftstreitkräfte, who got R to write the book in the first place, actually did with his original manuscript, so that the (very widespread) "speculation" of how and to what degree they changed his original text could have a firmer basis. I suspect our original ghostwriter might not be too far off the mark, but... --Soundofmusicals (talk) 08:33, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Right, I agree. I just think we should produce a source for our (not unfounded) speculations.Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 18:52, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Read the relevant page of Burrows if you can get hold of it (my page numbers are from the "Mayflower" paperback edition - you may need to use the index to locate the exact passage). He presents a good deal of evidence that actually supports the ghostwriter bit - but is very cautious about firm conclusions. I suspect this is in part at least because he relies on Der rote Kampfflieger as his main primary source - being too open about criticising the book would cut the ground from under his own feet a little! (Cynical old man, aren't I). There ARE other biographies of R - perhaps more widely researched - that might for all I know present a firmer conclusion. All the same, I am happy enough with the text as it stands - the idea that we do not have Richthofen's original text IS essentially speculation, albeit very well founded speculation, no matter how many other writers feel the same way. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 01:31, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

It's what we can document, not what we suspect... Mark Sublette (talk) 01:35, 12 June 2010 (UTC)Mark SubletteMark Sublette (talk) 01:35, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Expanded lead??

I think the lead, although it IS a bit curt, is probably about right - If we are going to expand it then we need to be pretty selective, rather than giving a complete summary of every point covered in this (quite long and detailed) article. Could anyone disagreeing raise their arguments here and let's get consensus before we go saying the same thing twice (or three times) over. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 00:56, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Per WP:LEDE, "The lead serves both as an introduction to the article and as a summary of the important aspects of the subject of the article.

The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any notable controversies. The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources, and the notability of the article's subject should usually be established in the first sentence."

So yes, things should be brought up in the lede and then later in the article, in greater detail. The lede I came up with covers all the important parts of the article I saw in summary style, I think its length is proportional to that of the article. --Cúchullain ^t/c 01:04, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Great you've come here - there is no such word as "lede" it is an introduction or "Lead" please. My point is not that the current intro isn't a little short - just that we don't need quite so much matter as you want to insert. Perhaps the points in your expanded lead - at least the really important ones - could get a mention, without going into the ins and outs so much? At this stage we probably need to get a few other opinions. Sorry if I'm getting grumpy about this - I am listening. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 01:14, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Just to prove it - how's the current version - adding the essential points from your expanded lead? --Soundofmusicals (talk) 01:32, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

First, I must point out that "lede" is a perfectly acceptable spelling, and it is quite common around Wikipedia ;). Second, your version looks mostly fine to me. It's a bit brisker than I would have done, considering the length of the article, but that's not a big deal. I made a few slight changes to your version - I condensed the text into paragraphs and made one or two style edits - but most significantly I added the "Red Baron" nickname into the introductory sentence. That's far and away how he is best known (literally millions of Google hits, for what that is worth), so it ought to be mentioned right up front. I didn't remove anything about his aristocratic background, however. I would also like to see the "Flying Circus" in the intro, since it's so prominent in the article (and indeed, in most sources about him that I've seen). Otherwise it's looking good, we'll get there yet.--Cúchullain ^t/c 02:22, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Hey sounder, "lede" is legitimate. It is a derivative and colloquialism but is a part and parcel of the editing world. It appears to have stemmed from earlier times when type setters and editorial staff used shorthand such as this, and the origin is a bit cloudy, but it is still in use today. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 02:29, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

OK have it your own way - "lede" or "lead" - I think there are larger issues here. Personally I think this intro (note avoidance of both) is still a bit on the "windy" side - but an improvement on the mini-article it was, anyway. I have adjusted the text a little - of course his becoming a national hero followed his warlike feats - the text as it was almost implied the reverse! I STILL think the "Red Baron" nickname and the fact that he was an aristocrat go much better together - hwoever you look at it they are linked, even part of the same thought. Insisting that alternative names MUST go in the first sentence rather than the second seems a bit silly - especially when it produces a quasi non-sequitur like this. What do you think about THAT one, oh noble Bazooka!! I reckon where it was is quite "up front" enough - especially in bold type. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 04:05, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

It's usual practice here, per the manual of style, that when someone has a pseudonym, nickname, etc. by which they are very well known, it is included in the introductory sentence. This is the case for everyone from rappers to wrestlers to revolutionaries, and even countries like the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. It's not a non-sequitur to give the other name along with their real name; in this case, Richthofen is simply much more familiar to modern readers as the "Red Baron" than by his own name, so it ought to be as up front as possible. At any rate he wasn't known as "the Red Baron" because he was a member of "an aristocratic family with many famous relatives"; he was called that at best because he was a Freiherr and flew in red planes.--Cúchullain ^t/c 13:00, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

S, personally, I liked the earlier edit of the lede better, but c'est la vie. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 13:19, 16 July 2010 (UTC).

He was a Freiherr ("baron" - although just "lord" is a better translation really) because of his membership of his aristocratic family - the two things go very much together, to put it mildly. He was called a "baron" because that's what he was. And you get to be a baron (or the holder of any hereditary title or designation) because of who your family are, that's how it works. So to say "he wasn't known as "the Red Baron" because he was a member of "an aristocratic family" is the very plainest of nonsense, isn't it?

I fully agree about the nickname being better known than the real one in this case. In fact many people probably recognise "The Red Baron" as having been a German fighter pilot who have never heard the name Richthofen at all. I have no problems whatever with being "upfront" with the nickname. But if you're going to cite the MOS, read (rede?) what it actually says - it doesn't say "in the same sentence" or even "as closely as possible", but simply "closely following". I think in this case, since the very next thing we mention is his family, that it follows plenty close enough. This is a detail, of course, but I think one worth getting right. If the only arguments you can muster are as poor as this you don't have much of a case. What grates for me is having to mention "The Red Baron" twice so close together that we call it "his famous nickname" the second time round. This is awkward prose, and inferior to how it was in the first place. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 13:41, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I have to grudgingly admit that Soundingboard is quite accurate in his analysis of the change as nothing I have seen so far indicates a significant improvement on the original text, neither from the standpoint of scholarly research nor writing style. J'est mon vue, n'est pas... FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:14, 16 July 2010 (UTC).

I'm coming at this purely from a style perspective. As with the examples I gave, in any GA or FA, the first paragraph contains all the defining information about a subject; it "needs to unambiguously define the topic for the reader..." As such, where a subject is known (overwhelmingly in this case) by another name it needs to be in the first paragraph; it is generally (ie, preferably) in the introductory sentence itself or else the next one, but in the least always in the first paragraph. Personally, I don't see the need to explain where the name came from in the lead, as we have a whole section on it. It's not properly explained anyway. The "Baron" part of the nickname is from the Freiherr title, which is often translated as "baron", and the "Red" part is from him painting his planes fancifully, which isn't even mentioned.

I might suggest removing "Red Baron" from the first sentence and adding another sentence to the first paragraph saying something like "On account of his aristocratic background and his use of distinctively painted aircraft, he was known as the Red Baron." The source is Peter Kilduff's Red Baron, p. 6.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:41, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Remember not to use "plane" in your submissions as the term is considered a colloquialism derived from "aeroplane" or its American cousin, "airplane." Neither term is currently in use in Wikipedia Aviation Group articles and is deprecated whenever possible. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:52, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Understood. I assumed "aircraft" was preferred. Looks like Sound has made the change; I'll go ahead and add the bit about the painted flying machines and we can move on.--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:08, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

(Going back to first indent!!)

How's the latest version - just moving the sentence up into the previous paragraph? Personally I feel this is no improvement over the original, as it was if anything more prominent (and of course "followed just as closely" as the first sentence of the second paragraph. Alternatively, I considered putting it in as the second sentence - but this breaks up the strong link (the First World War) between the current first two sentences. Quibbling about which sentence the Red Baron name should be mentioned in - and then switching to paragraph strikes me as pretty meaningless. The point of the MOS is that a well known alias like this needs to be in a prominent position near the top. Counting words, sentences or paragraphs in order to define prominence is all very well if it doesn't interfere with prose style. As for the "red" bit - this is very amply covered in the very first section of main article - if it can only be included into the lead as infelicitously as you suggest I really think it can wait until then. Mention of the family, however, DOES belong in the lead - as it is not inconceivable (if rather unlikely) that someone could come to this article as a result of looking for another famous Richthofen - the link to his family is therefore potentially at least very useful indeed. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 15:17, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I think that "distinctively painted aircraft" is vague, uninformative and pretentious. Apart from this, as I said in my last post, I think that the "red" bit doesn't need (nede?) to be here in the same way that the aristocratic bit does. I also think that moving the sentence out of the first paragraph, and either putting it back into the second, or making it the second paragraph in its own right - would actually fulfil the spirit of the MOS suggestion better, by making it MORE prominent (and just as close). None the less, while I am quite enjoying the experience of the Buskin actually agreeing with me I have had enough of this for tonight and will retire to rest (it's half past one in the morning where I am) and leave it to others to resolve this weighty matter. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 15:33, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't think either the red bit or the baron bit need to be in the intreaux (take that!), but if we're going to explain part of the name (or feebly try to, by vaguely referring to his "aristocratic family") we might as well do the whole thing while we're at it. It also doesn't need to be in the first paragraph, in the exact same sense that the article doesn't need to ever become a GA.

At any rate there are other matters to get to. The intro is still lacking in some important material. As I said, the "Flying Circus" should be mentioned, since it gets an entire section in the body of the text. Additionally, the sentence on his death is so vague that it's fair well useless. We are told that there is debate about his death, but at this stage we hear none of it until the section itself. We should at least be told that it's generally agreed he was shot down by Australian ground forces, especially since the discussion of his death takes up probably a good quarter of the article.--Cúchullain ^t/c 16:03, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Lets have a look at a real GA - the one on the Baha'i Faith. Since this an article about a religion, there is a fair bit about God in it, but the only mention of Him in the "first bit" is that Baha'i is a monotheistic religion. A good, "GA-like" intro is succinct, and everything in it is necessary (needs to there) to fulfil the role of the "lead" (as the MOS quaintly calls it). This role (to paraphrase the MOS a bit) is primarily to identify the subject and define the general scope of the article. The fact that the Red Baron's family is famous quite apart from the career of its most famous member NEEDS to be in the lead, to provide a measure of disambiguation (i.e. to assist in defining the subject). Someone who has been lead to this article by the name "Richthofen" may well be interested in this person, but not necessarily so - some reference to the other Richthofens is called for. The Red Baron's nickname (i.e. the Red Baron) NEEDS to be there also, because (to understate the case a little) it is very well known, and in fact some users may not even be sure they have found the right person until they see it. The two things are in fact both there for the same reason (namely, to identify the subject - the primary aim of the introduction). There are also extremely intimately related, in fact he is called a Baron very specifically because of his membership of the Richthofen family. Hence it is clear, succinct and in every way appropriate to put these two things into the one sentence. The "red" bit is relatively very trivial, and distracts us from the point of the sentence. It adds nothing whatever but completeness, and the lead is by definition NOT necessarily complete (otherwise no need for an article to follow!) It (the "red" bit) can very well wait for the first of the specific sections, which immediately follows, and treats the subject in some detail. That's how it used to be, and frankly I think this made a good deal more sense. More "GA-like" in fact.

The reason why the subject of the controversy about R's death is treated at such length in the main article is that it is pretty intricate - there are quite a few imponderables. A brief summary is liable to be (as your initial attempt probably was) simplistic (i.e. too simple to be accurate). A simple reference to the fact that the controversy exists is in this case preferable - anything very much more we say at this stage will need to be explained before it is either understandable, creditable, or clear - and any such explanation will not only make the lead drag on for far more than "four paragraphs" (and four very diffuse, long winded paragraphs at that) - but will end up usurping the function of the relevant section in the main article.

I am not averse to the addition about the "Flying Circus" being the nickname of Jagdgeschwader 1 - although this is of pretty marginal interest forthe lead it does round out our brief summary of R's military career. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 00:55, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

If you think the previous 3-sentence lead was "more-GA" like, you're kidding yourself. I linked above to two "real GAs" on people who are known by nicknames or pseudonyms, Dr. Dre and Che Guevara. El Lissitzky, El Greco, and The Notorious B.I.G. are "real FAs" with the same issue. And how do they all handle it? Why, they deal with the nicknames right in the introductory paragraph, which include an article's essential identifying information, including the names by which the reader will recognize them. Also, in each case this is followed by 1-3 further paragraphs which incorporate all the important parts of the article. That's what needs to happen here.

I can't for the life of me see why you think it is absolutely necessary to mention his family in the lede, especially if it's buried in a piped link as it previously was: "...an aristocratic family with [[Richthofen|many famous members]]". Elizabeth II's family with many famous members is quite a bit more famous, and yet her article survives without it in the lede. And again, I don't see why it's imperitive that the "aristocratic family" bit and the nickname go in the same sentence, especially as the previous wording implied that his being an aristocrat somehow explains why he was called "Red Baron". In reality it wasn't just because he was part of an aristocratic family; he was specifically a Freidherr, which is often translated as "Baron".

Perhaps the solution is just to make the text less opaque and link directly to the article, or to a more intuitive link (as I've tried to do). Maybe something along the lines of, "Scion of a prominent aristocratic family, Richthofen bore the title of Freidherr..."

The current treatment of his death is inadequate. We mention vaguely that there is discussion but don't even suggest what that discussion might be. This is just pointless waffling. We should at least say what there is discussion about (ie, that it's debated who shot him, and how he got into that situation to begin with). For example "There has been much discussion and debate concerning who fired the fatal shot, and how the characteristically cautious Richthofen became involved in such a dangerous situation." I also think it ought to be mentioned that it's now generally believed he was killed by ground fire, since this easily verifiable (AFAICT)--Cúchullain ^t/c 04:00, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't think we are going to get any closer to agreement here - you have done nothing but repeat your argument over and over, and I suspect from your point of view it could look as if I am doing the same. Anyway, personally I think the current lead - while I am more than ready to concede it is better in most respects than the original before your first edit (almost the first thing I said was to acknowledge that the original was a little sketchy) - is quite long enough. It meets the requirements of the MOS reasonably neatly, being succinct and factual without attempting to fully summarise the unsummarisable (if that's not a word it should be). It certainly doesn't present all the facts - but then if that were possible the article as a whole would not have needed to grow bigger than a stub! I suppose on reflection that leaving in the "red" bit here - even though we repeat it a few lines into the very first section, is (while a bit redundant) no really big deal. The Buzzsaw's editing of your original prose here has made this grate less, anyway. I would be very disappointed if the lead said any more about the very difficult "Richthofen controversies" (there are several - of which "who killed him" is only one) beyond mentioning that they exist. I have already tried very hard to explain why this is - but even a bare statement that R was killed by groundfire (ALMOST certainly the case, of course) is just too simplistic to stand on its own without very much less explanation than we include in the specific section. The article is long enough without boiling our cabbages twice on this (and several other) questions. The bare mention that controversies exist is useful in itself to alert people new to the subject to this fact - and confirm to people who are familiar with the controversies (and may very well have strong personal opinions about them) that they are discussed further down the page. Trying to do more at this stage really wouldn't work. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 07:29, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Once more unto the breach dear friends once more! I've fiddled with that infamous lead one last time! I think putting the "famous family" link separate up the top is probably an improvement - especially as this enables us to stick the nickname even closer to the real name. (It gets rid of the repetitous matter about the colour of the Richthofen a/c too - actually they were all "red" in only the broadest sense - the one he was killed in was more a purple or maroon colour anyway!!). I've tweaked the prose here and there - and reintroduced a couple of para breaks - feel they do make it read a little easier, anyway. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 08:36, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Reason for red paint??

WWI German fighter pilots liked decorating their aircraft, and were allowed to get away with a good deal of it - but one can't help suspecting it had nothing whatever to do with "identification in the air" (even if this was an incidental consequence) but was done for the same reason(s) aircrew of other times and nations have done the same thing, given half a chance. In any case, this can really only be speculation, and doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. Richthofen MAY have been the first airman to add personal decoration to government property in this way - but I don't know if this has ever been confirmed. One old source I own says Boelke painted his Halberstadt blue.

Different sources may well give different rationales for "aircrew decorations" but all such rationales remain pure speculation. Not Wiki editor speculation, but speculation nonetheless, unless we can cite (say) a letter by one of the young gentlemen concerned to the effect "the skipper got the ground crew to paint bits of our aircraft red so we can tell who's who in the air". --Soundofmusicals (talk) 22:24, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Wolfram

According to the Wop May article, and the PBS NOVA documentary on the Red Baron's death, he engaged May because May had attacked Wolfram... shouldn't this be in this article, and Wolfram's article? 76.66.193.119 (talk) 12:23, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

A number of sources say so, but this doesn't really make it any more than speculation. In any case it is more relevant to (and notable in the context of) the other articles than this one. In particular it is completely irrelevant to the controversy about who shot the Baron down. Having said all this - if you can find a neat way of slipping the info in without spoiling the flow of this article (given that at this point it gets a bit intricate, and we want people to be able to follow it) no real reason why it SHOULDN'T go in! --Soundofmusicals (talk) 23:08, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Usage of references

References are intended for the purpose of verification of statements made within the article. They are not meant for the purpose of defining words that happen to crop up in the passage of the article, this is either done with wikilinking to a relevant article on said word, or a formal note (such a note system has already been installed in this article, by prior edits by myself I might add, this article has a history for confusing the two/not bothering to make the destinction). There is an exception to this principle, where the word being defined is the matter of the article's discussion E.G. Definitions of the word Concorde/Concord on the Concorde article; however the word 'kapput' is neither exceedingly important or necessary to go to such strenous lengths within an article on a German World War One air ace. A note will be fine most likely, it certainly shouldn't belong in references as it can be seen as (falsely) providing verification to the sentence in question, when they make no note or reference of the instance or the Baron at all they shouldn't be placed in such a manner. The correct formatting of information is important, to be clear to others and to avoid unintentional deception.

In my own opinion, the note that has been added after my last edit is sufficient, we can either add a link over to the wiki dictionary or leave it as it is, minus the dictionary non-refs inside the reference list. Kyteto (talk) 22:55, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Go back to read the extensive debate over von Richthofen's last words and why the meaning was in conjecture. The use of numerous definitions was meant to clarify the issue. FWiWBzuk (talk) 23:26, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

That doesn't mean that that we should be overriding the proper usage of references. Technically, all we need to do is record that he said the word, as the sentence in the article makes zero interpretation upon the meaning of the word, there's nothing to defend or justify here. He said the word, and that is all that the article is stating, thus a definition-hunt for some odd reason seems out of place, it certainly should belong in the verification-of-statement realm, but is mentionable under notes, as that is the intended purpose of notes, to highlight single instances of topical interest, controversy, and making the sub-text behind a troublesome issue clear, as well as generally adding illuminating info and clarification. Things have their places, verification and elaboration are two completely seperate subjects, and should/are listed seperately, lest one be confused for the other. I appreciate the controversy around the word's meaning, but that seems a debate more fitting for this article over at http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/kaputt than here, that is wholley on the topic of defining the word while here its a mainly irrelivant debate as whatever it means, he said it and the meaning changes nothing the face of that. Leave the defining to the project for defining words, I like your note and it seems to cap off the issue well, just link it over to the Wikidictionary if you feel it really needs to be made clear, and that should settle most people who have a stake in making that final word clear. Kyteto (talk) 23:42, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

"In all the kerfuffle over the exact intent of his last words as quoted in this article, the various editors that weighed in, each referred to a different definition. Nonetheless, the only witness to his death, did note that expression. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 23:50, 10 August 2010 (UTC).

Point was (coming to this a little belatedly) that giving this rather ambiguous colloquial expression a particular meaning in this instance can only be speculation (we're not even that sure he said it, much less exactly what he meant if he did) - much better to leave it up to what the reader might think - BUT in these circumstances a footnote to possible meanings very appropriate. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 07:56, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Next Step?

I think the article is good. Have you guys thought of putting it for GA or FA? I think it has a better chance for GA. Spongie555 (talk) 04:08, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

"Battle/Combat" flier

"Combat Flier" is at least as good a translation as "Battle flier". The two are pretty much synonymous anyway. The trouble is that "Red Battle-Flyer" is what von R's German nickname has been universally translated into English as - since 1918, if not before. Making up another translation, especially one that is no more (or less) accurate, is "Original Research". If you really want to use a less quaint-sounding version, then the most recent English edition of "Der rote Kampfflieger" is, I believe, called "The Red Fighter Pilot" - which while a freer translation sounds more like English. But even this is not appropriate where you changed the text of this article. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 15:00, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Buie's Recognition?

This arcticle states that "Buie, who died in 1964, has never been officially recognised in any other way", but the arcticle for Snowy Evans states that both he and Buie were "recommended for the Meritorious Service Medal". Are we not considering that to count as any "official recognition" or is one of the articles incorrect? LewisWasGenius (talk) 18:26, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes - we are "not considering that to count as any "official recognition"" - which is surely fair enough. The only actual "official" recognition was in fact the RAF's crediting of the air victory to Brown - which almost all historians now consider mistaken at best, if not a deliberate propaganda ploy - certainly no official recognition was given to any Australian ground gunner. Lots of servicemen during WWI (and other conflicts) have received decorations (or have been recommended for decorations - not quite the same thing) with no connection whatever to the death of the Red Baron - this is probably yet another instance of this. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 10:18, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Incidentally - the decoration in question is NOT one that would be awarded (nor, except in error, recommended) for an action like "shooting at the Red Baron". It is awarded to service people, usually NCOs, for meritorious service OTHER than in a combat role (for instance it is often awarded to nurses). I suspect that the source cited for the Snowy Evans article is suss. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 10:26, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

In that case maybe something should be done about the other article. LewisWasGenius (talk) 15:58, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Go for your life! My watchlist is already far too long - looking to shorten it, not take on new articles. But just quietly, how "notable" is a person who is only known for NOT having shot down the Red Baron? --Soundofmusicals (talk) 16:51, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I changed it say only that Buie and Evans were recommended for the metal 2 days after Richthofen was shot down. LewisWasGenius (talk) 14:14, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

This article seems to contradict itself

This article seems to contradict itself. On the one hand, we read:

"It was almost certainly during this final stage in his pursuit of May that Richthofen was hit by a single .303 bullet, which caused such severe damage to his heart and lungs that it must have produced a very speedy death."

On the other hand,

"Experts now generally agree that Richthofen was killed by someone on the ground."

Which is it? Could someone knowledgeable please fix this? M cuffa (talk) 19:51, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Richthofen was in the air when he was killed, of course - one has to strain the context of the last sentence really hard to get an ambiguity, but taken in isolation it could JUST mean that he was killed on the ground. Will modify. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 20:49, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Autobiography

Is the legitimacy of his autobiography in question?

This name was used as the title of Richthofen's 1917 "autobiography".

If whether this really is an autobiography is questioned, it would be nice to have an indication of the reason there. If not, it shouldn't be in quotes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MoCellMan (talk • contribs) 00:14, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Several quite legitimate reasons for the quotes here - the main one is that this little book was very much censored and edited, and that some passages were evidently NOT written by R. (or any other aviator) - this is made clear later in the text, and specifying it here would be clumsy and unnecessary. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 20:18, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Is every Red Baron victim notable?

I note that the name of every one of Richthofen's victims is piped. Is someone going to write an article on every one of the Red Baron's victims? If so, what makes them notable? Their victimhood?

It seems to me that a cross-check for notability should be made. If there is no valid objection to this, I will perform it, and remove piping to non-notable victims. Georgejdorner (talk) 14:30, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Nicely put, George -- that sounds like a very good idea. By the way, there's also no need for all the text in the table to be in bold... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:33, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Agree with both of you - incidentally I has me doubts as to whether this table belongs here at all. I haven't rushed to revert or move it - but I think that even if this article was a book - then the list of victories would be in an appendix rather than part of the main text. Listing every individual victory in this context is just a little over the top in what remains a fairly succinct article. What about giving it its own page??? George, if you agree would you consider doing this - starting a new page called "A list of the victims of the Red Baron" (or words to that effect??). Obviously it wuld be clerly linked to this article. Also there IS some doubt about one or two of the victories (it would be highly suspicious if there were not!) I didn't notice any mention of these - it really wouldn't hurt to double check with one or two older references to ensure this list really is 100% kosher. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 20:34, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Soundofmusicals. A separate list page would be well suited for the purpose. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 20:37, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not totally averse to the idea of a separate article for his claims but on the other hand you could make it a collapsible list within the article if you think it takes up too much room. On the other-other hand, there's at least one precedent of a long list of claims in a WWI ace article being accepted at FAC, namely George's and my effort with Stan Dallas... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:58, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

The case is rather different with Stan Dallas, in that the table of victories in that article sorts out controversy about how many victories were either claimed or confirmed by/for Dallas. There is, and has not been for many years, any real (as opposed to manufactured) controversy over von Richthofen's confirmed victories, which are much better documented than those of any Allied ace. The Dallas list is also much shorter, of course, and in any case would hardly qualify for the independent notability needed for a separate article. Since there seems to be no real oposition to this move - I will make it some time in the next few days, unless George beats me to it. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 07:59, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

As I said, I'm not opposed to breaking the list of the Baron's victims out from this article, however in terms of length the Dallas and Baron lists are very similar as they stand -- the latter has more entries of course, but the detail in the Dallas entries is greater... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:27, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) Look fellas, I've done it!! - Also cut brackets on people insufficiently notable to get their own articles (viz. most of the victims). I am not sure how to cut that bolding - anyone else know how it is done?? --Soundofmusicals (talk) 04:39, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Did it for one row as a demo -- need to get rid of those exclamation marks to the left of each cell and replace with pipes. 'Fraid I don't have the time to take care of the rest but at least you know how it's done... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:05, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

We live and learn! Copied text to a text editor - replaced "!" with "|" - restored desired "!" characters manually - repasted article back. Total time taken about 1 minute!! Once you know what you are doing... Thanks for that anyway --Soundofmusicals (talk) 06:12, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

---

Wow! Instant consensus! I find it so inspiring, I performed a cleanup edit on the victory table, including a cross-check for notability with http://www.theaerodrome.com/aces/germany/richthofen2.php.

Georgejdorner (talk) 15:12, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

---

IMHO, the list still needs work, especially with the wikilinks, some locations redlinked, some aircraft types linked, some not? Bzuk (talk) 15:24, 30 December 2010 (UTC).

By all means give it a further buzzy cleanup, Old Bean. I only touched the non-notable victims myself. I think the original author got most, if not all, of the aircraft types linked (once - the first time they are mentioned). Does the page need things like categories etc.?? --Soundofmusicals (talk) 20:35, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

FTA - actually you were right about the unlinked aircraft types - have fixed this (I think).--Soundofmusicals (talk) 21:06, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Manfred Albrecht Freiherr von Richthofen

Due to a recent revision of the article, the following discussion is repeated here: Along with the establishment of the Weimar Republic (Weimar constitution, article 109(2)[1] Adelsbezeichnungen gelten nur als Teil des Namens und dürfen nicht mehr verliehen werden. - Noble titles form part of the name only; noble titles may not be granted any more.[2] ) hereditary titles became part of the surname so his full legal name was Manfred Albrecht Freiherr von Richthofen thenafter. Article 109 remains the only article of the Weimar Constitition still valid in Germany. - Because Albrecht as second christian name was missing, I did change the shown name to 'Manfred Albrecht Freiherr von Richthofen'. --Oldnag85 (talk) 16:54, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Since he died before the Weimar Republic existed, I can't see how it is relevant to the name that he was known by in life. Grant | Talk 22:00, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Good argument, but though he died before that date, due to his inherited nobility his full written name is as mentioned above. You would have called him Baron because of his title. In direct speech there was no Freiherr - Freiherr would have been pronounced Baron, due to custom. --Oldnag85 (talk) 22:17, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Is there a relevant WP policy which states that we should use present day legal names in biographies, rather that the historically accurate name? Grant | Talk 22:27, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't no about WP policy about that. If he was of real nobility, what I asume, his full name is as mentioned above even before WW1. That was and is German law. And local law doesn't care about WP policy. If you don't believe it, read it up, I did so! --Oldnag85 (talk) 22:35, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

It's not clear what "local" law has to do with this article. This is a global WP article, and German law has nothing to do with it. Groogle (talk) 04:03, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

---

The relevant WP policy for honorifics as part of personal names can be found at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Honorifics#Honorific_prefixes

Though his birth name was indeed "Manfred Albrecht Freiherr von Richthofen" and he is commonly referred to as nobility in his nickname "The Red Baron", there is a strong argument to be made that "Manfred von Richthofen" is the proper listing because he is overwhelmingly referred to by that particular name, even though the title "Freiherr" far precedes the Weimar Republic.

As can be seen, I hold no brief for either position. And given past reactions, I am going to duck and cover.

Georgejdorner (talk) 21:48, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, during his life his name was Manfred von Richthofen, and his title was Freiherr. I've updated the page with a reference to the constitution and that some people think that "Freiherr" should be part of his name. Groogle (talk) 04:03, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Not agreed at all; what we are now doing is seeking out editors who have an interest in this article and elicit responses as to the determination of family, familiar and official names. What will decide matters is the consensus of all editors who have participated in a discourse on the subject. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 04:10, 31 December 2010 (UTC)