This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Erich von Manstein article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Archives:1, 2, 3, 4, 5Auto-archiving period: 90 days
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Erich von Manstein article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Archives:1, 2, 3, 4, 5Auto-archiving period: 90 days
Erich von Manstein is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GermanyWikipedia:WikiProject GermanyTemplate:WikiProject GermanyGermany articles
Manstein opposed the introduction of the "Aryan paragraph" into the army for two reasons: losing good German officers and fear of his own ancestry.
A letter was sent in 1934 from Manstein to Beck about losing potentially good German officers because their ancestry might not be "Aryan", for the full text see Erich Von Manstein: Hitler's Master Strategist, Benoît Lemay pp. 34-35).
Regarding his own possible Jewish ancestry, Lemay writes: "Without ever being completely certain, Manstein himself worried that his great-great grandfather Lewi could have been a rabbinical leader in Warsaw." Although a great-great grandfather would not have made Manstein be considered "non-Aryan", his own ancestry possibly played a part in his refusal to introduce the "Aryan paragraph" into the army (same book pp. 36-37).--Mahia Zatrung (talk) 00:27, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The way you worded it was to say "Lemay believes the most probable reason why Manstein refused to introduce the "Aryan paragraph" into the army was due to his own fear that he had Jewish ancestry", and Lemay does not actually say that. What LeMay says is that the most likely reason Manstein objected to the Aryan paragraph was to protect not himself but his two grand-nephews, who were members or the Reichswehr and were both Mischlinge. This information is on the bottom of page 36. -- Diannaa (talk) 00:35, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've added into the article: "Despite adhering to National Socialism racial ideology, Manstein was the only Reichswehr officer who opposed the idea of introducing the "Aryan paragraph" into the armed forces; he personally sent a letter in 1934 to General Ludwig Beck protesting in the defense that it would result in losing good German officers, how much his fears about his own possible Jewish ancestry also contributed to this defiance will never be certain."
"Manstein was the only Reichswehr officer who opposed the introduction of the Aryan paragraph into the armed forces; in 1934 he sent a letter of protest to General Beck, commenting that anyone who had volunteered to serve in the armed forces had already proven their worth and should not be expelled even if their ancestry was not completely "Aryan". Lemay speculates Manstein may have been hostile to the induction of it to protect his two grandnephews who were classified as Mischlinge but were already serving in the Reichswehr. Although it cannot be made for certain, he may have also been concerned about the possibility that he himself had distant Jewish ancestry."
No, that would not be an improvement, in fact it is not as good. You're using semicolons to string together material that stands alone better as independent sentences. This makes the sentences too long, unwieldy, and more difficult to understand, because the material you are combining is on slightly different topics. Simple, direct prose is what we are looking for. "Although it cannot be made for certain" is not grammatically correct. "hostile to the induction of it" is not grammatically correct. There's no reason to put Aryan in scare quotes. -- Diannaa (talk) 01:28, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Battle of Kursk not one of the largest tank battles, the largest
Whoever wrote this has the Battle of Kursk wrong, it isn't one of the largest tank battles in history it is the largest tank battle in history.
Much of what was written about the battle of Prokhorovka is now known to be a myth. The story put forward by Soviet historians was that of two large tank forces colliding, with the Soviets annihilating the Germans, though with heavy losses to their own forces. The truth is that the Germans badly defeated the Soviets, mainly due to Soviet ineptitude, while suffering small losses themselves overall, though with severe losses in some units. In particular the Germans lost very few tanks. Martijn Meijering (talk) 10:51, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Wehrmachtbericht report
I reverted to prior version, which is IMO superior: "Eight mentions in the Wehrmachtbericht: 11, 12 and 31 October 1941; 19 and 20 May 1942; 2 July 1942; 20 March 1943; 4 August 1943."
The section itself was citing from the OKW propaganda report, the Wehrmachtbericht. This appears to be either WP:OR or extensive quoting from a WP:Primary source. In either case, the section is citing verbatim (including in German) a piece of propagana that has no informative value; all such reports were approved by the Reich Propaganda Ministry and were meant solely to instill optimism in the German population.
Sample of the text removed:
The troops of the Army and the Waffen-SS, under the command of Field Marshal von Manstein, in excellent cooperation with units of the Luftwaffe under the supreme command of Field Marshal von Richthofen, during the German counter-offensive between the Donets and the Dnieper, which led to the re-conquest of the city Kharkov and Bielgorod, inflicted heavy losses in men and material to the enemy.
Per WP:BRD, editors are not supposed to reinstate a contentious edit, while the discussion is ongoing on the Talk page. I would recommend letting consensus develop instead, as you have suggested on my Talk page: User_talk:K.e.coffman#Wehrmachtbericht, and go from there. WP:Consensus applies to both removal and addition of content, as I understand it. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:43, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed it. I think the material should stay out, as it consists of OKW press releases; it's Nazi propaganda. — Diannaa (talk) 19:25, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So, I have been watching this unfold over the day. MisterBee1966, your high handed attitude does not serve you well...repeatedly restoring the content that two different established users took out and calling their edits vandalism to boot is definitely a no-no. So be warned that a block might be looming if you insist in continuing your behaviour. I have undone your last edit; restore it again, but at your own peril. All involved parties are invited to hash out a consensus here. Lectonar (talk) 20:02, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, the Wehrmachtbericht was no more propaganda than equivalent Allied broadcasts. I fail to see why they cannot be included with the proviso that they are noted as being such. These mentions are equivalent to someone being mentioned in dispatches, and are therefore notable information about the subject. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:14, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Would you please give us an example of a Wikipedia biography about an Allied top commander who has a radio mention listed prominently along with his 'Decorations and awards'? Poeticbenttalk03:44, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
One can always use more propaganda! Photo of smiling Russian soldier wearing helmet, with rifle, 1942. US government material (public domain). (Image of a war-time U.S. propaganda poster added to lighten the mood. The American propagandists did not quite get it right: the file description notes that "the soldier is wearing the obsolescent French-style Adrian helmet, which was already being replaced by the iconic Ssh-39 and 40s".). K.e.coffman (talk) 05:23, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Why these Wehrmachtberichte here, on a page dedicated to one German top general? And why these specific three reports and not some more about Leningrad or Operation Zitadelle, and why not also some Soviet reports? Don't be limited to one general, be bold; all top generals' pages should have some, and, please, invade World War II page with an inundation of German, English, American and Russian propaganda material. The presentation of these Wehrmachtberichte could be warranted in an opus so deep and detailed that the publishing of any crap of primary source may be justified. This page is not such a work. Any encyclopedic page is not. Carlotm (talk) 04:28, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm unclear as to why the authors are not considered as a reliable source for their own opinions? Ronald Smelser and Edward J. Davies are former professors of history at the University of Utah and the source book is notable enough to have its own Wikipedia article. I was unable to find any biographical information on Benoît Lemay but the book was highly useful in prepping this article for GA. I don't see any reason to remove these historian's opinions from the article. — Diannaa🍁 (talk) 01:30, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty sure Lemay is a French history PhD but don't quote me. I'll reference WP:CONTEXTMATTERS and WP:VNOTSUFF again. We can, of course, verify any opinion to anyone as long as we can demonstrate that they actually said it. But, we don't do that here. The opinion has to be topical, i.e. the person in question is a subject matter expert or an involved party on the underlying topic. We don't indiscriminately collect opinions and not all opinions are of equal weight. For example, in the course of writing a new biography I ran across this, something also related to an article I was planing on working on, Walther von Reichenau. In that source a PhD holding professor at the University of Warsaw is on the record saying that von Reichenau was not an anti-Semite while putting forth other assertions, such him knowingly helping to protect "his daughter's Jewish boyfriend." The problem? Kozlowski is a mathematician by training and profession, he has absolutely no standing on passing judgement on complex topics of history. To quote his opinion, while absolutely verifiable as his opinion, is not appropriate. Nobody cares that a Mathematician thinks von Reichenau wasn't an anti-Semite. Similarly, while totally verifiable, the legal opinions of Smelser and Davies don't matter, they are't qualified to offer that sort of context for the reader. Also, I know I didn't remove the sources, merely tagged them as being insufficient. I get how that may be confusing. Should we just remove them? LargelyRecyclable (talk) 02:34, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So what you are saying if I am understanding you correctly is that since these historians are not lawyers, their opinions about Manstein's lying at his trial are questionable. Sorry but I disagree. One doesn't have to be a lawyer to form an opinion as to whether or not someone is lying. — Diannaa🍁 (talk) 12:58, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not that was lying, that he committed perjury, which is a specific legal term and a crime. Hypothetically, if an historian is quoted as saying that someone was "untruthful", or that his statement was "unlikely", or even just that he "lied", then there usually wouldn't be an issue. But they are not qualified to conduct legal analysis for the reader. LargelyRecyclable (talk) 13:11, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Diana, it doesn't look as if there are highly technical legal issues involved here. If there were, I agree we'd need a legal expert as a source. Martijn Meijering (talk) 15:36, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Entire books on the science of identifying perjury, such as The Language of Perjury by Roger Shuy (linguistics of perjury), and have been written. Criminology professor Lawrence Salinger covers the complexity of prosecuting the crime in the The Encyclopedia of White Collar Crime Vol 1 (p602). Even in cases where it's established the subject has lied it still doesn't guarantee perjury. Establishing perjury can be complex and asserting its unprosecuted presence requires a subject matter expert. I have a suspicion that the source may not be accurately quoted and that the term "perjury" is not actually used, which would make it a moot point. If someone has the ref a check would be great, otherwise I'll do it when I get it. I haven't tried to remove the assertions; in the meantime I think the tag is appropriate until a firm consensus can be established, here or at RSNB. Can we all agree on that for now? LargelyRecyclable (talk) 17:47, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Per the WP:BRD cycle, your edit has been challenged and removed, so it stays out until there's consensus that it belongs. You don't have consensus at present to re-add these tags. — Diannaa🍁 (talk) 22:25, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
BRD is an optional resolution strategy. Per policy, as covered in WP:VNOTSUFF, the onus to include contested content is on you. I'm try to be agreeable by proposing a tag indicating the need for more attention to the topic instead of removing it straight off. I think that's very reasonable. LargelyRecyclable (talk) 22:58, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There is no intellectual consistency to this policy of removing them. It seems personal opinion rather than anything of an educational perspective. Alas it is also doing a dis-service to phalerists and their studies that this page will attract. Saying others profiles dont have them also lacks intellectual or academic rigour. Maybe they should be added to all the German Generals, especially those mentioned above? With my phalerist background, I am more than happy to take on the task. :)
