Talk:Werner Mölders

2nd Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross with Oak Leaves in 1941?

The article states that he was "awarded the 2nd Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross with Oak Leaves (Ritterkreuz des Eisernen Kreuzes mit Eichenlaub) on 21 September 1941". However, this is mentioned in the "Battle of Britain" section of the article. Could it be that he was awarded this medal on 21 September 1940, not 1941? Regards, --Kjetil_r 13:40, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Good spot! Indeed 1940 is correct. MisterBee1966 (talk) 18:49, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

"christening" Warplanes & Battleships

I'd say the usage of the expression "christened" for commemorative namings here seems to be somewhat unfortunate. (→Etymology) -- CaffeineCyclist (talk) 23:20, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

100th victory

It says he became the first pilot to surpass 100 in July 1941. But he already had 14 victories in Spain. He passed the 100 mark a month earlier. Dapi89 (talk) 18:04, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Wehrmachtbericht transcript

I'm with the IP that this is superfluous information:

• • Mentioned eleven times in the Wehrmachtbericht (29 May 1940, 6 September 1940, 25 September 1940, 23 October 1940, 26 October 1940, 11 February 1941, 27 February 1941, 18 April 1941, 24 June 1941, 1 July 1941, 16 July 1941)

References

I was not able to find information that it was a recognised award, and the "mentioning in the Wehrmachtbericht" is not covered in 3rd party sources that I could locate. This is currently cited to the collection of Wehrmachtbericht transcripts (primary source), and its value in the article is questionable. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:20, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Have you considered the possibility that your research could be incomplete? You may want to familiarize yourself with the directive by Walther von Brauchitsch dated 27 April 1940. This directive by the Commander-in-Chief of the Army named "Namensnennung im Wehrmachtbericht" (named reference in the Wehrmachtbericht) stated "In the future, the names of soldiers who in an extraordinary manner have distinguished themselves in combat are to be mentioned in the context of military operations. This is to be seen as a very special award. Hence, only deeds which surpass all others are justified to be mentioned before the German people." The verbiage to this text can be found here. You should look for additional literature dealing with this directive, and potentially other directives. Cheers MisterBee1966 (talk) 18:25, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

This is a primary source, and is insufficient for establishing the stand-alone notability of the Wehrmachtbericht mention as a recognised award, rather than a propaganda program. I conducted a fairly extensive search for secondary sources, with the help of a German speaker, here: Talk:Wehrmachtbericht#Military commendation?. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:33, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Coffman, you're not a source either and your 'research' counts for far less than the source Misterbee provided. Because you and another German couldn't find any corroborating information doesn't mean anything.

Campaigning for the Wehrmachtbericht text to be removed is one thing; agitating for all mention it to be banished from wikipedia altogether is not acceptable. He was mentioned in this report. That is a fact, whether you like it or not. It brought his name to national (and international) attention. Dapi89 (talk) 08:57, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes, MisterBee1966 provided a primary source. But it's not been noted in reliable secondary sources, and is thus indiscriminate amount of information. Are there RS available that covered this? The language that MB cites (This is to be seen as a very special award) supports my contention that it was a propaganda exercise: i.e. this should be seen as a special honour by the German public, but it is not actually an award. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:15, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

For heaven's sake, we've been over this and over this!! K.e.coffman—There are many reasons to use the Wehrmachtbericht as a source, as a reliable source. Similar sources are considered "reliable". It is comparable, I believe, to the Mention in Dispatches, which, generally, as I understand it, was considered to a prerequisite for other awards for gallantry, heroism, etc. Contemporary newspapers are often used, also, to gather information about an individual's service: was it propaganda? Possibly. Is propaganda necessarily false? Absolutely NOT. To discard something that might or might not be propaganda is to throw out an important source of information. The fact that Mölders was mentioned in the Wehrmachtbericht 11 times (another fact) is important. The German armed forces held his behavior and actions as important, commendable, and worthy of modeling. We cite frequently the London Times, the New York Times, and other newspapers to comment on someone's military service? Certainly they were also used to promote the courage and heroism of other servicemen and women. Why not the Wehrmachtbericht? Because it's German? auntieruth (talk) 19:20, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

First of all, a mentioning in the Wehrmachtbericht was considered to be an "award", or a special honor, if you will. In his work Der deutsche Wehrmachtbericht, 1939-1945 (1962) Erich Murawski is quite explicit on this. (I will provide precise page numbers, if needed.) Of course Murawski with his background as being one of the most important and influential figures of German Wehrmachtpropaganda (see David Uziel on that) is a highly biased source. But also Felix Römer, one of the younger generation German military historians, recognizes the mentioning in the Wehrmachtbericht as an "award" (Auszeichnung) among others (Kameraden, 2012, page numbers, if needed). Therefore I would consider mentioning it. It would help, however, if that information was put into its historical, i.e. its propagandistic context. A discussion of Mölder's image as it was being built by Nazi propaganda and transposed into the post war era is missing from the article. (Yes, it's been covered by RS.) The Wehrmachtbericht itself, however, i. e. its content, is not a reliable source. I hope it is beyond question that both the Wehrmachtbericht and contemporary newspapers from Nazi Germany are outright propaganda and not in the same league as the London Times and the NYT. If not, please consult Uziel and even Murawski, and there is plenty of more literature on the subject. Thus, propaganda might tell the truth here and there, but you'll need other, RS to make that point. Otherwise it is WP:OR anyway.--Assayer (talk) 00:23, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

@Assayer: I would be interested in seeing what Felix Römer has to say on the subject, as his book (Kameraden) was well reviewed. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:05, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Römer does not write about the specifics of orders and awards as such, but embedds them into the context of the Wehrmacht as a social entity. In his chapter about the soldierly ethos Römer devotes a subchapter to military awards. He notes that while today awards of WW II are mainly the domain of dubious collectors of militaria, for the soldiers of the Wehrmacht orders and awards were of the utmost importance. Awards were symbols of military acchievements and rendered enormous social prestige among the Nazi armed forces. To display an award or order was the ultimate proof of soldierly masculinity. With awards the soldiers were motivated to risk their lives and encouraged to be brave, committed and willing to sacrifice. Awards were particularly important for offficers, because it depended on their awards whether they were respected by their men. According to Römer the most important order was the Iron Cross. Other respected honors were the Wound Badge and the Close Combat Clasp. He also mentions medals and cuff titles and explains that mentionings in daily dispatches, in the Wehrmachtbericht or in the Honour Roll were used to single out whole units. Römer summarily speaks of these as "awards". (Kameraden, Munich 2012, pp. 131-2) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Assayer (talk • contribs) 02:03, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you; that's pretty much confirms what I said above. These mentions may have been important to the German personnel in the moment, but it does not mean that the literature considers them to be equally important. Not everything that is verifiable needs to be in the article, especially when based on a primary source.

Please also see: Category for discussion: Personnel referenced in the Wehrmachtbericht.

K.e.coffman (talk) 07:50, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

This is not a question of whether the literature considers them to be equally important or not. By "literature" I assume that you refer to academic historiography, Because there is "literature", i.e. printed stuff, which indeed considers those awards as important as the Wehrmacht and its personnell did at the time. But during the last two decades military historiography, too, has scrutinized and analyzed military orders and awards, because they were important to the German personnel at the time. Those awards have been used to describe the soldier's mentality and behavior and the workings of the military system in general. See besides Römer, the chapter on orders and awards by Christoph Raß "Menschenmaterial": Deutsche Soldaten an der Ostfront (2003) or the hints given by Neitzel in his review article on the Waffen-SS. The point is, how you present these mentions in the Wikipedia, particularly when dealing with a highly propagandized person as Mölders. If the mentions of Mölders in the Wehrmachtbericht are dealt with in the literature on Mölders, is not clear, because only a fraction of the available literature has been used for this article. --Assayer (talk) 19:21, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Update on the literature

This article is dated when it comes to the literature being used. Obermaier/Held is from 1982 (1st. ed.) and considered to be "hagiographic". The most respected biography is by Kurt Braatz of 2008, only listed here under further reading. See the review by Heiner Möllers from the MGFA (H-Soz-Kult, in German) and also Martin Moll's review in Militärgeschichtliche Zeitschrift 68 (2009), pp. 224-226. Important essays, particularly on the question of "Reversal of honours" are Klaus Schmider, "German military tradition and the expert opinion on Werner Mölders: opening a dialogue among scholars." In: Global War Studies (formerly World War Two Quarterly), Vol. 7 (2010), Nr. 1, pp. 6-29. Bernd Lemke, "Moral Micrology vs. Subsumption: A methodical perspective on the "Mölders Case"," in: Global War Studies, Vol. 7 (2010), Nr. 1, pp. 123-134. More recent Wolfgang Schmidt, "Organisiertes Erinnerung und Vergessen in der Bundeswehr. Traditionspflege am Beispiel der „Causa Mölders“." In: Nina Leonhard u.a. (ed.), Organisation und Gedächtnis. Soziales Gedächtnis, Erinnern und Vergessen – Memory Studies, Wiesbaden 2016, pp. 183-223. Available online are Klaus Schmider, "Werner Mölders und die Bundeswehr: Anmerkungen zum Umgang mit der Geschichte der Wehrmacht," Portal Militärgeschichte and Heiner Moellers, "Mölders und kein Ende? Eine Replik auf Klaus Schmider," doi:10.15500/akm.05.09.2016. Simply using Hagena is not enough.--Assayer (talk) 19:48, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Tags

The article is using a number of POV & less than RS sources:

• Obermaier (1989): a dated (originally published in the 1960s), questionable source; see discussion at de.wiki on an attempted promotion of a list covering Luftwaffe fighter pilots to a Featured List: link. The nomination failed mostly because of the source, which was described as weak and dated. One of the comments was: The author is not to be criticized for the fact that no scientific literature has been used, because there are none. Serious military historians are concerned with other things. According to WP:Q, the lack of scientific literature points to a lack of relevance.
• Obermaier, Ernst; Held, Werner (1996) -- this is a collection of primary materials, with the title saying such: "Jagdflieger Oberst Werner Mölders – Bilder und Dokumente [Fighter Pilot Colonel Werner Mölders - Images and Documents]. These typically includes war-time propaganda records such as newspaper clippings.
• Prien, Jochen (1997) -- published by Schiffer Publishing, a WP:QS publisher which is pretty much the U.S. equivalent of J.J. Fedorowicz
• Etc.

In view of these concerns, and the amount of excessive intricate detail, the tags added by Creuzbourg are justified. I'll restore the them. Please also see Talk:Werner_Mölders#Update_on_the_literature immediately above. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:45, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

I note that Schiffer Publishing is said to be questionable; has that ever been officially decided somewhere on Wikipedia? I don't have or use any of their books at this time; I used to have one or two; but, the point is when was a determination made? Kierzek (talk) 16:58, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

@Kierzek: I don't believe that Wikipedia maintains such a list; I go by WP:QS: "have a poor reputation for checking the facts, lack meaningful editorial oversight or have an apparent conflict of interest". In the case of Schiffer, being equated to J.J. Fedorowicz Publishing is not a sign for reliability or neutrality. Then the tag is appropriate: "Some of this article's listed sources may not be reliable". I hope this answers the question. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:16, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

I know there is no list but meant a consensus or determination by a board; such as the RS board. Kierzek (talk) 23:27, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't think is crucial as the book itself (original German ed) has been described as hagiographic by an MGFA historian. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:37, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

I deal with "experts" all the time and one thing I have learned is many can look at the same evidence or facts and reach complete opposite opinions. I know nothing about the works mentioned above but one should tread carefully; one opinion is not "dispositive". Kierzek (talk) 12:42, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Gerhard von Seemen

I removed the citations to Seemen. It's a dated, less than RS source; in any case, two remaining sources are plenty for material that's unlikely to be challenged.

Specificly on Seemen, pleas see this 2013 discussion: Recent deletions of unreliable sources. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:04, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Unilateral deletions, edits, etc. of Good and Featured Articles

K.e.coffman, I object to your unilateral deletions etc of material in Featured Articles. This seems like it has one intent: to drive a specific discussion of WWII pilots in the direction you want, not to present the information that the original editor/s deemed relevant to a biography of the individual. This seems clearly the intent, especially since the better part of the "discussion" you present is cut and pasted from other "discussions" of similar articles, regardless of previous efforts to mediate this behavior, and regardless of previous efforts to discuss this with you! auntieruth (talk) 13:42, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

@Auntieruth55: Which Unilateral deletions, edits do you specifically object to in this article? K.e.coffman (talk) 14:24, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Recent edits

Preserving here by providing this link; pls see edit summaries for rationale. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:46, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Adding diff; pls see edit summary for rationale. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:47, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

@Ian Rose: Re: this revert, I would consider details on the subject's service in the infantry to be immaterial. Sample:

• Mölders joined an infantry regiment of the Reichswehr in Allenstein, East Prussia on 1 April 1931. After completing his basic military training in October 1932, he transferred to the Military School Dresden. On 1 June 1933, he successfully completed his training in Dresden and was promoted to ensign. He again was transferred, this time to the 1st Prussian Pioneer Battalion (Infantry Regiment 2) at the Pioneer School in Munich. During his training years, Mölders made his first attempt to fulfil his dream of flying and volunteered for pilot training, but was declared unfit for flying. He tried again and was given conditional permission (bedingt tauglich—with constraints) to begin flight training.
• After his promotion to Oberfähnrich on 1 February 1934, Mölders began his pilot training at the Deutsche Verkehrsfliegerschule (German transport flying school) in Cottbus, lasting from 6 February 1934 to 31 December 1934. ...

References

This looks much more streamlined to me:

• Mölders joined the Reichswehr in April 1931 and served in the infantry. Mölders volunteered for pilot training; after initially being rejected as unfit for flying, he was given a conditional permission. In February 1934, Mölders began his pilot training at the Deutsche Verkehrsfliegerschule (German transport flying school) in Cottbus.

References

Given the WP:QS sources, I find this level of detail to be undue. Is there some middle ground here? K.e.coffman (talk) 02:58, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps we could addresses the issue of details one at a time. This revert re-introduced material that I removed, because the level of detail did not meet the guidelines re: summary style (IMO), and because I would consider the details on the early service in the infantry to be immaterial in an article about a pilot. The statement on dreams struck me as non-encyclopedic, especially being delivered without attribution, in Wikipedia's voice. Please see "before the edit" and "after" above.

I see below that three editors have expressed an opinion in support of the removal: Lineagegeek, Iazyges and Assayer (apologies if I misinterpreted), while Auntieruth55 has objected. I would appreciate feedback from Peacemaker67, TomStar81, Parsecboy and Ian Rose on this specific edit. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:40, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

I've objected. I think you can figure that Ian Rose objected to the removal of such details, since he reverted the deletion (if I've read it right). FA articles and MilHist A class articles are expected to have a high level of detail. They have been assessed by the community and deemed sufficient detail.auntieruth (talk) 13:42, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

I favor the former myself, but then I have a preference for details such as ranks and units served in since they better tell a persons story (in my opinion, anyway). TomStar81 (Talk) 17:01, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

About the only thing I'd agree with on your proposed edit is the removal of the "dream of flying" bit - that kind of flowery language has no place here. But details of his early military service are relevant, since he is notable for his military service (as opposed to say, a politician who happened to serve an unremarkable enlistment in the military in their youth). Parsecboy (talk) 17:44, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Fully agree with Ruth, Tom and Parsecboy. As for the bit about dreams, I don't know that one can claim this is "without attribution, in Wikipedia's voice" without inspecting the cited source, but like Parsecboy I'm not averse to trimming it; specifically this would mean losing "made his first attempt to fulfil his dream of flying and". Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:44, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

I'd describe my earlier statement as a comment rather than a vote in support of the deletions. In view of more recent comments concerning making major changes to a FA without discussion on the Talk Page (which was an issue I did not consider), I'd alter my agreement with "most" of the deletions to agreement with "some" of the deletions. --Lineagegeek (talk) 18:17, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Editorialising

I trimmed the section on post-war commemoration. The article veers at times into editorialising and possibly synthesis, such as here, by using the subject's membership in the Catholic youth organisation (in 1925-1931) as evidence of an ambivalence towards the regime:

• Furthermore, Mölders had joined the Catholic youth organisation Bund Neudeutschland (Union for New Germany) on 1 October 1925 and had been a youth leader of the organisation from 1929 to 1931. The Third Reich clearly had considered the Bund Neudeutschland as a threat: The Völkischer Beobachter (the official newspaper of the party) had reported on 26 January 1938 that the Bund had been outlawed for its proven subversive activities against the Reich, based on the Verordnung des Reichspräsidenten zum Schutz von Volk und Staat (Reich Presidential Decree for the Protection of People and State) of 28 February 1933.

References

Please see diff for other examples. Please let me know if there any concerns. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:44, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Deletions of details

Hi @K.e.coffman:, I'm reading your deletions labeled as "trimming excessive detail" etc and finding that your trimming is actually cutting out information that might be interesting. I'm never sure if I'm citing edits correctly, but I think this is one here. I understand your goal to insure that the Nazi hagiography is not promoted, however, I'm wondering if we are throwing out the baby with the bathwater here. Do others find this to be the case? @Peacemaker67:, & @Ian Rose: & @Sturmvogel 66: & @MisterBee1966: and @WP:MILHIST coordinators: @Kierzek: & @Creuzbourg: & @Assayer: (I'm pinging a lot of people so that no one feels left out!) Cheers, auntieruth (talk) 19:32, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

• Speaking for myself, I see no problem with the trimmings made by K.e.coffman. -- Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 19:40, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

• OOOPs, sorry, Iazyges, I missed you in the sweep of people who might be interested. It was unintentional.  :) auntieruth (talk) 20:16, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

I would like to know, which details exactly might be interesting. Mölder's "dream of flying" or perhaps his "nausea and vomiting" or that he married "shortly before his death"? Is this level of detail really encyclopedic? Also I am not sure whether K.e.coffman really did this trimming because of "Nazi hagiography". --Assayer (talk) 20:59, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

I would use the various national/state dictionaries of biography as examples of what is the minimum detail required to be comprehensively encyclopaedic, as these are often the basis for articles on en WP. For example, the types of details that K.e.coffman often deletes as "excessive" or "intricate" are the sorts of things that are often included in the Australian Dictionary of Biography. For example, this entry for an Australian Brigadier General (one-star general) mentions the father's occupation and religious beliefs and the fact that he was a lay minister. It also mentions what his maternal grandfather's occupation was. It also states what schools he went to, what job he did before joining up, and describes his career after military service, as well as when and where he got married, who to, and how many kids he had. It also includes anecdotes from his service, and all notable awards he received. The inclusion of this detail is not hagiographical. This is a minimum level of detail for biographical articles. I consider the persistent deletion of this level of detail from biographical articles, as practised by K.e.coffman, to be tendentious. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:50, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Maybe we are talking about different cuts. I do not see any of these information being cut in the diff provided by auntiruth, or being reinserted by IanRose[1] Anyway, I find the entry on Mölders in the NDB to be less detailed even after those cuts, featuring much less anecdotes than both Wikipedia and the exemplary article from the Austalian DB. Or take the level of details in the even more concise article in the NDB on Hans-Ulrich Rudel and compare that to Hans-Ulrich Rudel in Wikipedia. The author of the entry on Mölders, Horst Boog, strongly defended Mölders' character in subsequent debates, so he certainly cannot be accused to have skipped over those anecdotes because of tendentiousness. Besides, if you mention when Mölders met his future wife, should we also mention that back then she was the wife of Mölder's superior? Or that she was five months into her pregnancy when the couple finally got married (with the help of Göring)?--Assayer (talk) 15:36, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

I confess I'm a little confused about the purpose of this discussion. If it is purely about deletion of overly detailed information, I'd agree with most of the deletions. If it is about deleting material because it comes from sources that are consider NR because they are POV, I might have something to say. --Lineagegeek (talk) 00:03, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

I have mixed feelings about this. On the one hand, this helps streamline the information, which is in line with CONCISE, however Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia and as such I like to read for the details. Striking the balance needed between these points of view is always tricky, all the more so with controversial subjects. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:17, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

I generally fall toward the latter of the two positions highlighted by Tom. This is also the general attitude of editors who write FA biographies, it seems. Have a look at any number of FA bios (Nikita Khrushchev, William IV of the United Kingdom, or John Diefenbaker, for instance) and you will see similar level of detail. It's probably nothing unique to biographies - I'm sure all of Ucucha's FAs on rats have more detail than the average paper encyclopedia entry on them.

In general, any large scale change like this to a Featured Article should be discussed beforehand on the article talk page, since the current version represents consensus for what the article should contain, how it should be structured, etc., and the opinion of one or two editors does not trump that. Parsecboy (talk) 10:05, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

• I think I've made itclear that I don't do "diffs" well. Generally speaking, I object to detail being deleted as inconsequential. I don't think it is. I would have enjoyed also reading about Mölders' second wife being his superior's wife (widow?) and that she was 5 months gone when they married. Delete material because it's libelous or whatever, and perhaps the info on the wife and baby would have been. As for Ucucha's rat articles, they are definitely heavy on detail. The joys of an online encyclopedia is that we can do that, and not have to worry about the cost of paper or printing, much less postage. Biography articles I edit are always jammed full of the lovely little details that make a person seem human, that illustrate character and foibles, etc. auntieruth (talk) 18:54, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

There are various kinds of arguments being made here against the cutting of details, some of which actually contradict each other, like suggesting the use the various national/state dictionaries of biography as examples and arguing Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia and as such I like to read for the details . Besides claiming that any large scale change like this to a Featured Article should be discussed beforehand on the article talk page , the general tendency seems to be: That level of detail is common and that's why we like Wikipedia. However, this is not in line with one of the most basic guidelines of Wikipedia, the first of its five pillars Wikipedia is an encylopedia. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information Information should not be included in this encyclopedia solely because it is true or useful. A Wikipedia article should not be a complete exposition of all possible details, but a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject. Verifiable and sourced statements should be treated with appropriate weight. Not only was Werner Mölders' lifespan significantly shorter than Khrushchev's, William IV's or John Diefenbaker's. He was by any means also not as influential or important. The level of detail appropriate for his biography should be determined by the attention that these details have received in biographical literature. For example, Mölders' catholicism is important because there has been quite some debate whether Mölders supported Cardinal von Galen. But the details of his marriage do not feature prominently in debates about Mölders and could possibly even detract from the controversies. I do not base this argument on the notion of "Nazi hagiography", but I would like to point out that these lovely little details that make a person seem human, that illustrate character and foibles have the potential to turn biographical articles into trivializations of evil, regardless of ideology. That's less an issue with Mölders, but was (and maybe will be again) an issue with, e.g., Rudel, whose post war Nazi activities had been dealt with as Sport and political ambitions. And, yes, when Luise Baldauf and Werner Mölders came together Luise was widowed.--Assayer (talk) 23:45, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Try reading the first line you appear to be referencing, though: "It combines many features of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers." What that means is, we are not constrained by the limitations of traditional encyclopedias like Britannica, namely size.

WP:INDISCRIMINATE is the link you were looking for, not WP:INFO, and it doesn't mean what you think it means. Try reading it again.

The idea that because Khrushchev lived longer and was a more important historical figure than Mölders has literally zero bearing on whether one of their biographies deserves mention of their siblings, for example.

As for trivializing evil, yes, that is a legitimate and serious concern, but that does not equate to K.e.coffman's approach being the correct one. Parsecboy (talk) 12:28, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for lecturing me. Yes, I did indeed miss an I from WP:IINFO. Big deal. But, no, I did not argue that Wikipedia was by any means constrained like traditional encyclopedias, but pointed to its self imposed guidelines. I furthermore pointed to other biographies to make the case that there is more voluminous and literally more biographical literature on those people and argued that the level of detail appropriate for Mölders' biography should be determined by the attention that these details have received in biographical literature. What's your take? Is there no line to be drawn?--Assayer (talk) 13:42, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

You might have gotten a lecture because you clearly don't understand the policies and guidelines with which you attempt to wiki-lawyer. Nothing in WP:5P suggests anything you seek to put there, nor does WP:INDISCRIMINATE.

My take is, if it can be reliably sourced, it probably ought to be included. Parsecboy (talk) 17:24, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

This is the flag (and practice) which which I have the most problem right now: This article may contain an excessive amount of intricate detail that may only interest a specific audience. If some detail may only interest a specific audience, and doesn't interest another audience, people have the ability to stop reading. No one is holding them to the computer/screen (whatever) to make them read the details. It is possible to skip down, move ahead, or move on. However, there is acknowledgement of a specific audience that will have an interest in the level of intricate detail included. When that detail is included they are free to read on, or not. It is, fundamentally, a choice. If I'm browsing, I might read only the lead, which gives me a summary of what is in the article. If I want something specific, I might skip directly to that particular section. So my tendency is on the side of more detail, not less. auntieruth (talk) 19:18, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

It would be helpful if those advocating deleting material based on the allegation that said material is "intricate", if they actually read the relevant guideline, namely WP:SS, and specifically the section WP:DETAIL. The relevant kernel here is "...different readers have different needs". Trying to cut out details that one reader finds excessive simply because they do not care to read them is, frankly, as nonsensical as the coterie of editors who block the addition of infoboxes to certain biographies simply because they do not have a use for them. Parsecboy (talk) 20:41, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Well, read again: Summary style is based on the premise that information about a topic need not all be contained in a single article. WP:DETAIL has three layers: 1.) quick summary of the most important points in the lead, 2.) moderate amount of information on the topic's more important points in the main body of the article, and 3.) Some readers need a lot of details on one or more aspects of the topic (links to full-sized separate subarticles) . But in fact, that's not really the issue here, because no one, I guess, would expect subarticles on Mölder's family or the like. So this discussion is about the question, if anything that can be reliably sourced even ought to be included in the article, because it may find an interested readership. That's a strong laissez-faire attitude. Fair enough, but taken to the extreme, that position would warrant the transformation of a biographical article into a full scale biography, probably several hundred pages long in its printed form. Webspace is unlimited and anyone not interested in the details could skip those, right? So, where do you draw the line? On another level I would make the argument that you cannot simply assume that the facts and their narrative representation are the same. Facts or events exist as prelinguistic phenomena, but the way in which they are represented imbues them with a certain meaning and thus their narration is also an interpretation. That's why I pointed to the problem of trivialization. For example, by reading the chapter Condor Legion, does any reader get any information why that later became a problem for the Bundeswehr? Besides, there is also the issue of readability and accessibility. If you have to skip through articles because of intricate details that annoy you in search of information that interests you, that does not speak for readability of the article in question. It should not be up to a reader not familiar with the topic to sort out the issues under piles of details. A matter of taste? Certainly. But that's also the case with that "lovely little details".--Assayer (talk) 16:41, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

It's fairly evident that there is no article fork, split outs, etc., for Werner Moelders, nor does there need to be. Thus, it's reasonable to put the detail in the article, rather than create split outs. Readers are certainly capable of deciding for themselves when the level of detail is too high, and of skimming to the material they want to read. This is why, for example, there are topic sentences, sections, and why we use the pyramid style of exposition. If something that can be reliably sourced and explains illuminates the individual's character, actions, etc., then why wouldn't we include it? auntieruth (talk) 14:34, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Assayer, you misunderstand the point of that sentence. It does not mean that information should be left out, just that if a section becomes too large, it probably ought to be split off into its own section (subject to disclaimers below, which would apply in this instance, since you are correct that a Family of Werner Mölders article would not be notable in its own right). I direct your attention to the first line in that section: "Since Wikipedia is not divided into a macropædia, micropædia, and concise version, as is the Encyclopædia Britannica, we must serve all three user types in the same encyclopedia." - the longest entry in Britannica's macropaedia is 310 pages long - surely this article, at it's most bloated state, could not hope to reach but a minute fraction of that.

On the Spanish Civil War and the Bundeswehr - that's not a problem of bloat, obviously, but of insufficient information, which is a different matter entirely. I completely support adding context to articles such as these that flesh out these sorts of issues. Which has been my position all along - deleting bios of SS officers because they're puff pieces is not the right way to go - the better option would be to provide the context that these individuals existed in. No, Kurowski et. al. aren't going to talk about war crimes, but we obviously know that things like the Commissar Order were followed on a very wide scale. It would not be overly synthetic to present that information in an article about a member of a known criminal organization. Parsecboy (talk) 17:35, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't think I misunderstood. You are arguing that there is no need to be shy on providing (reliably sourced) details, because there are basically no limits of length or whatsoever. Thus any reader may find the information which interests him and may ignore that which doesn't. Still I do not see whether that's basically an anything goes approach or whether you draw a line for the level or probably the kind of details appropriate for an article, particularly a FA. Do you have any definition of "excessive" or "intricate" details? As for Mölders, the biography by Braatz is 400 pages long, so there maybe more information available like on his relationship to his (future) wife. The problem that I see with many of these details is that their indiscriminate inclusion could lead to an unbalanced article which renders a, let's say, distorted image. --Assayer (talk) 22:54, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

: K.e.coffman (talk · contribs) has started work on reduction of detail on another article (see Helmut Wick tags, and I've asked him to hold off on his energetic pursuit of details until we resolve this here. Perhaps we should move this whole discussion to the MilHist page? Or....? thoughts? @WP:MILHIST coordinators:

@Creuzbourg:, @Iazyges: & @Assayer:. auntieruth (talk) 13:53, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. Maybe the MilHist Project could also reach out to the larger community to avoid the fallacy of WP:CONLIMITED?--Assayer (talk) 14:09, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Sounds like you've reached a point where an RFC may be advisable. If there are no replies on that front I'll get something up on the milhist talk page and put out a general notification for it by this evening. TomStar81 (Talk) 21:21, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

• @Peacemaker67:, & @Ian Rose: & @Sturmvogel 66: & @MisterBee1966: and @WP:MILHIST coordinators: @Kierzek: & @Creuzbourg: & @Assayer: & @Iazyges:. If there is no further commentary, I'm removing the tag on the article page on 13 November. auntieruth (talk) 17:20, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Remove the tag. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:24, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

• Remove. <abusive rant by logged-out editor removed.>— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:2F0A:C060:121F:990E:E88D:8BBE:3661 (talk) 22:33, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm ok with the tag being removed. In the case of a featured article, I think tagging like this should be the last resort, and should only be done with a very strong consensus. These are highly visible articles, and tags like this undermine the public's view of Wikipedia instantly. As such, it is probably best in most cases to simply confine ourselves to the talk pages in such instances. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:45, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Having been on break for most of the year, I haven't been following this discussion, but I've commented unfavorably on K.e.coffman (talk · contribs)'s habit of deleting pertinent detail in various biographies in the holy name of concision. Here's a diff from Joachim Helbig that he made about six months ago that deletes the exact units to which he was assigned, his unique method of getting his pilot's wings and other things of interest to even general readers: [2] He insists on enforcing his own ideas on what the appropriate level of detail is for these biographical articles without regard to the opinions of other editors, and tends to prevail through the willingness to expend vast amounts of energy than those editors with differing views. I forget which article it was that MisterBee1966 had nominated, but he'd added the type of crops grown by the subject's father and a bunch of extraneous detail. That sort of crap needs to be deleted, but the stuff that coffman deleted from the Helbig article needs to remain, although I'm very doubtful that we'll be able to phrase an RFC precisely enough to forbid an editor from deleting he regards as excessive detail.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:50, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

I have commented on a number of articles where there have been similar discussions as a result of notifications at MILHIST. To this extent, I am a largely uninvolved editor. Through these involvements, I would observe that K.e.coffman (talk · contribs) clearly has an agenda in which he is supported by a small number of like-minded editors. There is a pattern to this agenda: banner bombing, parsing on the claim of relevance, unnecessary detail or "reliability of sources" and ultimately, deletion, if an article can be so reduced by the afore. While there may be some benefit to subject articles as a result of K.e.coffman (talk · contribs)'s attentions, for the most part, these are generally against a broader consensus, as is being demonstrated here. The "excessive zeal" sails close to Wikipedia:POV warrior, Wikipedia:Wikilawyering and Wikipedia:Troll - perhaps indistinguishably so. I note the comment by Sturmvogel 66: "He insists on enforcing his own ideas on what the appropriate level of detail is for these biographical articles without regard to the opinions of other editors, and tends to prevail through the willingness to expend vast amounts of energy than those editors with differing views." My observation is that pursuit of this agenda is disruptive to the project and WP more generally and that the detriment to both far exceeds any value to either by this ongoing pursuit. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 02:54, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

@Cinderella157: This is a Talk page to discuss improvements to the article, not user behaviour. For the latter, please see WP:ANI, where you can make your case, along with IP editor User:2A02:2F0A:C060:121F:990E:E88D:8BBE:3661, about my "agenda" and "trolling".

@Sturmvogel 66: the example of the Joachim Helbig article is not convincing. That article was especially poor when it came to POV and sourcing; it was discussed extensively at the GA reassessment where one editor called it absolutely classic Luftwaffe propaganda. The article was ultimately delisted. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:12, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

To be clear, my general observations apply specifically to this article to the extent of what you perceive as "excessive detail" is not more widely accepted for a large part. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 03:24, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Apples and oranges. The details that you removed in the diff which I provided in the Helbig article were fully sourced to reliable sources and had nothing to do with the delisting, contrary to your claim in the edit summary of "reducing intricate detail cited to POV sources". Plain and simple you deleted them because you thought that they were "intricate detail", not because they were sourced badly. You are, however, correct that the original article was in poor shape before I rewrote the bulk of it, but not after I cut out all the POV stuff out of it.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:54, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

I agree the maintenance tag should be removed as there does not appear to be a consensus that the issues it identifies even exist in this case. Anotherclown (talk) 10:03, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

I agree with the tag being removed. Kierzek (talk) 14:40, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

• I was pointed to this exchange by an editor on my page, and find the attacks above on Coffman a little shocking, especially the attacks coming from one of MILHIST's coordinators, User:Cinderella157. I've given Cinderella my views on that on their page. But as a more general comment here, quite a few people are apparently watching this page, yet nobody has removed this anonymous attack on Coffman and Assayer. On pages where I feel more at home, I might remove it myself, and might advise the IP to log in to their account if they wish to attack people (because it beggars belief that they don't have one). Well, I can do the second thing, at least. I simply don't know if anonymous attacks are felt to be acceptable here, so I won't touch it. I wouldn't suggest Coffman or Assayer themselves remove it either, but how about other people, the editors of the article? Do you find it acceptable? Bishonen | talk 20:25, 11 November 2017 (UTC).

Substantive accusations of patterns of misbehavior are not "attacks" if they are specific and grounded in policy and guidelines. When the article in question is part of that wider issue then its Talk page is a reasonable place to bring that issue up as it relates to the article's content. Besides, considering the Wall of Shame that is coffman's user page, I'm sure he's more than capable of rolling with the punches. LargelyRecyclable (talk) 00:57, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

That's not an excuse for not removing an anonymous attack from an IP address with no other edits, quite possibly a sock. I've removed it. Doug Weller talk 12:49, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Again, not a personal attack, legitimate concerns were expressed, whether they are actionable or not. If you don't like the tone, there's a process for that. If you think this is an instance of an illegitimate use of a registered account using an IP then there's a process for that too. But, simply removing a comment that is not devoid of substance or crosses a bright-line such as OUT is not part of either process; taking shortcuts and just removing people's comments is bad form. There are legitimate and explicitly allowed instances of editing while logged out and IP editors have absolutely no less standing than ones with accounts. I've restored the comment and ask that you take the proper steps if you suspect sock puppetry or make appropriate and proportional notifications or changes if you think particular language is out of the bounds of acceptability. LargelyRecyclable (talk) 19:02, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

What's your interest in enabling an abusive sock, User:LargelyRecyclable? You speak of the IP voicing "substantive accusations" and "legitimate concerns" — what are these legitimate concerns? "[Dapi89] was blocked ... on a whim of an administrator"? "K.e.coffman went on rampage"? What in the IP's post "refers to the article's content"? It wouldn't be the unevidenced attack about "tag teaming". Nothing in it was "specific", nothing was "grounded in policy and guidelines" (if you think it was, please mention one or two of these policies and guidelines). "Clean" IP editors have no less standing than ones with accounts; editors who are obviously hiding their identity by logging out have no standing at all. When you speak of "proper steps if you suspect sock puppetry", I suspect you don't know what you're talking about. What are these steps according to you? If you're under the impression a CheckUser will connect an account with an IP, that would be a mistake; they will not. You can ask Doug Weller, he's a CheckUser himself. Removing the post is not a "shortcut" — shortcut of what lengthier process? I hesitated to remove it myself at first, but in view of your "bad form" nonsense, I will. Oh, I'll leave the relevant and non-abusive part of it, the word "Remove". Bishonen | talk 20:33, 12 November 2017 (UTC).

My interest is that I don't like seeing longtime editors with short fuses shortcut process because they're too burned out to perform due diligence. If you think it's an abusive sock then request a CU and file a report. As for substance, the IP cited, by name or inference, WP:OWN, WP:TAGTEAM, WP:TEND, WP:GAME, WP:CIVILPOV, and WP:ACTIVIST. Your most recent edit is hardly a move in the right direction if your desire is transparency and civility. Please keep in mind that no all logged out editing is sock puppetry and, up to this point, I've seen zero evidence presented of sock puppetry. I'm not going to do anymore reversions because this isn't a hill I'm interested in dying on but, I'd suggest you self-revert, or hat the original comment while, in the meantime, you follow the proper protocol for suspected sock puppets. Even more so in light of coffman's solicitation of your involvement looking like admin shopping. LargelyRecyclable (talk) 20:47, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Did you not notice what I said about CU's never connecting an account and an IP? Or did you think I just made that up? There is no proper protocol in a case like this other than deploying your judgment, I'm afraid. Bishonen | talk 21:15, 12 November 2017 (UTC).

No, although never is not true, but if you suspect sock puppetry then you can request an investigation and present your evidence. A CU can be useful in the adjudication of that investigation, it doesn't have to draw a straight line from A to B. If you lack the evidence to file a meaningful report then, no, it's not a matter of opinion. Our policies and guidelines on removing other's comments are pretty darn clear, as are the differences between an actionable personal attack and being merely uncivil. I won't insult your tenure here by linking to them. In the interest of transparency, you should either present your evidence of sock puppetry and/or the illegitimate use of logged out editing or strike your accusations and restore the comment. We're pretty well into Streisand effect territory anyway. LargelyRecyclable (talk) 21:27, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

@Bishonen, I have responded to your comments made here and on my talk page at my talk page. I will say here though, that I stand by my earlier statement here, in both what was said and where it was said - notwithstanding that you allege it to be an unqualified "shocking" personal attack on K.e.coffman. I have not previously looked at their user page but was prompted to do so by the comment above. It is certainly worth the inspection and would prompt you to do so. I can only say that I am somewhat disappointed that you have not taken more heed of WP:CIVILPOV, both recently and in the past, as has been referred to indirectly by Anon - particularly since it is linked from your user page. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 04:49, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

We don't use Checkuser for fishing expeditions, we need evidence that suggests a connection with an account. So a request at SPI would simply be turned down and Bishonen knows that. There is no process for dealing with a one-off IP edit such as this one. I've run into many good faith IPs in the past and where they have dynamic IPs they acknowledge that. A one-off edit like this is either some random person just happening upon this discussion, spending considerable time researching it, commenting here and the just disappearing, or a regular editor avoiding a link between the comment and their account or usual IP address. Doug Weller talk 12:20, 13 November 2017 (UTC)