Talk:Walther von Brauchitsch

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former good article Walther von Brauchitsch was one of the History good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Army or Armed Forces?[edit]

It seems there is a confusion here. Was Brauchitsch commander-in-chief of the Army or of the Armed Forces (Wehrmacht, comprising Army, Navy and Air Foce)?

It seems several articles in Wikipedia do not make this distinction. Also, the term "Wehrmacht" is often used to indicate "Army" whereas, as mentioned above, "Wehrmacht" comprises three branches of the German armed forces, and sometimes including SA and SS.

I'm no expert, but I believe it's army. Aaрон Кинни (t) 20:04, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Common confusion. The correct information is that he was in charge of the army not Wehrmacht (comprising army, navy and air force). The article is vastly improved and features much information regarding all this. Jonas Vinther (talk) 00:20, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Death date as 1946[edit]

What the...? I thought von Brauchitsch died in 1948. I've got sources from Britannica, the Compton reference desk, special anniversaries of 1948, the oxford companion to world war ii and Island farm (complete with an obituary scan from October 1948), and all say he died in 1948. But according to this Wikipedia article it says Von Brauchitsch died in 1946.

Looking at the histories, I see there were 2 changes made in November 2006, by User: Because these are's only contributions to Wikipedia (don't know if he logged in subsequently), neglected to supply references (violation of numerous policies including WP:CITE, WP:V, WP:NOR), and I have references that say the contrary ( supplies none. Sure, you can google loads of sites claiming he died in 1946, but then you realise all those sites are just Wikipedia mirrors / used information from Wikipedia). I have to assume that these edits are nothing more than vandalism.

Unfortunately, since then, it appears that many Wikipedians have been brought into this subtle change. User:Jackyd101, apparently duped into believing this was true, changed the category to point to 1946 deaths. A google search now reveals too many sites that believe he died in 1946, and this mis-information leaked into other pages on Wikipedia too (it was only after editing/sourcing Commanders of World War II that I discovered it).

Just in case I'm wrong, I'm giving everyone (particularly a chance to explain themselves. Perhaps there was recent evidence that shows he died in 1946 (Remember, cite your sources. Verifiability, not truth). But if I do not receive an answer by 8th Jan, I'm reverting the change. --Oshah 10:08, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I was asked to comment because I changed the date of death from 1948 to 1946 a while ago, I think on the category for year of death. I have no information on his date of death but was simply attempting to make sure that the article was consistent in the year given as the article quoted both 1946 and 1948. I used the date at the head of the page as my guiding date, but if it is incorrect then please by all means change it to the correct one. --Jackyd101 11:43, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Old and now immaterial - the article now mentions his accurate birth and date details. Jonas Vinther (talk) 00:18, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Kershaw Quotes[edit]

Hey, could we get a bit more context than just the 2 adjectives gutless and spineless? It isn't Kershaw didn't (correctly) use that language, but just put in abruptly it kind of makes poor Kershaw sound like he really had it in for Brauchitsch, which I didn't get from reading Nemesis. I bring it up because the old fashioned literature that used to talk up people like Halder really played heavily on how weak Brauchitsch's character, wheras now they're more lumped in together. A minor quibble. I'm sure Kershaw said it and I agree that it's right, it's just a bit decontextualized. 05:57, 7 February 2007 (UTC), I have decided to ignore your confusion after reading a more detailed interview with Kershaw in Eurozine, and added it to the article. He might have been more undetailed in Nemesis, but this reference is much more clear - and is therefore included. Jonas Vinther (talk) 00:15, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Added on his order regarding criticism of German atrocities[edit]

Added on his order regarding criticism of German atrocities in Poland.--Molobo (talk) 00:25, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Much appreciated. Jonas Vinther (talk) 00:16, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

GIGANTIC improvement[edit]

Hi, everyone. I just spent about my entire day extremely significantly improving this article. This is how the article looked before my vast improvements. Jonas Vinther (talk) 21:46, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

GA Prep[edit]

  • Please correct date where marked. 1980 is obviously incorrect.
  • Did he take part in the Battle of Verdun? I have assumed so, and have added a link.
  • Himmler classified him as a Junker: this might need more explanation.
  • The conflict with Ribbentrop over Italy's participation in the war is not very clear.
  • "purporting to recommend" This needs further explanation.
  • Book cites should include ISBNs or OCLC numbers
  • Consider listing at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Requests for assessment and editing suggestions. -- Diannaa (talk) 19:12, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
The issues have been fixed. I'm going to nominate it for GA status. Jonas Vinther (talk) 22:53, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Brauchitsch in media?[edit]

Is the "Brauchitsch in media" section needed since it's only 3? Jonas Vinther (talk) 19:41, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Has been removed per consensus list below. Jonas Vinther (talk) 00:17, 16 August 2014 (UTC)


  • "1900-41" looks ... stupid? It looks much better if it's "1900-1941".
    • I have to say that I agree with you. Unfortunately this doesn't help much. If you want the article to progress to GA, it has to adhere to MOS:DATEFORMAT and WP:DATERANGE. MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:31, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
  • His father was a "well-known cavalry general" according to Hart. Also, his father was a Brauchtisch; one of the most notable military families in Prussia (at the time), and Hart notes that his name automatically put on equal foot with any officer!
    • I think without putting this into context, the "well-known" could be interpreted as WP:PEACOCK or WP:WEASEL. If you insist on keeping "well-known", I suggest that you add something like "According to Hart, ..." to put it in context. And, I recommend that you back this up with creating his article. If he truly was "well-known" he should have his own article to back the wording. MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:31, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I would also like your opinion on the matter above ("Brauchitsch in media").
    • Hm, I have no strong opinion about this. I think it can help the article if the media itself is notable. However, look at the Hermann Fegelein article, the main contributing editors have a strong opinion and keep any mentioning of Fegelein in media away from the article. Nevertheless the info in its current state requires a source, otherwise you will have to remove it on the grounds of lack of citation. MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:31, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Cheers. :) Jonas Vinther (talk) 23:59, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

I hope this helps you MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:31, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
Once again, thank you very much MisterBee1966 for your thoughts, very appreciated. Regarding the "well-known" issue, I don't think it should be categorized as WP:PEACOCK because it's not necessarily a good thing. Peacock is more "awesome, legendary, greatest" and so on. "Well-known is (in my opinion) more alderman-like. I could add the "according to Hart" and also add source from his book, but even if his father would deserve an article, there not be enough (if any) information on him; giving the fact he laved in the 18 century. About the "Brauchitsch in media", I have gone ahead and removed it; the only sources I could find was IMDb, which is not a RS. Right after I saved this edit, I will expand the section about his involvement in World War I, and the Commissar Order. Jonas Vinther (talk) 12:40, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

MisterBee1966, I have now added or massively expanded the section (or information) regarding his involvement in World War I, as well as changes we discussed above. :) Jonas Vinther (talk) 13:25, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Now I just need to add the info about the Commissar Order. Jonas Vinther (talk) 13:29, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
It's added, plus other fixes. :) Jonas Vinther (talk) 14:06, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Content dispute[edit]

There is a dispute about whether this edit belongs in the article. I suggest it's decided by a vote by using either support or oppose.

  • Oppose the addition is way to long, misleading, off-topic and contain misspelled words. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 16:10, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
It is much better sourced ythough, and seems to me to be more nuanced, and more likely to be correct.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:22, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
Just for the record, just because an "addition is way to long" that does not mean the edit is not valid.--Dom497 (talk) 23:02, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
Yes it does, if the addition is meant to replace a short sentence. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 00:05, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
  • The content, style, etc. of this article is currently being discussed at a FAC review. I believe it is best to discuss all content related matters at the FAC review for the time being. We should not spawn another discussion in parallel to the ongoing FAC review. MisterBee1966 (talk) 06:13, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
That is everyone that doesn't accept the mealy-mouthed excuses for the exclusion of 4 academic sources in favour one from the pen of a journalist. Dapi89 (talk) 19:01, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
Dapi89, as I don't believe it should be included in the article, but you do, it should not be added unless it's talk page consensus. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 19:52, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
Blitzkrieg is a very controversial subject. Despite being "wordy" (in need of a touch up and better intergration (imo))), the additional and well sourced information by Dapi is suited for the article that currently sweeps the entire academic debate on the subject under the carpet in favour of a poorly sourced claim.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:10, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
EnigmaMcmxc, if you believe the addition belongs in the article I suggest you vote in favor of that. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 00:45, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
I think anyone would interpret Enigma's comment as a support vote. You should also take into account the comments about this at FAC. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 00:55, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
  • I Support the inclusion of the material (not that edit specifically), on the basis that it demonstrates there are a range of views on the development of Blitzkrieg by the Germans, not to include it would make the article less than comprehensive. The material needs to be compared and contrasted with reliable sources that take a different view. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 00:55, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support, to avoid possible confusion, and based off my above argument in addition to the points made by the other editors.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 01:17, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
  • I am also supportive of the inclusion. MisterBee1966 (talk) 11:42, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
OK, I will re-add the content then. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 13:56, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Surprisingly indifferent[edit]

  • If Jonas was to object to the inclusion of it on the basis that is overly long and has no real place in this man's biography, I would support its elimination on the understanding the word "Blitzkrieg" goes with it. Dapi89 (talk) 19:01, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
The content dispute is already closed and the result was keep. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 20:07, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
Dapi89, Frieser 1995, Naveh 1997, Overy 1995, Harris 1995 does not have matching book sources listed - could you please add them as part of your addition? Cheers in advance. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 14:11, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
I have added them. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 15:27, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Citing foreign language material[edit]

The reference list of foreign language books, journals etc. must provide the reader with the true identity of the source. Therefore the sources name is presented in its original foreign language title with a tag identifying it as a foreign language source. If possible a translation of the source to English is given. Providing only the translation gives the wrong illusion that the source is indeed in English. MisterBee1966 (talk) 05:45, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

absolutely unequivocally the name of the source, if it's in German, stays in German (or French or whatever). If there is a translation of the source, and that is used in the article then the translated title is acceptable. I would expect that the translator's name would also appear beside the author's in that case. I can think of no case in which the title of a book should be translated within the citation under any circumstance. Furthermore, I would not translate the title: it promotes laziness among readers. auntieruth (talk) 21:41, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
As I explained on MisterBee1966's talk page, the original German titles were removed by accident, when I was finding and adding Frieser 1995, Naveh 1997, Overy 1995, and Harris 1995 to the source section. I completely agree with what you're both saying - it was a mistake. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 15:26, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

January 2015[edit]

I will request or open an A-Class review of this article as that was the common advice during the FA-review. After that I will re-nominate it for FA-status. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 15:31, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Community reassessment[edit]

Walther von Brauchitsch[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · WatchWatch article reassessment pageMost recent review
Result: Delist: 6 to 0 votes supporting delisting due to problematic sources and content K.e.coffman (talk) 06:39, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

During 2014, this article was expanded to about double its size, almost entirely by Jonas Vinther who is now under a TBAN for articles covering Nazi Germany. This is one of several problematic articles Jonas expanded. It was taken through GAN and then an unsuccessful FAC, after which the TBAN was put in place. One of the significant issues with this article is the quite heavy reliance on Hart, a book published in 1944 (the reliability of which is questionable given its age and that it was published during the war, and the inaccurate terminology used to describe von Brauchitsch's WWI service (indicating he was actively involved in battles when he was actually a staff officer). There are also a significant number of unaddressed issues raised during the unsuccessful FAC and the peer review before that. In essence, I believe that the article has significant issues with criteria 2b., 2c. and 4. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 04:34, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Rather than provide an exposition of all the issues (which are extensive), I suggest interested editors have a look at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Walther von Brauchitsch/archive1 and Wikipedia:Peer review/Walther von Brauchitsch/archive1. Pinging those that participated in either review, as well as the original GAN reviewer. @TheQ Editor, MisterBee1966, AustralianRupert, Halibutt, and Hawkeye7:@Dapi89, ÄDA - DÄP, Parsecboy, and Auntieruth55: Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 21:22, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
G'day, from my perspective the reliance on Hart is a major concern (I think it would be ok to use this source very sparingly, though, potentially to compare and contrast varying assessments). I also think that the article's prose requires work. If these issues could be fixed, I would be happier to support the article keeping its GA assessment (I would reserve judgement to see the final outcome), but unless this occurs I think it should be delisted. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 22:58, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
Hart wasn't my preferred choice, but did not have other books about the field marshal at the time. The book covered many of the same topics online sources in the article said about Brauchitsch, so it did not strike me as outrageously unreliable. Still, I'm all in favor of replacing Hart with modern sources. I suggest someone check out this book: Loeffler, Juergen (2001). Walther von Brauchitsch (1881-1948): Eine politische Biographie. ISBN 978-3631377468. Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 14:58, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Delist -- problematic content ("opposed Nazism") and sources. Besides over-reliance on an ancient 1944 source, the article also uses non WP:RS sources Islandfarm (website of dubious accuracy) and Jewish Virtual library (content farm). For a GA article, that is just sloppy. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:59, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
Here's an explanation from the editor on why Hart was used (from the peer review):

"Well, there is a bio-book on Brauchitsch from 2001 I have access to. However, I decided to use Hart instead precisely because it was written in 1944, where the existence of the Holocaust was not yet known, which make Harts bio on Brauchitsch more neutral (in my opinion). - JV"

K.e.coffman (talk) 08:20, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Question: Does Jonas's participation in this discussion constitute a violation of their topic ban? K.e.coffman (talk) 08:49, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
If it is broadly construed, quite possibly. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:09, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
I believe they were back in December, but I will do it again: @TheQ Editor, MisterBee1966, AustralianRupert, Halibutt, and Hawkeye7:@Dapi89, ÄDA - DÄP, Parsecboy, and Auntieruth55: Regards, K.e.coffman (talk) 18:57, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Delist - I find the extensive reliance on a 1944 source, not to mention the justification given for its use, to be quite problematic. Especially since it appears that modern sources are available.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:25, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
There's also some strange wording throughout the article like " a German planner and strategist named Erich von Manstein" (???) Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:31, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Delist, the 1944 source is problematic, it's certainly not unbiased and definitely has a POV it's pushing being written during the nazi regime. Choosing that and ignoring subsequent sources who have the benefit of passage of time and information becoming common knowledge is problematic. If the 1944 source was presented to give several sides of the issue that may be okay, but that's not what's going on here.  MPJ-US  01:27, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Delist per my comment at the FAC along with others' here. Parsecboy (talk) 18:33, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Summary: Six editors support delisting, with zero opposing. Per WP:Snow, should I go ahead and delist? Or somebody else wants to do it? K.e.coffman (talk) 19:43, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Looks like a clear delist to me, more than four weeks have elapsed and more than five editors have commented. Go ahead. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:13, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history[edit]

HI, just a quick note about a current discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history (WWII content: Otto Kittel, other GA/FA articles) that editors of this page may be interested in. K.e.coffman (talk)