Talk:Werner Voss

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Article milestones
Date Process Result
September 13, 2013 WikiProject A-class review Approved
October 15, 2013 Peer review Reviewed

Voss not Jewish.[edit]

Werner Voss was most likely not Jewish. He was Lutheran. I think the first paragraph should be changed to suggest this. Anyways if he was Jewish the Nazis would have stripped him of all his accolades, like they did to the Jewish Pour le Merite ace Wilhelm Frankl.

http://hegewisch.net/blindkat/voss/bio.html —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.32.190.10 (talk) 03:59, 7 May 2007 (UTC).

I have researched World War I Jewish aces. Voss was not one of them. Georgejdorner (talk) 16:47, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

It should be "Voß"[edit]

His name is "Voß", not "Voss" and thus should be written that way! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.135.231.14 (talk) 16:40, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I think it should be kept the way it is now (i.e. "Voss"). During the German Empire, the name would probably spelt "Voß" most of the time, but, in English, the double-s - Version is certainly ubiquitous. Furthermore, since the German Ortography Reform of 1996, which did away with most cases of "ß", his name would indeed be spelt "Voss". Maybe anyone knows about personal preferences of Voss himself (see also Bölcke -> Oswald Boelcke ) red (talk) 09:21, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

No, the reform didn't change anything about names. Franz Josef Strauß is still called Franz Josef Strauß.
But for Wikipedia, Wikipedia:Article titles#Foreign names and anglicization is pertinent, and thus there should not only be certainty, but also easy prove that "Voss" is indeed ubiquitous. So what do the sources say? --Tim Landscheidt (talk) 20:51, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Last dogfight[edit]

The article for James McCudden states they were 7 of them and not 8 as this article states. Which one is the correct? --Mezod (talk) 12:14, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

The german article is also saying 7 enemies. Greetings, Kroq — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.232.245.71 (talk) 13:05, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Victories during engagement?[edit]

If this table is meant to list Voss's opponents, then what is the meaning of "victories during engagement"? Does it mean that McCudden shot Voss down 12 times during this dogfight?

Unless this table can be integrated into the article and/or explained, it should go. It adds only confusion to the article.

Georgejdorner (talk) 22:22, 25 March 2012 (UTC)


I'm almost positive it means "Victories up until that day (morning)" while the latter column simply gives their total victories red (talk) 09:12, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
"Almost positive" means "I'm not sure either". This reinforces my above comment. Georgejdorner (talk) 16:14, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

How is this relevant?[edit]

There is a table jammed into the article that lists the ultimate victory scores of the aces who opposed Voss in his last dog fight. What does this information have to do with Voss?

For that matter, what relevance does it have to know the victory scores of the aces he fought on the day he died? Keep in mind, British scores included victories that in later wars would have been called "probable victories" or "damaged" enemy aircraft; also, because the British could seldom pull ground reconnaissance to verify their pilots' victories, British verification of victories could seldom be confirmed by wreckage. See Aerial victory standards of World War I for details.

I propose deleting this irrelevant clutter, but thought it fair to bring the proposed deletion to notice on this Talk page.

Georgejdorner (talk) 01:15, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Thoughts on article of Werner Voss[edit]

Upon reading the Wikipedia article on World War One fighter ace Werner Voss, I have a few thoughts that I would like to share. First of all, I truly enjoyed the sub-section on the death of Voss. I found the quotes and information included to be very enlightening, and the article in general is very well constructed. By that, I mean that information can be found in a few, very easy to follow, labelled categories. I also enjoyed how the diction that may not be familiar to some (such as slip turn) are provided as links to other Wikipedia articles, albeit small ones which are not fully fleshed out yet. One glaring deficiency in the article as a whole was the lack of information on the early life of Voss. However, to that extent, there are only a few websites which post anything on the early life of Voss. One that I noted was www.pourlemerite.org which had a small paragraph which could be used to supplement the “early life” section. The site has a paragraph instead of the sentence in this article, which could be useful in lengthening the section out by a few words (possibly literally). Finally, and this is mostly out of personal preferences, there are a few minor grammatical errors on the page. The sentence “Although only 1 unconfirmed victory his final total was 48 confirmed victories” should be altered to say something to the extent of ‘Although Voss does have one unconfirmed victory to his credit, the ace still had 48 aerial victories which were confirmed and attributed to him.’ and "Voss did much damage to B Flight of 56Squadron" are some examples of what I mean when I say this.

SemperInvictus (talk) 02:38, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

A-class[edit]

I have removed "A-Class=pass" from the MILHIST banner as no review has been made over the last few days. Without a review being made the article is in Category:Military history articles needing attention to tagging. If you want to start a review then please re-add it and open the review. If you need any help in how to open a review then please leave a note on my talkpage or on the talkpage of any coordinator. Regards, Woody (talk) 14:42, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

The Cronyn quote.[edit]

I removed the lengthy Cronyn quote for several reasons:

Excessive length;

Superseded by pithy later information;

Inability to trace an origin for it. It seems to trace back to Cronyn's own memoirs, which are exceedingly difficult to find. Thus, I was unable to reliably confirm it.

Georgejdorner (talk) 20:38, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Deletion of unreliable information[edit]

I have just discovered, via the wonders of an Interlibrary Loan, that Letters of a Flying Officer is a mixture of fiction and nonfiction. It not being a reliable source, I am now in the process of editing it out.

Georgejdorner (talk) 22:02, 29 September 2013 (UTC)