Talk:Wolfgang Lüth

Untitled

Donitz was never the Fueher, he was President. Although the term only means Leader I seem to recall from reading the article he noticeably didn't use it, so I'm changing it to the President gave a few words at his funeral. There, from the Donitz article "Significantly, Dönitz was not to become Führer. Instead, Dönitz became President (Reichspräsident), a post Hitler had abolished years earlier.". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.137.207.191 (talk) 16:21, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

War Patrols

Question - Was 15 war patrols a lot ? -Jim Sweeney (talk) 10:23, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Take a look here List of successful U-boat commanders. 15 is on the high end for German WW2 commanders. MisterBee1966 (talk) 12:17, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes I see --Jim Sweeney (talk) 15:04, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Officer ranks

Having copyedited this article, one thing I have come across is the laughable 'translations' of Kriegsmarine officer ranks. For example, Korvettankapitän becomes "Corvette Captain", Fregatttenkapitän is apparently a "Frigate Captain" and, my favorite: Kapitän zur See turns into "Captain at Sea"! Does this make a Kapitänleutänant a "Captain Leiutenant"?!
This list is not complete.
Having looked up some of the individual articles, it is quite obvious where the 'translations' have come from; but the Kriegsmarine article and my reference are more sensible, i.e. "Lieutenant Commander", "Commander", "Captain" and so on.

But before I change them all, I thought a bit of consensus might be a good thing.

RASAM (talk) 20:45, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

This was one of the first articles I had worked on here on the English Wiki. So what you call laughable was my best attempt as a non native English speaking person. Please feel free to correct my ignorance. MisterBee1966 (talk) 18:28, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Wolfgang Luth

Wolfgang Luth was a committed National Socialist and not to be revered. When he sank The Empire Lake in the Indian Ocean there were 5 survivors aboard a raft, he surfaced, one of his men enquired as to the name of the ship, where it was bound and what cargo it was carrying. He later wrote in his log 'Due to the high seas and the distance from land (180 miles), they will probably not survive'. He made no offer to tow the raft closer to the land, no offer of provisions, many U-Boat commanders did tow rafts to some measure of safety. I am sorry to see he has a memorial in Flensberg, I feel Germany should face up to he was. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.31.167.16 (talk) 16:30, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Unreliable sources tag

I tagged the article with Unreliable sources tag; it contains multiple citations to Franz Kurowski & Karl Alman (same author); these accounts are likely to be semi-fictional. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:32, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Community reassessment

Wolfgang Lüth

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: kept following changes to the article AustralianRupert (talk) 22:59, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

I am nominating the article for community reassessment due to the concern over sourcing and potentially failing GAC #2b:

• Verifiable with no original research
  • reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose);

The article contains:

• 7 citations to Karl Alman aka Franz Kurowski (please see linked article)
• 4 citations to Kurowski proper
• 10 citations to a self-published source Florian Berger
• 6 citations to Gordon Williamson (writer) (please see linked article)

Sample content supported by these sources includes:

• Sources are inconclusive regarding the total amount of Allied shipping sunk. They vary between 221,981 GRT and 230,781 GRT. Some sources also mention 17 war-patrols. Lüth aborted two patrols on U-43 prematurely after leaving harbour because of oil leakage.

References

Please also see Wolfgang Lüth#In popular culture, where the work by Alman used a source for the article is described. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:31, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Comment by Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:38, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

• These appear to be mainly multiple citations, where the removal of Kurowski and his alias, and Berger would have little effect on the article. Even where they are the only source for a sentence, the removal of the sentence concerned would not affect the overall quality of the article. I have a lot of experience in comparing Williamson with other sources, and have found him to be reliable. I don't support the removal of Williamson as a source. I would add that, for example, facts about Lüth's sinking of vessels with the deck gun of his submarine are cited to Williamson by Professor of History at Murdoch University in Australia, Michael Sturma, in Surface and Destroy: The Submarine Gun War in the Pacific (2011) published by the University Press of Kentucky (p. 8). Reviewers should note that the nominator of this article for GAR has been adding negative information to Williamson's article (see this, this and this, and now points us to it as a means of undermining a source used in this article. I have no issue with people adding reliably cited positive and negative information to articles on historians and history writers, but as we all know, there are always a range of opinions about various history writers, and not all of them are negative. The fact that Williamson is used as a source for facts about Lüth's tactics by a professor of history at a leading Australian university is relevant to Williamson's reliability, but this fact doesn't appear in Williamson's article. I'm sure that there are other examples of academics using Williamson as a source in books published by university presses or other respected publishing houses, this was just the first hit on a simple search. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:51, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Sturma quotes Grey Wolf by Williamson among five other sources (two by Clay Blair) in footnote 8 on page 3 of the introduction. This hardly makes Williamson an academic writer. The referenced work in this article is basically a compilation of biographic material on a well-defined group of individuals, which might be considered a tertiary source at best. More importantly, Williamson's figure for Allied tonnage sunk by Lüth is taken from Bodo Herzog's book dating from 1970, which is off by 3225 GRT, and fails to mention a French sub sunk. With the complete list given at the bottom of the article, the whole argument about a range in the sources is irrelevant.

From the article, I have the impression that some of the inferior sources (i.e. Alman, Berger, Kurowski, Range, Von Seemen, and also Williamson) are merely used to create the impression that there is a wider, academic discussion of Lüth, rather than a mere entry in a biographical index. The information could have easily be sourced from Busch&Röll or Scherzer, which irritatingly is listed in the bibliography but not used for inline citations. This however, would have made for a rather uninspiring list of citations. Another question is whether English-language sources should have precedence over German ones. As only Hadley, Kurowksi, Vauce, and Williamson are used, Helgason might be an alternative one to go with. ÄDA - DÄP VA (talk) 09:42, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

G'day, regarding Kurowski/Allman, I'd suggest replacing altogether if possible, or if not then I suggest beefing up the in-text attribution in order to ensure that it is clear that it is his assertion and that it isn't being presented in Wikipedia's voice. Regarding Williamson, I think we need to be very careful about how this is handled. Most writers will have some criticism levelled at their works, some of it more vehement than others. He is published by Osprey, which would for all intents be considered a reliable source, so I don't think his works should be totally discounted (although I do think we could use other sources to verify where possible). Presenting an "uncritical view" does not represent "unreliable" or "wrong" for all purposes in my opinion (i.e. statistics and general facts are most likely correct, although the full context may not be conveyed), so I would look at other sources to fill in gaps, particularly around more unsavoury aspects, but for general facts I'd say the use of Williamson is most likely okay, particularly if other academics have cited these sources also (although if it could be replaced by better sources, by all means this would be the best solution). For a U-boat topic, I would also like to see some references to Blair's Hitler's U-boat War. I have copies of both The Hunters and The Hunted somewhere. Will try to dig them out, and if possible, will try to add something if there is consensus to add this in. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 06:03, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

@K.e.coffman: G'day, where are we at with this GAR? From what I can tell most of the problematic citations have been replaced, or verified with other references. What is your opinion in this regard? Has enough been done to close this GAR? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:32, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

I believe that most of the issues have been addressed with the help of some excellent editing from AustralianRupert and ÄDA - DÄP. There are two citations remaining to a self-published source by Berger:

• U-boat Front Clasp (12 October 1944)
• War Cross for Military Valor (Italy) (1 November 1941)

References

Since these appear to be minor decorations, if the citations cannot be replaced, I suggest that these be omitted. Would that work? That would resolved any outstanding issues. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:16, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

That seems fair enough to me. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 06:43, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Sounds good; I've implemented the change. There are no more outstanding issues. Please feel free to close this discussion. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:00, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Recent edit

I restored the version of the article that was arrived at via a recent GAR; pls see Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Wolfgang Lüth/1. Here's the diff. Please let me know if there are any concerns.

I would also request that editors be mindful of avoiding personal attacks, such as in this edit summary

• "complaints of intricate detail are ridiculous"

Thank you. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:38, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Don't hide behind personal attacks whinging. Your reversal was based on the false assertion that there was an agreement to keep out the minor details I added back in. There blatantly wasn't. So your edits are ridiculous. You can have differing opinion and discuss things, but don't lie about it.

Thank you. Dapi89 (talk) 15:50, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

By the way, your article on Williamson relies on one real source; with tenuous opinions at best. Dapi89 (talk) 15:56, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

@Dapi89: So these are indeed "minor details"? What do they add to the article? Separately, the edit restored the source by Gordon Williamson (writer) which was removed as part of the GAR. What is the reason for re-adding it?

Re: "tenuous opinions" -- this appears to be a criticism of S.P. MacKenzie, who is a practicing historian and the work being cited was published with an academic publisher. What is the problem with using this source? And are there reputable historians that praise Williamson's works? BTW, the editor is mistaken: this is not my article; nobody "owns" articles on Wikipedia. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:24, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

No, it's a criticism of you, and the way you (try to) use one source to denigrate another because you don't like it. More to the point, Williamson doesn't require an endorsement from anyone with a PhD. In fact, your source couldn't even show he was unreliable. And the three editors that bothered to comment on that re-assessment were all opposed to deleting him for that reason. In a nut-shell, you've abused the RS source policy and re-assessment protocols here to suit yourself. People are starting to notice (on the Joachim Helbig page).

As that article stands, it is yours. You've wiped out most of the original edits and now your single-sourced critique of him dominates the article.

I'm done here. Dapi89 (talk) 16:26, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

@Dapi89 and K.e.coffman: Gentlemen, please stop edit warring. If there is an issue, discussion is the best way the resolve it. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:55, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

The editor states that the removal of Williamson is "opposed by reassessment discussion" and advises me to "start being honest": diff. Reviewing the GAR just above, I see the following comments (emphasis mine):

• "Sturma quotes Grey Wolf by Williamson among five other sources (two by Clay Blair) in footnote 8 on page 3 of the introduction. This hardly makes Williamson an academic writer. The referenced work in this article is basically a compilation of biographic material (...), which might be considered a tertiary source at best. More importantly, Williamson's figure for Allied tonnage sunk by Lüth is taken from Bodo Herzog's book dating from 1970, which is off by 3225 GRT, and fails to mention a French sub sunk."
• "From the article, I have the impression that some of the inferior sources (i.e. Alman, Berger, Kurowski, Range, Von Seemen, and also Williamson) are merely used to create the impression that there is a wider, academic discussion of Lüth, rather than a mere entry in a biographical index."

In fact citations to Williamson have been removed as part of the GAR. Could Dapi89 please clarify where they see the opposition to the removal of Williamson from all three reviewers? K.e.coffman (talk) 20:24, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Third opinion request

I'm submitting the above disagreement to WP:3O. The disagreement concerns this edit:

• "It's not for you to decide. Opposed by re-assessment discussion. Start being honest."

The revert concerns two areas:

1. Minor details of the subject's career
2. Restoration to the article of the source Gordon Williamson (writer) which was removed as part of the GAR above (Talk:Wolfgang Lüth#Community reassessment) and is currently not used for citations.

K.e.coffman (talk) 03:47, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Comment by Ian Rose

I've not commented on this dispute thus far, nor was I involved in the GAR, so I hope I can be objective here. I've looked over the GAR in light of the points mentioned above and:

• Re. "minor details", I don't see a discussion of that in the GAR, so while anyone is entitled to remove what they see as over-detailing (which I think is always in the eye of the beholder), they have to be prepared to see it reverted and then justify it in a subsequent discussion. Now, to step out of my position as disinterested observer of the GAR and offer my opinion on an example of "intricate detail" being removed, I have to admit I don't see why exact dates shouldn't be used if available and cited to a reliable source, or why advances in rank shouldn't be noted; I can't recall ever being accused of over-detailing when I've done that in Commonwealth pilot bios, many of which I've taken to FA.
• Re. Williamson, it appears to me that Peacemaker67 pointed out reasons to retain him, and AustralianRupert recommended caution re. removing him. K.e.coffman recommended removing, and ÄDA - DÄP mentioned possible alternatives to him (and others). Assuming I haven't misinterpreted anyone's position, that doesn't suggest to me consensus for removing. Again, moving from observation of the GAR to offer an opinion, I've never written or co-written a German military bio and I don't know Williamson; I can only speak from experience re. Osprey as I've used several of their books to write on Commonwealth pilots and generally found their authors to be careful and as objective as one can reasonably expect in the presentation of their subjects.

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:15, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Clarify, please

The British forces occupied Flensburg on 5 May 1945; initially, nothing changed in the daily routine at the Mürwik Naval Academy.

Why had nothing changed? All the weapons should have been handed in at once. Valetude (talk) 00:06, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

November 2021 edit

Preserving here by providing this link: [1]; my rationale was: "Per the Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history/Archive_163#Appropriateness_of_kill_lists_in_submariner_bios discussion, such lists are undue in skippers' bios". Additionally, the list of mid to jr promotions is not needed. --K.e.coffman (talk) 03:41, 27 November 2021 (UTC)