User talk:HROThomas

Hello, HROThomas! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already enjoying Wikipedia you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Happy editing! -Minorhistorian (talk) 01:01, 16 February 2009 (UTC) Getting Started Wikipedia Tutorial • The five pillars of Wikipedia How to: edit a page • upload an image Getting Help Frequently Asked Questions Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention Policies and Guidelines Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The Community Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists Things to do Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Pages needing attention • Peer review Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism Miscellaneous Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 21:45, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Prokhorovka

Hi.

Perhaps I have been less than helpful. If you want to add your figures:

• Add the book and its information to the "references" section at the bottom of the page.
• then add next to the information in the article. But as the same time make sure you name the division next to the losses, for example, 17 II SS Panzerkorps.

Regards. Dapi89 (talk) 21:55, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Kursk

Hi.

This is the problem when someone who does not speak English well attempts to edit the English wikipedia. You have just misunderstood the figures layout on the article. You may have noticed that there is a "German Kursk" and "Soviet Kursk" in each of the loss sections - this can be confusing. In the German column, the "German Kursk" represents the losses the Germans claimed each side suffered. In the Soviet column, the figures given are the figures the Soviets claim are correct. Do you see what I mean? For example the Germans reported to have lost 200 - this is in the "German Kursk" section in the German column. Underneath that the "Soviet Kursk" section in the German column claims that 3,000 were shot down. The idea of the layout is to give everyone an idea of the nature of overclaiming. I hope you can understand this. To sum up the 3,000 figure is what the Soviets claimed (which is false). If you look below the casualty box you will also see some notes on overclaiming. Regards. Dapi89 (talk) 00:04, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

i can read english very good . i noticed already why they wrote 3000 aircraft downed . but to cite an overclaimed source in WIKIPEDIA is in my opinion totally absurd . Russian claims of this time are LIES and PROPAGANDA and 60 years after this they have a board : WIKIPEDIA . this is absurd for me .... when u want to show how overclaiming works then an article about this would be a good idea.

The reader checks the infobox , cause it should be a fast overview , and sees the numbers and he will think this is correct. accidentally everyone who wants this absurd numbers comes from "sovietarea" . interesting ... .

Exactly. This is why figures for both sides are noted. It avoids this constant wrangling over who is right and who is wrong, and prevents edit wars over thse figures. I should also point out German sources are more reliable than Soviet ones but not completely reliable themselves. Germans had a tendency (at that point) to under report losses and not count disabled tanks - but rather count only destoyed tanks. This was largely due not wanting the OKW to come down on field commanders.

I agree, Soviet sources are always suspect, but it is best to put in what they claimed as it is inline with NPOV (Neutral point of view). Afterall, this is an encyclopedia and is not supposed to take sides.

You can change the Prokhorovka article if you cite your sources as directed. If you have the sources and are willing to quote them you don't need anyones permission to put them in- it is your right to do so. Regards. Dapi89 (talk) 19:25, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I, and many other disagree. One could easily say the same about the German sources. The fact of the matter goes beyond casualties. It is also meant to sort losses between the different time frames. As you know, the German-Soviet dates for Kursk are different, and this needs to be conveyed in the casualtie lists. It presents NPOV. This is why the Englsih wikipedia is the most reliable and NPOV source among the various nations. One German editor stated the reason he chooses to edit here rather than the German wikipedia is becauses of its inclusiveness and openness. Dapi89 (talk) 20:57, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Hallo HROThomas, I have posted a set of Wikipedia guidelines at the top of your page which I hope will help you to enjoy working in Wikipedia. It is all too easy to claim bias or propaganda when you read statistics or facts that you don't agree with; part of the purpose behind Wikipedia is to present facts from a Neutral point of view - it is up to each of those of us who choose to edit articles to use Reliable sources to provide the basis of the information. As an editor you now have the opportunity to present your case as to why you believe that certain facts or statistics are wrong and to correct them.

Whatever you do please try not to claim that statistics or information provided by other editors is "propaganda" or "biased", especially if you cannot cite information to back up such claims. Most people who edit or create articles in Wikipedia are trying to be objective ie; Assume good faith Claiming bias or propaganda against another editor is often one of the easiest ways to start an editing war; should that happen you may find yourself being excluded from editing by an administrator because of a lack of civility or personal attacks.

One thing you do have to get used to is having other people editing material you might have spent hours working on; it may be something as simple as correcting grammer or spelling or it may end up being almost a complete rewrite. It is also possible that you will find your hard work being removed altogether if you have not provided any references for your information - should this happen try not to take offence or take things personally, because it can happen to any one of us. Enjoy editing and take your time getting used to how things work. Cheers Minorhistorian (talk) 01:01, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I can understand your frustration; however, please read Assume good faith. Sometimes editors will post information which is clearly wrong or inaccurate because that is the only information they might have. To claim that they are then indulging in propaganda is a really good way of causing annoyance and frustration, even if it is not intended. If you have reliable figures and can cite reliable sources such as a book by a well regarded historian please do so and help correct the Soviet propaganda you feel has become part of the article. Regards Minorhistorian (talk) 01:24, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

With respect, you seem to be taking offence for no reason. No-one is telling you not to go ahead and show the correct figures - all you are being asked to do is to cite the source of your information. Dapi89 has also gone to great lengths to explain to you why Soviet and German figures are cited in the article on Kursk. Where you see a link such as overclaiming highlighted in blue it means that there is an article on the topic; just right click on the blue wording and you will bring up the relevant page. Cheers Minorhistorian (talk) 01:52, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I am not responsible for whatever figures are in the info box, nor have I had anything to do with writing the article; I am merely pointing out standard Wikipedia policy and explaining how you can help as an editor. You are discussing the matter with the wrong person, work with those who wrote the article in the first place, and where you have a disagreement discuss it with them. I repeat If you have better, properly referenced information USE IT! - instead of complaining that something is wrong do something about it Above all Assume good faith. Cheers Minorhistorian (talk) 06:07, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 23:36, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 21:28, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Aircraft losses

Do you mean of the entire war? I only have some information on total German fighter losses - 55,000 between 1939-1945. For this some 42,000 Soviet aircraft were destroyed and 25,000 Polish, Danish, Norwegian, French, Belgian, Dutch, British, Yugoslavian and Greek machines were destroyed. I have little data of German bomber losses. Dapi89 (talk) 15:55, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Thomas, I have figures from Richard Overy's The Air War 1939-1945. On p. 76 he lists German losses as 21,807 bombers, 38,977 fighters. US losses as 9,949 bombers, 8,420 fighters. UK losses as 11,965 bombers and 10,045 fighters. Dapi89 (talk) 09:52, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Dogfight

Hi HROThomas,

I see your edit on the dogfight article, and it may be helpful to add a source when making such a change. My source on the subject said 1489 Russian planes were lost on the first day, but that was apparently the official luftwaffe report. According to this source, http://www.answers.com/topic/operation-barbarossa , Hermann Goring didn't believe their claims, and after picking through the wreckage over 2000 destroyed craft were found. Since the claim of 2000 doesn't match the source I used in the article I can add the above source as an inline reference, unless you have a better source.

Thanks for your help on the article! Zaereth (talk) 17:48, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi, i saw this figure very often. best source for it " Das deutsche Reich und der Zweite Weltkrieg Band 4" by german Militärisches Forschungsamt. But i dont have the book i rent it. -- HROThomas (talk) 18:14, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, I don't read German, so, since this is English WP, would you object to the English online source I cited above? That article says,

"The Luftwaffe claimed to have destroyed 1,489 aircraft on the first day of operations.[76] Hermann Göring, Chief of the Luftwaffe distrusted the reports and ordered the figure checked. Picking through the wreckages of Soviet airfields, the Luftwaffe's figures proved conservative, as over 2,000 destroyed Soviet aircraft were found.[76] The Luftwaffe lost 35 aircraft on the first day of combat. The Germans claimed to have destroyed only 3,100 Soviet aircraft in the first three days. In fact Soviet losses were far higher: some 3,922."

That seems to show that Luftwaffe was maybe a bit modest in their claims, which i did not know. This seems to be a reliable enough source, as its backed up with its own sources. I can add it as an inline reference, unless you want to do the honors. Zaereth (talk) 19:12, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

many russian aircraft were destroyed by strafing or artillery so i can explain the low figures. i have read that on the first day there were 500( maybe 700 iam not sure) downed! russian aircraft . only this aircraft were result of dogfighting ( not all but most ) . for this 500 claims the german lost some 10 aircraft in dogfights . your article is about dogfights so mabye u should use this numbers.

Actually, the source I used to write the article says that these are the numbers that the Russians reported, noting that most aircraft were destroyed on the ground that first day. If you have a source that is more accurate then please change the numbers accordingly. It might be less confusing to say something like "The German Barbarossa offensive on June 22, 1941, destroyed more than 2000 Soviet aircraft on the first day. Most of these planes were destroyed while still on the ground, with 500 (or 700, whichever is correct) downed in dogfights. The soviets lost more than 17000 aircraft before October." My source is actually from 1986, and so may be out of date, so if you have better sources please make the appropriate change. Zaereth (talk) 22:18, 27 July 2009 (UTC)