Talk:Manfred von Richthofen/Archive 2

Pizza

Toward the end of the article, in the section regarding MvR's family, it mentions that he loved pizza, but wasn't able to have it very often due to the war. Oooookayyyy. I was just going to delete it, thinking it must be a joke, but, on the other hand, maybe that was the inspiration for naming the frozen pizza? Anybody know?--Ddsilver 05:56, 11 November 2007 (UTC)DDSilver.

Either way, that seems a lot like 'trivia' (which is discouraged by Wikipedia). Besides its dubious nature, we may probably remove the comment by way of this rule. JRDarby 02:45, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Propaganda: The Hebrew Influence on Western civilization

Wow, our fears have been confirmed immediately. The first sentence of this books preface says it all in terms of "reliable sources". The first sentence in the book states "This book is a book of propaganda." It goes on to say in the same paragraph "The pagans for whom this volume is meant are the many, many people in whose midst the Hebrews have lived for thousands of years." (pg vii)

"propaganda" meant for "pagans", great source!

Now onto the specific quote/source in dispute. BTW, anon, there is no p. 744 in the book, and you even say it was in New York "philosophical library" hardly then is it a historical work. The book does not say MVR was jewish despite constantly naming other people as "jewish" or saying they had "jewish fathers or mothers". Thus, the omition of specifically stating that MvR and his brother were jews sticks out quite sharply! Also, the book has all of these figures for the percentage of jews in this or that country and then has the exact composition of jews for their respecitve armed services, yet it gives no source or any evidence for this "progaganda". The Bib only has "hebrew" based books, no census data or anything else that would indicate being able to provide such data, even if such data (rumanian, etc) even existed in the first place. The jews always represent a higher percentage in every country's military, including the USA civil war, then their respective percentages in that country, and the very paragraph with the MvR comment starts, as Mackensen said, with the claim that 200 fliers in the tiny German air force in WWI were jews, again with no evidence. It has endless, no proof, fantastical claims ("the youngest german volunteers were all jewish lads" (pg 265) which appear dramatically inflated if not outright fictitious. As the book clearly says, and in light of the fact it was written soon after the holocaust, "this book is a book of propaganda." (pg vii) 'Nuff said! JohnHistory 22:00, 24 March 2007 (UTC)JohnHistory

Here's another source claiming Jewish ancestry for the Red Baron: "The Jews of Germany: A Story of Sixteen Centuries", by Marvin Lowenthal. Page 285 says "Baron Manfred von Richthofen, the red eagle of the German aviators, when he fell bled Jewish blood from his veins." (it is easy to find this by Google books). This may or may not be true; to refute this, it would be easiest if you could cite from reliable sources that his ancestors were not Jewish. Whether it be true or not, it is verifiable that people claimed a Jewish ancestry for MvR; and this is all that has been claimed here. Kusma (talk) 20:55, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Kusma, for bringing up that second source. In my opinion, we should re-insert the fact that the claim of Jewish ancestry has been made, in agreement with Wp:npov#A_simple_formulation. This in no way contradicts the undue weight clause that has been brought up, as we do not deduct and justify a viewpoint from the sources. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 23:05, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I was under the impression that "Undue Weight" was not a reflection of the source per say but rather of whether or not the opinion put forth by that source is held by a number of people significant enough to warrant mentioning, and that whether the sources are reliable or whatnot is a separate consideration. For example: Scholar A publishes a paper that puts forth Theory x, Theory x is in fact true but goes contrary to commonly held theories. According to "Undue Weight" Theory x is inadmissible to WP until other independent, reference-able sources also claim Theory x.

Another way to look at it would be in reference to Palaeontology: When the idea that dinosaurs were warm blooded was first put forth the idea was met with much skepticism and was only held by "an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority" and therefore would not have qualified as satisfying the Undue Weight policy. However as more research was done and the idea gained more and more acceptance, a lot more material referencing it became available and at that point it did satisfy Undue weight, and as such is definitely permissible in WP. In fact it has become the consensus view as referenced here, and here.

So it seems to me that Undue weight is not satisfied by the quality of a single reference but by whether the opinion or theory in question is held by enough people to count as "A significant minority".

Now whether these two references are enough to satisfy Undue weight is a more difficult problem. I personally feel that considering the vast amount of biographical data on MvR more than just two references should be provided. As a separate issue from Undue Weight I also feel that considering neither source actually says why they believe MvR was Jewish, along with not pointing out which of his ancestors (who have been thoroughly documented) were Jewish, makes me personally unable to endorse them. However as I am no expert on this issue I will not emphatically deny them either.

I would also like to point out that I have refrained from editing this article so far and plan to continue doing so until this particular point of contention has been resolved in a peaceful and scholarly manner. Thanks, Colincbn 10:55, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks to you also, I'm glad we're finally back to exchanging arguments.

As to your point regarding undue weight: I still say it's a point, but I'm not convinced as to the applicability of undue weight in this case. NPOV talks about "conflicting viewpoints". Clawson used this line of reasoning and argued correspondingly that for undue weight to be relevant, there would have to be published sources expressly contradicting the contested assertion we're having two sources for.

Now, I don't feel all comfortable with that reasoning, as it may apply to unambiguous situations as well. Imagine, as a hypothetical example, a situation where someone wants to include mention of a source that speaks of/makes a claim so wild in nature that no serious published source ever bothered to even assert the opposite. In that case, undue weight still does come into play, based on the common sense assumption that the fact that a vast majority (as presumed for the example) doesn't mention anything as to the nature of that claim can safely be interpreted as a strong argument against the vailidity of said claim. Imagine, if you will, two sources saying that mars men, if there was life on mars, would have orange skin. You'd have a hard time rebutting a claim like that based on reliable sources that say the opposite.

I believe this case here is different. There is a range of reliable sources speaking of Jews in the German army during WWI and WWII, and in my opinion it's safe to say that the claim as to partly Jewish ancestry of one (particularly famous) German military man is not in any way absurd per se. So undue weight is in my opinion not as applicable here as it is in my hypothetical example. That's why and how I argue for the inclusion of this source.

To be clear about this: NPOV dictates that assertions of any one source must be made recognizable from the text of the article as claims that source made. One could never write "Pete Sampras was widely recognized as the greatest tennis player of all time", giving a source that says exactly this. You would still have to write s.th. like "Author X mentioned in publication Y that Pete Sampras was being widely [...]", and that's what we're going to do, unless someone can demonstrate that this view has been adopted as the normative paradigm within the academic society. But as it is, there seems to be no normative paradigm as to the ancestry of Richthofen, so undue weight is not applicable. In my opinion.

—KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 23:25, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes I see your point. The more I think about it the more I come to feel that since the claim is made there is no pressing reason not to include it in the article. The fact is we have two separate independent sources both making the same basic assertion. As long as by reading the article it is clear that this view has only been put forth by a small number of people then it is acceptable from what I can see. Of course if anyone disagrees then they can find sources to dispute and in doing so possibly prove this is a "fringe" belief, at which point it would have to be considered again whether to remove the section under "Undue Weight". But until that happens I see no real problem with including the references. I would hope that any mention of them states the fact that neither source backs up the claim with genealogical data, but since we are not judging the value of the sources, but rather the fact that they are making this claim, then it is most likely appropriate to include them. Colincbn 00:40, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly agree. Good idea also about the lack of genealogical data, that should be mentioned, as it doesn't amount to an OR/POV interpretation/judgement of the source. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 00:47, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

This is now getting ridiculous

As so often happens with Wikipedia, the essential subject matter rapidly becomes secondary as posters wish to score a succession of political or idealogical points over others. The above comments and discussion now has little to do with von Richtofen and the thread should be stopped; there are other places for such debate- certainly not here, gentlemen. Thank you Harryurz 21:39, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Two sources have been brought up concerning the contested mentioning of claims of Jewish ancestry of Richthofen. Do you mind if we use this article talk page to discuss a proposed addition to the article here? —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 23:09, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Kusma and Harryurz

You are right. We shall not allow to bunch of racists to hijack wiki. Kusma, thank you for your search. Racists will deny everything what is not fit them, they moved by hate, no facts. I do not know how Wiki works the adminstrationwise but information you have now in two books shall be entered to the wiki article. Can you please reach serious editors of wiki if there are some. Meanwhile, who was a politician who had Jewish grandmother? Was it Harmann von Richthoven? Can you please cite your source? There was another line of Richthovens you can see in the family website whose member married a lady with last name Mendelssohn, I guess she was related to the great composer. It looks that Richthovens were very liberal, at least in choice of their wives.User:Tracadero.25 March 2007 (What UTC stands for?)

Tracadero - UTC stands for Coordinated Universal Time, also known as Zulu time or Greenwich Mean Time (GMT). Also, if you're not aware, it's a good idea to sign your posts using four tildes (~~~~) - it'll save you some time, and you won't have to worry about UTC. :) --Mary quite contrary ^(hai?) 22:42, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Mary, where shall I look for insruction how to sign? Tracadero.

Tracadero - type in four tildes, like this: ~~~~ after your post and you won't have to write your name or anything. On English keyboards, the tilde is typically the upper character on the key above the Tab key/left of the 1 key (but this is not always the case). For more info, check out WP:SIG. Thanks! --Mary quite contrary ^(hai?) 23:32, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Archive?

In an effort to clear away some of the bad blood here and bring the multiple threads containing the same discussion to a single place, in addition to the fact that this page has become quite long. would it be acceptable to archive this page and continue with a clean one? Colincbn 10:59, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Good idea. If you do it, I suggest leaving the most recent three or four threads here (those with actual discussion in them) and moving the rest to an archive page. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 16:30, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Y Done :) —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 00:18, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I was not sure how to do it so I appreciate you taking the lead on this one. Colincbn 00:21, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Not 2 sources.

I already said, which some people have overlooked, the first source "The Hebrew Impact on Western Civilization" does not state that MvR was Jewish. I own said book, it names in that section many jews however obscure and even goes so far as to specifiy jewish parents in case of people who are half jewish. Yet, all it says for MvR is that "he would have been liquidated as non-aryan". Again, non-aryan could, especially for an Eastern German (Prussian) could mean part slavic, etc. Also, If you read the book, you would see this vagueness actually sticks for not specifically saying he was Jewish. Again, the book also blatently states in the first sentence that it is a "book of propaganda" (vii) and it is.

BTW, The other source given above appears really shady and strange as far as a source/quote for such a claim, don't you think? It sounds almost like more propaganda, but I would have to see it to be sure. From, The Jews of Germany: A Story of Sixteen Centuries." "Baron Manfred von Richthofen, the red eagle of the German aviators, when he fell bled Jewish blood from his veins.", again not even a bio and strange quotation for citing jewish ancestry at the very least. BTW, However, it actually would be the only actual claim of "Jewish blood" so far shown here.

So, at least this first "propaganda source" really can't even count as a source for Jewish ancestry. Not to mention, the myriad of other problems with such claim of undue weight, and with no ancestors name despite an extensive family tree and many bios.

P.S. This article still has not been cleaned up and is full of wrong information. It says MvR served under the Russian command of alexander the III. Alexander the III died when MvR was 2 years old! Where are the Admins?? kncyu38, etc, On vacation? JohnHistory 00:27, 27 March 2007 (UTC)JohnHistory

Not on vacation, just look above. As to your argument of "non-Aryan" wording: please do not deliberately misinterpret valid arguments. Regarding the inacurracies you are perceiving: Just go ahead. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 00:35, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

And please stop editing your comments, use the Preview button instead. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 00:38, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I indented it, which is what you advised earlier. Don't misinterpret my argument, nor accuse me of delibately misinterpeting anything. I do not have the time to respond to all of this nonsense with you kncyu38, please focus on task at hand and we can move forward together. Good bye. JohnHistory 00:42, 27 March 2007 (UTC)JohnHistory

Not on vacation clearly, yet nothing has been cleaned up? Can there be some kind of accountability here? JohnHistory 00:45, 27 March 2007 (UTC)JohnHistory

Accountability? —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 00:57, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Kncyu38/Kusma. How it happened that racists JohnHistory vandalized article about Jewish origin of MvR. Regarding his point of propaganda: propaganda is legitimate when it based on facts, but the racist know only the lie; for them facts do not exist, for them propaganda is a tool to mislead not a way to make people aware. So two publications in time of marked by rise and fall of NAZISM, make a point that if Nazis will follow their standards they have to eliminate even the most acclaimed German WWII hero because he had Jewish ancestors. Is it legitimate point? It would be stupid for respectable authors to claim Jewish origin of such well known person as the Red Baron. They would discredit their work. The fact was stated in two well know books which were published almost twenty years apart and nobody refuted it in other publications! There were many of JohnHistory in that time to tear authors of such claim apart. 8:39, 27 March 2007 User:Sonico255. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.74.114.239 (talk • contribs) 15:56, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

First off, please refrain from making personal attacks. Your point will be taken even more kindly without any finger-pointing. Secondly, I agree that the term propaganda has garnered a consistently pejorative connotation which isn't always faithful to its true meaning in different contexts (such as educational advertising). And yes, the dates of the sources mean that other authors could and probably would have replied to the claims of non-Aryan ancestry, and it's also a proper conclusion that a respected publisher like Ziff wouldn't lightly have made such a claim out of the blue. (Still, Richthofen was a WW"I" hero, if you want to call someone a "hero" whose primary skill it was to shoot other people.) —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 23:27, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

So, repare the article! MvR mixed ancestry was not an exception among German aristocracy. Here is a testimony of another aristocrat, Herwarth von Bittenfeld, who was the first German ambassador to the UK after the WWII (see an article about him in Wiki). In 1939, during the invasion of Poland he served in the elite First Cavalry Regiment where aristocrats traditionally filled officers ranks according to their family traditions. The all three platoon commanders of the Third Squadron, where he served, were of Jewish extraction. Von Herwarth himselves, Count Friedrich Solms and Baron Egbert von Schmidt-Pauli. Von Herwarth, Against Two Evils, p. 170. Of course, they were not Jews but old German nobility that intermarried with Germanized Jews. Sonico255. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.75.32.22 (talk • contribs) 03:04, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm on it. And, this goes to you and everybody else who doesn't know it yet: Please do not edit your own comments (not to mention those of anybody else) unless you posted them very recently, they haven't been answered yet and you feel you have to clarify something. There's a vast difference between the technical possibilities of editing and the code of conduct we are all to adhere to for the sake of linear, unambiguous communication: When I reply (among other things) to your mistakenly writing MvR was a "WWII" hero, and you alter your comment to "WWI" after I replied, my comment won't make any sense to someone who is reading the current version of the page (=following our exchange in a linear fashion). —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 12:38, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Contested paragraph reinstated. Please comment below.

I have reinstated an extended variant of the paragraph including both sources. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 13:50, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Pandora's Box Opened

Well you've opened pandora's box by adding "propaganda" as a source here. I have already shown the quote and page in the book (the first sentence) that states "This book, is a book of propaganda" (pg vii) There is no real difference between this sort of propaganda, from a Zionist/Jewish slant, and other propaganda such as the Mein Kampf, Klu Kulx Klan, NAZI's, Aryan whatever groups not to mention a host of other propaganda sources, when it comes down to scholarship. If you start using propaganda for historical figure claims, Wiki is doomed. Well, I and others have shown their views and sited policy to avoid this on many different levels, but Kncyu3 is determined despite saying he didn't care, and the fact that Colincbn's cited Jimbo policy of undue weight, and small minority. that kncyu38 said he agreed with earlier, that calls for it's deletion, hasn't changed at all in terms of its direct applicability in this case. Kncyu38 says there is no excepted paradigm for Richtofen, he obviously then hasn't looked at at the extensive Richtofen family tree with no jewish relatives identifiable on it. Nor then have you picked up any of his many biographies that all claim him to be a German Christian. Time will judge me and others right, and this article now trashed. BTW, it hasn't even been corrected in terms of the vandal who changed his service to a dead Russian Czar, etc. Well, I guess even propaganda is now acceptable to pass the undue weight and significant minority Wiki policy? I guess next you could add mein kampf as a source for the Jewish page? This is so ridiculous, it's allmost funny. Now, back to my life! JohnHistory 16:32, 28 March 2007 (UTC)JohnHistory

Look above for several good arguments why the term propaganda may be misleading. Any further changes, especially to the contested paragraph, will please be discussed here first. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 16:54, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Honestly, I think that despite all of this debate and rancor, the fact that only these two quotes could be found (both of which are in old books that are not even about MvR, one of which is vague and states itself to be propaganda), despite all of the Bios and shows on the Baron, says alot! If this doesn't fall under "undue weight, and small minority" nothing does! I think that is plain for everyone to see. BTW, I own this book. This book written soon after the holocaust is most definately propaganda, the fact that the first sentence in it says as much, makes a debate over it quite silly. The book definatelly does, after reading it, have an agenda and bias in making a German War hero like MvR "non-aryan". That suites its propaganda purpose perfectly. Again, propaganda without any evidence is just bad, bad, bad in terms of a source to change a major historical figures ethnicity. I agree with colincbn, at least a couple good sources such as Bios on MvR are what is needed to provide such data for inclusion. BTW, deleting my addition of saying that the source claims to be propaganda, and taking the quote out of the citation is misleading to readers. I do hope that is not your objective. Again, Jimbo says "it does not belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article)." If you want you could add it to an ancillary article, but otherwise, its a violation of Wiki Policy and just bad schoalrship in general for the many reasons I and others have already stated. JohnHistory 17:14, 28 March 2007 (UTC)JohnHistory

When making edits, while throwing out Wiki guidelines for undue weight and small minority, that include self-declared propaganda, please tell the reader as much in order to avoid being a propagandist yourself. JohnHistory 17:28, 28 March 2007 (UTC)JohnHistory

Wikipedia has a great article about propaganda. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 17:38, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

It contains, for example, one quote from Edward L. Bernays: "The only difference between ‘propaganda’ and ‘education,’ really, is in the point of view. The advocacy of what we believe in is education. The advocacy of what we don’t believe in is propaganda." The word "propaganda" (as pointed out above) didn't always have the largely pejorative connotations it has today. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 17:45, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Please Kncyu38 be civil, I fell that you are the one who is not listening, not me as you just said on my talk page. I address the arguments logically while you appear to miss most of them completely. You have missed all of my points, not to mention my opening paragraph to the earlier thread where I cite evidence from the book, along with others of this source being propaganda and saying it outright. The Wiki page on propaganda is not needed for me, because unlike you, I own said book in question. As it says, it "is a book of propaganda... meant for "pagans". I can only assume these pagans are westerners, and or more specifically Germans, and that it indeed means what it says when it says it is "propaganda" (vii). Thus, despite a whole family tree, a vague statement such as "non-aryan", which, mind you, is the only sentence in the book dealing with MvR, is made because that would upset the pagans, i.e. the Germans, and claim an influential war hero for the jews who are, right after the holocaust, in need of military heros and the propaganda (even in a good sense I suppose) to bolster themselves and Israel, after one war already, for the upcoming wars it would soon face after this book was published. Thus, this book clearly is "propaganda" (pg vii) and has a clear agenda, and thus a clear bias, as all innacurate propaganda does. I mean this is the lowest possible caliber pseudo-source for such a claim about MvR. I can't think of any other source that would have as much bias for such a claim as this one. Because of that no one has been able to produce any ancestor (you can read German, there's a whole family tree available, but no one could find said ancestor despite trying hard) yet alone even a single Bio corroborating it. Thus this claim has the highest degree of undue weight imaginable. But, that's OK, you can have responsibility for adding propaganda as a source to the MvR article without even so much as telling readers about it, and violating "Jimbo Wiki Guidelines" of "undue weight' and "extremely smal minority" claims, and going against the general consensus arrived at here earlier in the archive page to take it out by the majority people (including you) before the vandal struck and I left, but you have no excuse at this point to justify it. JohnHistory 18:37, 28 March 2007 (UTC)JohnHistory

Also, please do not try to own this article Kncyu38. JohnHistory 18:43, 28 March 2007 (UTC)JohnHistory

BTW, many Palestinian groups cite aryan nation groups who make claims of various U.S. government officials being jewish who are definately not jewish, such as George Tenet. By your logic, and the example you have set here for editors, those people, such as George Tenet, despite eveything to the contrary should have comments in their Wiki articles about their alleged jewish ancestry with links to propaganda sources that are extreme minoritys in their view. Afterall, that is exactly what you are doing here at the MvR article. At least said groups would actually stake a direct claim. JohnHistory 19:42, 28 March 2007 (UTC)JohnHistory

Kncyu38. Thank you for change, You made very good point. The authors said about part Jewish origin of MvR but do not provide genealogical information. JohnHistory made impression without a personal attack on him, of very confused person (if he is not a racist). He has no clue what he is speaking about and cannot differentiate between information that can be treated seriously and claims that obviously bogus. You ask me question why I call MvR a hero? From purely military point of view he was. Does he deserve admiration? Not. Does he deserve respect for his bravery, yes because the Germans of the WWI still were a civilized nation; he did not fight for some evil case. I am afraid to think what would happen with him if he would survive the war. Will he became a Nazi? The Nazis And there were enough Germans of some Jewish ancestry to serve the Nazis. It is enough to mention Field Marshals Milch, Mainstein, their equivalent in the Navy's rank Friedeburg. Would MvR be more noble man then they were? Would he do what another war hero Goring did? So, it was perhaps "good" that he was killed. User: Sonico. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 20:30, 28 March 2007 (talk • contribs) 68.74.68.102.

The previous unsigned comment is by the guy who vandalized this whole article, and violated all civil guidelines calling people names like "scum, dregg", and signing other people's names and editing over peoples posts, falsey slandering and making false accusations about me. This anon who is too afraid to even sign his name to what he writes. Congratulations Kncyu38, the vandal is definately your friend and of course, a friend of this propaganda for some reason? Why hasn't this vandal been blocked like you said or the article restored? 'Nuff said. JohnHistory 21:22, 28 March 2007 (UTC)JohnHistory

This anon vandal added, along with the propaganda about "non-aryan" what have you, a whole host of other false claims, such as MvR serving under Alexander the III, who like I mentioned earlier was dead when MvR turned 2 years old. Not to mention, Alexander the III was Russian, MvR was German of course. How can this have been ignored for so long? JohnHistory 21:27, 28 March 2007 (UTC)JohnHistory

The IP is not a vandal. The credit for mentioning the missing genealogical backup goes to Colincbn and for the Lowenthal source to Kusma. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 01:39, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

John, again, if you see something in the article that's clearly wrong and you have sources to back that up, just go ahead. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 01:43, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

And, while we're at it and I finally got my way, on a more personal note: You were right all along: We are all conspiring against you. Chris, Ryan, Kusma, Mary, Colin, the IP vandal and me. Our secret mission is to destroy Wikipedia articles on WWI flying aces. You got that right. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 01:52, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Propaganda Does not Satisfy Undue Weight nor Tiny Minority Jimbo Guidelines I never thought anyone was conspiring against me other then you, which you know you were Kncyu38. The reason was never the article, it was your desire to attack me. The fact is you have gone against the advice pf so many people here. You know what, I own the text. By adding propaganda, and going against the very small minority logic and guidelines you invalidate Wiki as a scholary entity. Congratulations, the article has been flushed down the toilet. I am going to at least try to clarify it and not let the readers get beguiled by propaganda that "some" try to pass off as though it was a legitimate source. Which is of course misleading. It must at least be stated in the article. JohnHistory 18:50, 1 April 2007 (UTC)JohnHistory

You haven't addressed any of the real issues here. You miss all of the points kncyu38. "BTW, many Palestinian groups cite aryan nation groups who make claims of various U.S. government officials being jewish who are definately not jewish, such as George Tenet. By your logic, and the example you have set here for editors, those people, such as George Tenet, despite eveything to the contrary should have comments in their Wiki articles about their alleged jewish ancestry with links to propaganda sources that are extreme minoritys in their view. Afterall, that is exactly what you are doing here at the MvR article. At least said groups would actually stake a direct claim"

Again, with the guidelines in place, and propaganda as the source (isn't it suspisicous that not one bio has been found to back this up? Despite all of the interest only these two Hebrew books, one of which is 100% verified propaganda (it says so itself) and the other sounds like propaganda "When he fell bled Jewish blood from his veins." neither of which are even about MvR, and both of which were written during difficult periods of German/Jewish relations in the latter case during the Nazi reign with jewish expulsions and persecution, and the former just a few years after the holocaust. I would think with all your new-found interest in this article kncyu38, you would be able to show the reasoning skills to see through such gunk. I guess not. Again, I refer you to Colinicbn's statement before you ignored it and reverted, where he states that for MvR at least 2 bios or equivalent should be found to corroboarate such a claim in order to have it follow policy for inclusion in the article, and not some other associated page. Why has not even 1 been found then? Where is this jewish person on the Richtofen family tree stretching back into the abyss of time? Kncyu38, you have let propagandists write the history for this Wikipedia article! You have ignored all basic sholarly practices, you have pursued a selficious feud against me here for personal reasons, and in doing so you have let this article be trashed and you have violated it yourself. You have seriously hurt the credibility of Wikipedia. I hope some day some one can clean up the foolish mess. y JohnHistory 19:11, 1 April 2007 (UTC)JohnHistory

again, a good source (one that isn't propaganda) would say something like the following fictious claim; "Adrianna schwartz, a jewish lady from Vienna, married Vernon von richtofen in 1877. They had 3 children together, Gunther was the oldest and grandfather of MvR." a bad source (probably propaganda) would say something like the following which is your only quote and thus only source for the claim of MvR being jewish; "When he fell bled Jewish blood from his veins." I think any serious person can see what I mean here. In addition, your other quote where Mvr is stated to be "non-aryan" (for that book, not blatantly saying he was jewish is a striking omition despite whatever you have implied from this), is pure progaganda, I have already proven that above, not to mention it claims to be propaganda in the first sentence and it fulfills this pledge thoughout the book.

Btw, I doubt many people have read these books, as they are curtailled as propaganda for a limited audience. Thus, it is unlikley that anyone whould specifically refute such claim. However, the omition of said claim in all MvR Bios is a dispute in its own right to such a claim, and thus the policy of a small minoirty, and undue weight was born in order to keep such tiny, unfounded (and propaganda) claims out of scholarily articles here. Jimbo would be rolling around in his bed right now if he could see your logic, or lack of it I should say! JohnHistory 19:27, 1 April 2007 (UTC)johnHistory

BTW, anyone who has monitored this article and or read the talk page know the amazing level of restraint I have shown Here when it comes to making edits. Despite reaching a consensus, despite the overwhelmingly reasonable approach, the sound logic provided, the fact that I bought this book and was able to bring light to it, as no one before even bothered to mention the first sentence in the book stating itself to be propaganda, and all of it's wild claims., despite being slandered and called scum , etc , etc despite all of this I have shown great restraint in editing. I only wish you kncuy38 could show one tenth of my discipline and consideration before making so many edits yourself. You have gone against consensus, you have gone against logic, you have side stepped the many reasonable issues brought up, and you even said that you don't care about this article, yet you go with the grain and tell me to "take it out" then you put it in again with no reason, then you edit again and again, you do whatever you feel like. You have failed to logcailly explain yourself, and you have contradicted yourself more times then I could write (you said earlier the undue weight was a good argument, then you totally changed your mind. Why? b/c one of the sources was shown to be outright propaganda (probably both of them are based on the latters quote) so now the undue weight and tiny minority principles don't count??? That makes zero sense. In fact, they those policies count x100 more now because of that!!! Please be more considerate of the issues here, and the violation of wiki guidelines, not to mention the pusing of obvious porpaganda, and masqerading it around like a legitimate source. What is the purpose of that? For you it is to continue your feud with me (remember you said don't even care about the article) , but in the process you are misleading innocent readers! JohnHistory 19:58, 1 April 2007 (UTC)JohnHistory

Third Opinion

Whether it might be true or not, it is still claimed that MvR is Jewish. I believe that this should still be included into the article, but have something saying that this needs to be taken with a grain of salt. There's something to be said about two historians claiming his Semitic ancestry. bibliomaniac15 20:38, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I would refer you to the archive Talk Page. The fact is that of these two people you mention as "Historians" (I will have check into that claim too. In fact, the fisrt book "Hebrew Influence..." was found by the other editor in the "Philosophical Section of New York Public Library), only one directly claims MvR had "Jewish blood". However, the source in this case, apparently found on google books, only quote that mentions any semitic connection with the Red Barron does so in this single quote "Baron Manfred von Richthofen, the red eagle of the German aviators, when he fell bled Jewish blood from his veins." I think this quote is really bad in terms of using it alone or its inclusion in terms of us trying to honestly follow Jimbo guidelines and just basic scholarship. It really doesn't sound respectable. Why not mention a jewish relative? , This "historian" making such a claim about a German national hero at such a charged time as the mid 1930's. Without getting into the whole archived discussion with you about the extensives Richtofen Family Tree that shows no Jewish relative, nor does a single out of many mvR Biographey which would truthfully, not only the best source for such a claim of ancestory of course, but also quite possibly the only respectable source for a major historical figure's ancestry. As others said, two bios, right or wrong, is really the minimum for including a claim like this one in this case. No matter how you fall on this propaganda, they clearly don't meet this criteria. Most importantly, as I said earlier, the first book, that I have reviewed personally, is a work of propaganda published shortly after the Holocaust (which agian is above and provide blatant proof and examples of this). The second one that I discussed above, was published during a very heated time in Germany for Jews, the mid 1930's, and was specifically titled "The Jews of Germany..." Both books have a clear, definate agenda in making MvR in the one case "Non-aryan" whatever that means specifically is impossible to say, people choose to imply, and in the other source's case, it implies, not through any clear focus on ancestory as would be needed, but instead on the quote provied that MvR bleed "jewish blood" when he died for Germany. Again, though I do not own the latter book (does anyone?) I would say making such a claim as that of MvR, a German national hero (who everyone shown to be related to is Christian), dying for Germany in WII was bleeding "Jewish blood" for Germany is again very possibly propaganda in its message with, like the first, no evidence what so ever in such a rich geological record. If you want, include it in a associated page as Jimbo Guidelines state, but unfortunately it doesn't qulaify to be in the main aritcle as such. Thanks, and have a good-day. JohnHistory 21:35, 4 April 2007 (UTC)JohnHistory

We can't be including propaganda as sources, and we can't be throwing out the Jimbo Guidelines! that all this boils down to folks! JohnHistory 21:35, 4 April 2007 (UTC)JohnHistory

bibliomaniac, does that mean you agree with the current wording? In my opinion, mentioning the fact that neither of the sources "yields genealogical data" is saying that this has to be taken with a "grain of salt". Or should we change it somehow? —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 09:49, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

JohnHistory makes an impression of a mentally ill obsessive person, Without being offensive I can conclude. By an accident I read about another famous German pilot of similar to MvR background. Ehrenfried Gunther Baron(Freiherrn) von Hunefeld (1892-29). Made first transatlantic northern flight. A Prussian noble "den Judenstammling." Siegmund Kaznelson, ed., Juden im deutschen kulturbereich, Berlin, 1959, So, MvR was in a good company of German nobility with some Jewish descent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.74.147.102 (talk • contribs)

I'm agreeing with Kncyu38's wording. We're not concluding that it's a fact, and we are not endorsing it, as the quality of the sources is questionable. Also, don't attack JohnHistory, 68.74.147.102. bibliomaniac15 20:27, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for specifying your 3rd opinion. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 20:09, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm honestly amazed at the level of name calling on wikipedia against me? It really helps focus the mind on who is really losing it. Being a scholar is a worthy task you know? The Hebrew book is a propaganda book, if you want quotes and page numbers (more of them that is) I'm happy, when I have the time this busy week to provide them. However, I have already documented this quite clearly at the above of the "pandora's box" thread, but believe me, there's alot more propaganda in it. It even goes so far as to say on page 284 of The Hebrew Impact on Western Civilization that (mind you, this is after the book calls me and most people I know( all christians and I suppose all non-jews as well "pagans" (pg vii) which I find offensive and many others would too just like racist propaganda by, say the KKK would offend many people) "the Polish underground, made aware of the impending struggle refused to help" in regards to the Jews of Poland notifiying the Polish Resistance and it refusing to help in the Warsaw Uprising http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warsaw_uprising. This is flat wrong, as any one can check and see. just another example of why you are including propaganda in the article. I could go on forever with worse stuff then that quote. JohnHistory 20:34, 10 April 2007 (UTC)JohnHistory

Undue wieght + propaganda does not = inclusion. However, if you do include it, it must at least be mentioned to the reader as to the dubiousness of the claim, as it is no way a "factoid" as was said earlier . It realy should be included on a seperate page or not at all, but if you think the above equation is wrong, take responsibility for it and at least tell the many clueless readers the truth in terms of what has been proven. JohnHistory 20:39, 10 April 2007 (UTC)JohnHistory

The above name calling anon also clearly has an agenda and I wouldn't be surprised by other article vandalization to be honest with all respectable editors. It would appear some people like this propaganda (maybe it makes them feel proud by the faked jewish ancestry? ) Afterall, that is why this propaganda was written in the first place, I have already debated with this bias. 3 people, 2 of which are anons(one a outright russian vandal) and one of wich left wiki who clearly support this notion for what appears to be personal politics. Then of course the seperate and personal feud with kncyu38 that i do hope is over. I do not htink he actually has a desire like the others for this propaganda, just more of the old principle "my enemys enemy is my friend" as Machavelli would say. However, "Hebrew Influence..."even claims that "it is intened for pagans" (pg vii) Now this propaganda has found new support on this internet article from a different faction of people expressing their own perverted personal politics in what sould be a History Article. That's my diagnosis for you before getting back to my real life as I have been doing. I mean, I came here originally to just read it and see what you had for it, and the first line the main text said he was Jewish based on propaganda Ziff quote. That how this got started. Someone else touched this all off before me, but I have held the torch, with support, since. JohnHistory 20:55, 10 April 2007 (UTC)JohnHistory

This article needs logical debate, as I and some other reasonable people have chosen to do through guidelines, logic and scholariship and we have concluded it for now unless some historian comes up with something. Kncyu and some anon have re added it after all this, so then at least say what it is and be honest. We do not need "contributions" of policy violating and name calling by mainly uneducated anons with "someone" "thanking" them for being insulting and ill-informed, jumping into the tail end of a long archived discussion without checking their facts, or even, as usual, owning the said source and simply spouting off his personal desires and attacks into what should be a clear fact based dicussion about policy and propaganda with interjections of scholarship. Lets have some basic scholarship here on WIkipedia, I'll lead the 07 charge a couple times a week. lol. JohnHistory 21:17, 10 April 2007 (UTC)JohnHistory

I am new to this discussion, and I am indifferent to whether MvR was Jewish or not, but I am not indifferent to spurious information on Wikipedia. And I say that if the two sources presented in this discussion (the "non-aryan" and the "Jewish blood") are the only available claiming his jewishness, that is very poor evidence, propaganda or not. It should not be mentioned in the article, unless more substantial evidence is found (like finding a Jewish ancestor), or the claims in the books have influenced a lot of people. However, I find the current wording well-balanced. Apus 08:44, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

It was well balanced when you wrote your comment. Since then, someone has taken the "balancing" of having such a source in the article (that is to say telling the reader as much) out, so the article is again thoroughly a propaganda piece in this regard. I think this is childish and like the above guy above said, with so many others too it needs to revert to its amended form, to let people know how dubious this is, with the books own words mind you, or if you want to follow the Jimbo Guidelines (do you not want to, if so why?) then taken out completely. Keeping it like it is now, is discredting the whole article and really an act of vandalism at this point of consciousness on this particular issue and the source involved. We've crossed this speed bump already. Take back the revert, or take it out altogether. JohnHistory 19:31, 14 April 2007 (UTC)JohnHistory

Fokker Dr.I

The caption below the picture of the fokker has a factual error. The fokker is considered a quadroplane not a triplane. There is actually one of the wing thingies between the wheels, meaning it has 4. Sorry if my spelling is off. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.114.215.161 (talk • contribs) 05:09, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Everything I could find (including the Wikipedia article) talks about the Fokker Dr.I as a triplane. It all depends on what has been written and published on a subject. If you can find a source that talks about the Dr.I as a quadroplane, I suggest inserting the fact that this has been mentioned into the Dr.I article. For the image legend in this article however, triplane is the correct nomenclature. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 20:38, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

The caption should say that is a replica of a Fokker DR1 - that's obviously a relatively new aircraft and certainly not DR1 425/17, which was torn apart by souvenier hunters. I don't read German, but clicking on the photo appears to bring up a caption that may describe it more accurately.

Revision

After a large-scaled revision the article is now founded with a mass of references. I also considered a new book from David Baker. Miller's Article about von Richthofen's death became kind of the standard work concerning his killing and can thus serve as universal source. I also freed the article from a couple of false statements, but as I'm not a native English-speaker someone should coread and correct the grammar and style. Best Regards, Andrew --130.243.203.46 10:56, 14 April 2007 (UTC) (not any more member :-))

Well done. —AldeBaer user:Kncyu38 13:48, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

in light of the lack of discipline...

I took it out altogether until a better source can be found then propaganda. I thought we could keep it in, with a good disclaimer if someone really wanted, but since they can't refrain from taking out the warning of propaganda and dubiousness for making the Baron Jewish in the article, then lets follow the book and make this cut, clear and dry. Guidelines say out, so that's what happens. Propaganda is just unacceptable, and no can logically show how this doesn't fall under "undue weight, and tiny minority" of the "jimbo Guidelines" additionally. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by JohnHistory (talk • contribs) 20:45, 14 April 2007 (UTC).

Request for Comment: Sources claiming Jewish ancestry

This is a dispute concerning the inclusion of two sources that respectively claim partly "non-Aryan"/Jewish heritage of Richthofen. 22:15, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Statements by editors previously involved in dispute

• Two reliable sources speak about "non-Aryan" and Jewish ancestry respectively. I believe that this is noteworthy enough to include mentioning the sources within the limits of WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE. A previous request for third opinion resulted in an agreement with the wording as in this diff. —AldeBaer user:Kncyu38 22:15, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

• No matter what you change your name too, you are abusing wiki principles kncyu38/AldeBaer and violating guidelines. by using this racist (calls me a pagan) "propaganda" (vii) in the article you have made yourself a biggot here for all to see. This unnacceptable as a source. If you continue your vandalization here you will be banned JohnHistory 14:21, 1 May 2007 (UTC)JohnHistory

Comments

• Comment - Given the date and place of the 1936 German book, and what little I see of the "style" of writing, I fear that it is not a reliable source at all but propaganda and Jew-baiting (see Joseph Goebbels#Goebbels and the Jews for the era in Germany). Even so, the "bled Jewish blood" tells us little as these Nazi folk likely held to the same bigoted POV as American racists relative to "Negro blood" - that any amount pollutes the "racial purity"; meaning that any Jewish ancestry makes "Jewish blood". I would not use the book as likely non-RS. As far as the article by Ziff, I cannot say more without knowing what it says. I imagine that it can be used as RS, or at least as "according to . . ." It is surprising that this claim of Jewish heritage cannot be better sourced. That, in itself, speaks volumes. --Justanother 15:21, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

What else JohnHistory wanted to share

I own one of the sources, and there is nothing "respectable" about it. I think it is not noteworthy enough to mention at all, yet alone, without telling people about its dubiousness. There is a family tree and many bio, including even an auto-biographey that mention nothing of this. These books provide no evidence, only one directly claims "jewish blood" in the context of it bleeding from him, not a jewish relative. The other source is propaganda at another volatile time, and is left people implying and more importantly states itself to be "propaganda" in the first sentence (vii) meant for "pagans" (vii) (which I find an offensive term for me as a christian), and it goes on to fulfill this statement throughout the books with many unfounded claims. BTW, this was all detailed on the archive talk page and above more extensively. There is no way anyone can call these respectable sources for a major historical figure's ethnicity, especially jewishness in light of the evidence. Surely some bio would corroborate any jewish relative with such an extensive family tree for the Richtofen family, yet not even a name is provided just that he was bleeding jewish blood for Germany when he died. Now, you don't have to be a history major to have doubts that, ~1936, that sounds a litle too much like propaganda too. These are really, really bad sources and even if they weren't they would still not qualify to remove the policy of tiny minority and undue weight of the Jimbo guidelines anyway when judged next to the huge amount of info and actual respectable sources (books on MvR or at least ones that name relatives) on this subject. JohnHistory 15:19, 15 April 2007 (UTC)JohnHistory

Also, this was decided on by many users over a week ago and the consensus on this page is in line with the logic to amend it or take it out. Then it was vandalized, and suddenly we have to go through this all over again? You can't include this propaganda and challenge undue weight and tiny minority Jimbo principles here and not everywhere else on Wiki. So that opens Pandora's box. You could easily find much better sources in this case if they existed. Problem is they don't, only 2 propaganda sentences in 2 entire books, both written shortly before or after the holocaust, make such claims. Then, of course, with no evidence and I might add, in off handed and strange contexts for such a ancestral claim such as the "bleeding" one and "liquidated" other sentence/source. I mean, come on guys this pretty darn plain to see for anyone who takes the time. Why not even one bio, or even his auto-bio? MvR was Chritian, not Jewish. Many of his Christian relatives are even listed in this article, and he has an extensive family tree online with all christians on it. No show, or book I have seen on him makes any mention of any jewish ancestry at all. JohnHistory 15:31, 15 April 2007 (UTC)JohnHistory

Google entry

The Google entry which links to this article states that Manfred von Richthofen was an ace fighter pilot of World War II - not World War I! People who look no further will be deceived. ˜˜˜˜ —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.31.144.110 (talk) 13:55, 30 April 2007 (UTC).

It's one of the inconvenient things we have to deal with: Google caches pages for a while and doesn't immediately update them for every change. —AldeBaer 16:12, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

malicious reverts to racist/prejudiced propaganda & the total violation of Jimbo Guidelines

No matter what you change your name to, you are abusing wiki principles kncyu38/AldeBaer and violating guidelines. by using this racist/prejudiced (it calls me a "pagan" on page vii for being a Christian and Westerner) self proclaimed "propaganda" (vii) in the article you have made yourself a biggot here for all to see. This unnacceptable as a source. If you continue your vandalization here you will be labeled a permanent prejudiced editor on Wikipedia. JohnHistory 14:22, 1 May 2007 (UTC)JohnHistory

You are officially making yourself a biggot AldeBaer/Kncyu38 through your perpetual support of this prejudiced "propaganda" (vii). The MVR page shows this quite clearly at this late point in the discussion and i will no longer stop from telling it to you straight up. The logical consensus here is to take it out. You have constantly supported and reverted the article to include racist/prejudiced self proclaimed "propaganda" (vii) sources (it labels me a "pagan" on page vii) instead of respectable ones like bios and you have refused to follow the discussion logic and your lack of understanding is quite clear for all to see. If you do not stop your vandalization and false claims supported only by a biggot or two (falls under tiny minority and undue weight Jimbo guidelines) you will be banned. You have completely violated the Jimbo Guidelines of Undue Weight and Tiny Minoirty princples in favor of this prejudiced propaganda. I ask you why? In the face of sound logic, you have repeatedly shown you are unable to set your emotions aside or abide by reason. Instead, you have pursued a selficious feud in spite of logic. You have failed at the modest task that was your charge. You have labeled yourself in invalid here for all to see and have destroyed any and all of the last rements of respectablity you may have once had. You cannot hide from your past by changing your name. JohnHistory 14:30, 1 May 2007 (UTC)JohnHistory

I have taken it out. JohnHistory 15:08, 1 May 2007 (UTC)JohnHistory

My recent deletion of "referenced" material

I have removed the following:

On Saturday 17 March 2007, Hornsby Shire Council recognised a former Brooklyn resident as the man who shot down World War I air ace, the ‘Red Baron’. Robert Buie, an Australian anti-aircraft gunner, is believed by many to have shot down German pilot Manfred von Richthofen (known as the Red Baron) from the Australian trenches.

The Red Baron had been flying dangerously low over Australian lines while pursuing a plane piloted by Canadian Lieutenant Wilfred May, giving Buie a clear target. Moments after Buie opened fire, the Red Baron nose-dived and crashed into a field in the vicinity of the Somme. Richthofen was found on board, killed by a bullet to the chest. Ground witnesses supported Buie, who died in 1964 and never received any decoration or official recognition.

Council celebrated Buie’s achievement at 10.00am on 17 March with a plaque unveiled by Hornsby Mayor Nick Berman and aerobatic display by a modern-day replica of the Red Baron aircraft. This was followed by a Community Fun Day with a jumping castle, face painting, community barbecue and stalls with information about council activities and events (see Mark Day reference).

In the first place a municipality (Hornsby Shire) is not an authority on military aviation history! And as the preceding passage makes clear, there is no longer any support among scholars for the theory that Buie brought down the Red Baron.

Second, most of the first and second paragraphs duplicates material which is already in the article and doesn't need explaining again.

Third, the third paragraph is too trivial to be included. Grant | Talk 02:14, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

All due respect but then, IMO, it should be shortened and rewritten; perhaps as

Not withstanding current scholarly opinions on who fired the fateful bullet, the Sydney, Australia vicinity Hornsby Shire Council recognised a former Brooklyn resident as the man who shot down World War I air ace, the ‘Red Baron’. Robert Buie, an Australian anti-aircraft gunner, is still believed by many to have shot down German pilot Manfred von Richthofen (known as the Red Baron) from the Australian trenches. Ground witnesses supported Buie, who died in 1964 and never received any decoration or official recognition. The council awarded Buie a plaque in an event marked by an aerobatic display by a modern-day replica of the Red Baron aircraft and a Community Fun Day.

No reason to throw out the baby with the bathwater. --Justanother 02:44, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, but that passage is still way too long. Grant | Talk 05:25, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Just a good two sentences should suffice. The council action and the fact he never received previous recognition are the relevant bits. --Justanother 11:56, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

FWIW, I also agree. Who wants to do the rewording? —AldeBaer 15:10, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I'll do it. --Justanother 02:37, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I like it, well done and thanks. —AldeBaer 11:46, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, thanks to all for showing how the process is supposed to work. A rare pleasure for me given where I usually edit (smile) --Justanother 13:02, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Contested material

“ In an essay entitled The Jew as Soldier, Strategist and Military Adviser, William B. Ziff hints at a partly non-Aryan ancestry of the Richthofen brothers. Prior to that, Marvin Lowenthal said in his 1936 publication, The Jews of Germany: A Story of Sixteen Centuries: "Baron Manfred von Richthofen, the red eagle of the German aviators, when he fell bled Jewish blood from his veins." Neither book, however, yields genealogical data. ”

References

• This is where I came in. The RfC above went against the inclusion of this material. --Justanother 19:28, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Did it? Isn't there supposed to be some kind of official comment? —AldeBaer 23:08, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
    • No, the original editors in the dispute just try to make sense out of what the 3rd parties said. Laff. --Justanother 00:08, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
      • Ok, so you're the only third party and I appreciate your comment. Still, I'm inclined to believe that simply mentioning the existence of those sources in the above fashion doesn't hurt the article as much as fervent POV. —AldeBaer 08:19, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
• Regarding the validity of your RfC comment: You seem to mistake the source for a book of Nazi propaganda, when it is at worst the very opposite. Lowenthal was Jewish, and he was out to tell that many German "holy cows" (=decorated war heroes) were not of entirely Aryan ancestry, and some were in fact Jewish. His work may qualify as propaganda, but it surely isn't Nazi propaganda. —AldeBaer 08:34, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

So now your just arguing what kind of propaganda it is Aldebaer? Arguing for arguments sake, I suppose? Running out of options, maybe? 71.192.101.77 15:39, 5 June 2007 (UTC)JohnHistory

Propaganda

The page is fine as is. Those two "sources" are obviously propaganda, and should not be included. Why don't you try writing to Peter Kilduff, the foremost expert on Richthofen, and he will give you the right answer. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.31.79.201 (talk • contribs) 04:18, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

JohnHistory, why don't you log in? —AldeBaer 21:18, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

The last times I wrote on this discussion here, weeks ago, I was signed in. That above poster is not me, just someone who is also logical and reasonable. Well I guess you lost your case for the inclusion of propaganda all on your own AldeBaer. Too bad! I hope this doesn't tarnish peoples perception of your logic, reasoning skills, and motives too much. I was right all along and completely vindicated in the end. JohnHistory 15:48, 5 June 2007 (UTC)JohnHistory

This all could have been avoided by you doing a little more listening, in this case, to me. Maybe next time just try seeing the basic logic in the situation and not getting so blinded by whatever made you make the bad decisions that you ultimately made, and refused to be reasonable about. JohnHistory 15:53, 5 June 2007 (UTC)JohnHistory

Propaganda in these cases is a very black and white situation. The answer: you just don't include it. Period! There is no reasonable answer for why you continued to push this bigoted, false propaganda for so long, and so consistently voting for its inculsion again and again, even going so far, originally, as to take out disclaimers stating that it was propaganda and not reliable. Why mislead the Wiki readers like this, AldeBaer? I honestly thinks it's downright disgraceful. these are majorr historical figures, what right do you have to rewrite their history's with biggoted propaganda? What drives that?

OK, well this is a dead issue anyway, just came here to give my last 2 cents on V-day. lol JohnHistory 16:05, 5 June 2007 (UTC)JohnHistory

source of shot that killed the Red Baron

I remove the section that stated "It is now considered most likely that von Richthofen was killed by an anti-aircraft (AA) machine gunner, probably Sergeant Cedric Popkin of the Australian 24th Machine Gun Company, based on the range from which the bullet was shot and the angle and velocity the bullet must have had."

I saw the documentary also. It is based solely on the 'trajectory' of the bullet. From the lower right back towards the front left chest. That documentary assumed the angle of impact must mean that it was fired from the ground. However, consider the situation. We are talking about a "dog-fight". The Foker Tri-plane was rolling, pitching, yawing, climbing, and diving. Imagine how much manuverability that a 3 wing airplane has!! So therefore, it is possible the pursuing plane could have fired from any angle. The fatal bullet passed clean through the Red Baron and of course could never be recovered. Therefore it is impossible to conduct ballisctics tests.

While recognizing that for "propoganda reason" Capt Brown was awarded credit for the "kill", of course realistically, we could never know who fired the fatal bullet that day=claffey-27

As far as all the propaganda below, I take no responsibility for what other people have added —Preceding unsigned comment added by Claffey27 (talk • contribs) 07:36, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Claffey27, as I have said to you elsewhere, please do not remove referenced material from good quality sources (e.g. a peer reviewed journal), and replace it with your own (unreferenced) opinion. Also, please sign and date your posts here ((~~~~)) and please put them at the bottom of talk pages. Grant | Talk 15:03, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I DID NOT STATE THAT BROWN FIRED THE FATAL SHOT! Please re-read my earlier comments. What I said was that it is unknown who fired the fatal shot. Since the bullet was never recovered, ballistics test can never be done and we will never know. What I removed was a false fact. Anyone from anysource who states they know "definately" who fired the fatal shot is expressing opinion. Even PBS has opinions! Since that section is opinion and non-verifiable fact, that section is being removed. If you have trouble understanding,please take a remedial English course. Of course I will add that I CATEGORICALY CONDEMN all the anti-semitic crap that is on this talk page as would any decent human being. Grant, don't ever talk to me in that tone of voice again!-claffey27 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Claffey27 (talk • contribs) July 16, 2007

I have not accused you of portraying Brown as firing the fatal shot. What I am pointing out is that Brown could not have done it because of the known sequence of events, according to expert medical opinion. In other words Richthofen would not have lived as long as he did had Brown hit him.

Please sign and date your posts here using ~~~~. Grant | Talk 03:04, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Medical 'opinion' is just more guesswork and fanciful speculation. Brown watched him go down and land gently, later said he thought the pilot survived or was just wounded. So called 'experts' assume a direct hit through the heart, giving maybe 20 to 30 sec of consciousness, but how was he able to gracefully land his plane and still be alive according to the first ground crew on the scene? Answer - the bullet grazed the heart or aeorta giving several minutes of consciouness like a ruptured aneurysm. What is most likely? The bullet was from a lucky shot or from a burst fired into the plane exactly as Cap't Brown said? "saw the pilot look back, saw the plane shudder" Occams razor is not in effect in Australia or Wikipedia, eh? Let's speculate some more, shall we? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.57.117.255 (talk • contribs) August 2, 2007

How are things in Windsor, Ontario?[1] I have relatives near there. You may think you uphold Occam, but you gave yourself away as a one-eyed Canadian patriot, rather than someone who adheres to the simplest explanation. Because it is only Canadians who credit Roy the boy with the kill these days. And none of the informed sources do. Grant | Talk 03:56, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Claffey - try reading a good modern source such as Norman Franks and Alan Bennett (1997): The Red Baron's Last Flight. Grub Street, London. ISBN 1904943330 - there should be a copy in your local library. This has the advantage from your point of view that there is no input from an Australian (or a German). It also critically evaluates (and demolishes) accounts supposed to have been written or dictated by Brown. It is in fact likely that Brown himself never believed he had shot down the Baron - but got an order to do so for propaganda purposes. Soundofmusicals 02:15, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Soundofmusicals,let me repeat this. I am not advocating in favor of Brown. I am not advocating against Brown. I am simply stating the facts. The fact is that we will never know. If someone or somesource says for certain they know that it was Brown, that is POV and should be removed. If someone or somesoure says for certain they know that it was not Brown, that is also POV and should also be removed. I am going to repeat my earlier statement "While recognizing that for "propoganda reason" Capt Brown was awarded credit for the "kill", of course realistically, we could never know who fired the fatal bullet that day"/ So yes, he was,for wartime propaganda reasons, awarded it. There is no way you could do a ballistic test to confirm. Bye the way, I am not in Ontario or London. The world wide web is ,as the name implies, is very vast.-gclaffey-27

On the contrary, reliable scholarly sources should never be removed from articles. That is a matter of WP policy and is an offence for which you can be blocked from editing. Grant | Talk 05:28, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Young man, I have been on vacation past few weeks. When you make "threats" about me being blocked from editing, does that mean you have run out of intellectual arguments? PBS has editorial opinions just like the New York Times or other new sources. POV should be discussed on this page and not the article page. I still maintain that there can never be any ballistics test done on the fatal shot. Therefore, we will never know and there is no sceintific way to prove otherwise.-gclaffey-27 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Claffey27 (talk • contribs) 01:49, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Please DO read something up-to-date on this topic - as I pointed out, it is something that has at last had quite a deal of respectable modern historical/scientific evidence brought to bear on it. The article as it is - which states clearly that is it ALMOST certain that Brown's guns did not inflict Richthofen's fatal wound - and that it is NOT known for sure exactly who shot him from the ground but that it is PROBABLY Popkin is QUITE indefinite enough - given the current body of evidence. It would be much more romantic if Brown actually did the deed, I agree, but actually this is so unlikely as to be pretty incontestable. BUT WE'LL NEVER KNOW (says you) - I suppose not, but I think whatever uncertainty remains already has ample, if not over-done cover. The bullet was recovered, for your information, it was lodged in his flying gear. It was already nearly spent when it hit him (making the wound more serious of course). This would indicate that it was fired from long range (just one more nail in the "Brown theory" and more evidence that Popkin did it). In 1918 ballistic science was NOT brought to bear on the bullet to confirm which machine gun it came from (I have no idea if they even did that sort of thing back then), but the evidence that there is is nonetheless pretty conclusive. All this information is quite easy to obtain nowadays - as I have said - read up on it before commenting further. Soundofmusicals 03:03, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

That is a substantial amount of un-referenced source material. If there are arguments then, those P.O.V. clearly belong here on the discussion page and not in the article itself. If you have proof of these allegations, then please present them! Otherwise, the dispute listed should really be on the discussion page instead of the article page.-gclaffey27 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Claffey27 (talk • contribs) 22:54, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

That is simply NOT true. This field is very well referenced indeed. The sources are publicly available. If you are not prepared to refer to them then you are not guilty of POV so much as plain wilful ignorance. The article is to repeat yet again, NOT a list of allegations, put of plain facts, clearly referenced, and with ample reference to fact that there are areas (as with other, much less trivial historical questions) about which it is impossible to be certain. Soundofmusicals 23:42, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

For someone who attempts condescension ("Young man"), Claffey27 is clearly unable to play nicely with other children. He/she insists on violating Wikipedia policy through non-NPOV edits and deleting sources from articles, cannot accept friendly advice regarding this, has been formally warned in relation to these matters several times and has deleted these warnings from his/her talk page. He/she may now be subject to a block without further warning. Grant | Talk 07:56, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

MY GOODNESS!!!!

You have made several accusations against me. I hardly know where to begin!

You have made repeated references that you don't know my sex. ("He/she") Let me say that in each and every English speaking Western democracy, sex discrimination is illegle!

Also,let me say that in each and every English speaking Western democracy, age discrimination is also illegle!

Also,let me say that in each and every English speaking Western democracy, discrimination on the basis of national origan is also illegle!

You have said that I am "unable to play nicely with other children. " Well now, I don't know how many years it has been since that I have last been accused of that! I am going to state the following facts.

FACT: I have NEVER thrown a blown up plastic ball into the face of Grant

FACT: I have NEVER thrown a plate of spaghetti into the face of Grant

I don't know where he gets off claiming that I don't play nicely with other children!

FACT: The only thing that I have done is to disagree with Grant's point of view on this article!

FACT: you have accused me of condescension on September 1st. Well , you have stated on August 10th that you were going to try to block me from editing . Here is a copy of your post from that date "and is an offence for which you can be blocked from editing"

Now, isn't that really a condescending comment young man?

Anyways, getting back to the article at hand, How many times do I have to repeat this! "I DID NOT STATE THAT BROWN FIRED THE FATAL SHOT! Please re-read my earlier comments"

IT IS ACTUALLY UNKNOWN WHO FIRED THE FATAL SHOT!

The Public Broadcast Corporation is a publicaly funded program of the Government of the United States of America!

If the Public Broadcast Corporation states in an editorial opinion that a certain individual fired the fatal shot, then that is an editorial opionon, it is POV and belongs on the discussion page and not the article page.

It does not matter what the source of the editorial opinions are. The Washington Post had editorial opinons that belong on the discussion page! The London Times had editorial opinons that belong on the discussion page! The Canada Globe and Mail has editorial opinions that belong on the discussion page! The Australian editorial had editorial opinons that belong on the discussion page!

The point that I have been making all along is that some items belong on the discussion page since they are P.O.V.!

P.S. you have accused me of following actions, you have statetd that I have

"has deleted these warnings from his/her talk page"

Uhm, why have you made edits to my personal talk page?!

P.S.2, why do you willingly tolerate all the anti-semitic crap on this page? I have never heard you complain about it. Other editors have, but not you.Claffey27 03:51, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Fokker: Dutch or not

From the page for Fokker Fokker was a Dutch aircraft manufacturer named after its founder, Anthony Fokker.. During WW I, the company was located in Germany, but the first Fokker planes were built in the Netherlands, the last Fokker planes were built in the Netherlands and the founder of the company was Dutch. So to avoid all confusion, i think it's best to use a country neutral statement, like the one i wrote. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.191.50.77 (talk) 21:46, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

The German Fokker company was indeed run by a Dutchman - the famous Fokker (although incidentally his chief designer was German). It was not a Dutch company however - Fokker set up his own (Dutch) company after the war, taking a number of German personnel with him. The products of the famous British firm Armstrong Whitworth were also designed by a Dutchman (Koolhoven) but no one is suggesting they be classified as "Dutch". In any case, this is POV nitpicking, albeit prompted, perhaps, by (justifiable) national pride. Soundofmusicals 03:13, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Birthplace?

Place of birth says Schweidnitz, Silesia, but the text says "Von Richthofen was born in Kleinburg, near Breslau, Silesia" and that he later moved to Schweidnitz. What is correct? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.177.81.202 (talk) 06:01, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Good read

One wouldn't guess as much based on the diatribes on this discussion page, but this is a very well done article and a good read. I'm surprised it got only a B ranking. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SirGrotius (talk • contribs) 16:26, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Kills

I was wandering... Did he make 80 kills, or 83? -The Bold Guy- 12:49, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

You are indeed "wandering" - and no wonder!

He was "credited" with 80. The Germans were very strict about crediting air victories (although they often credited victories to a single pilot that would have been "shared" in the much less formal system current in the RFC) - so it is perfectly possible that his real tally was even higher. BUT ... working over old victory claims at a distance of ninety years is unlikely to produce anything more certain than his sympathetic but careful superior officers managed at the time. Richthofen himself seems to have kept to his "official" score (until silver became prohibitively expensive he used to award himself a silver trophy for each one!) - so there is no need for us to try to boost it for him.

The article says just says "credited" - which is strictly true in any case. Leave it as it is please. Soundofmusicals 22:00, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Brain Damage Theory

This section has been expanded a couple of times with interesting information, but has in the process wandered a bit from the point. I am thinking of renaming it (perhaps "The puzzle of Richthoven's last combat") and rearranging the section (perhaps integrating it with the current "Death" and "Who fired the fatal shot?").

Any thoughts?? Soundofmusicals 07:37, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Who fired the fatal shot?

The following was placed in the main article:

My father (John Richardson)tells this from his father (David Tulip (sic) Richardson, who was in the Green Howards and A Co., Second Yorks: "When going for water, along the trenches, with two jerry cans slung across his shoulders, Davy came to a place where four roads met. An 'All red German airplane approached low' Dad recounted (in the family home, at 136 Cardigan Terrace, Newcastle upon Tyne)."

"I (unslung my jerry cans) and took a lazy shot, said Davy (with his 303 - Ed.). He left off straffing the trenches. He hunted and gunned me until 'I was fair fettled, and fell to the trench floor'. I remember my grandfather as a man of great probity, a Methodist lay preacher, and very straight. His story appears to be consistent with some of the above. Tony2y 20:25, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Because it is unsourced, even from a source considered reliable from the poster, I have moved it here. — Val42 21:44, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Rearranged rearrangement!

I have reverted SOME of the changes by the last editor - herewith rationale for this:

1. No need for “Royal Air Force” and “RAF” in the same sentence. At this stage the new service was VERY new (only a few weeks old) and “RAF” still meant “Royal Aircraft Factory” to most British airmen. In fact the members of 209 squadron would have all worn naval uniform – and in fact continued to do so for the rest of the war. All the squadron stationary would still have said No. 9 squadron RNAS! In this context I think the full form (“Royal Air Force”) would be much more suitable.

2. This page is frequently vandalised by people who either believe very strongly that Brown shot down Richthofen, or that he did not – and it is MOST important to get the punch right in that nobody REALLY knows – hence I have reinserted the paragraph break in the “who fired the fatal shot” section. Soundofmusicals (talk) 10:32, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough, Sound. I am glad that these are the only objections from an experienced and capable editor such as yourself :-) Grant | Talk 14:41, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Number of victories revisited

Copyedit: "The final paragraph in this section that goes: "It is also significant that while Richthofen's early victories and the establishment of his reputation coincided with a period of German air superiority, the majority of his successes were achieved against a numerically superior enemy, who were flying fighter aircraft that were on the whole better than his own" sounds like a primary school textbook material, this has to be backed up with some serious references in my opinion. O.W this paragraph should be removed to improve the quality of the article —Preceding unsigned comment added by Enisbayramoglu (talk • contribs) 20:56, 18 April 2009 (UTC) "

While I don't necessarily disagree with editor's sentiments or the reasoning behind the requested removal of the aforementioned statement; the passage was subsequently tagged with a citation request. The entire sentence was recently removed and reverted. Can a discussion arise first on this statement. Is it facutally based? Are there reference sources that can verify the statement? FWiW, the statement in various forms existed in the article for two years and originally had sources including: ref>M.V. Simkin, V.P. Roychowdhury. (2006). Theory of Aces: Fame by chance or merit? Journal of Mathematical Sociology, v.30, no. 1, pp 33 - 42, and this more comprehensive statement: Something that also lends credibility to this claim is the fact that over half of his victories were scored against planes such as the B.E.2C and the F.E.2C, which weren't made to be fighters, only observation or reconnaissance planes. from Cross and Cockade Journal, Vol 2 No. 2, p. 180 (Summer 1966). The article breaks down Richthofen's score by each plane type: 16 B.E.2C/2D, 13 F.E.2B/2D, 8 R.E.8, 8 Sopwith Camel, 5 Bristol Fighter, 6 Nieuport 17, 5 Spad 7, 3 B.E.12, 4 D.H. 2, 3 Sopwith 1.5 Strutter, 3 S.E.5A, 2 Sopwith Pup, 1 F.E. 8, 1 D.H. 5, 1 Martinsyde, 1 Armstrong-Whitworth FK8. Bzuk (talk) 01:29, 4 June 2009 (UTC).

I find the statement so overblown as to be essentially meaningless. However, if a reputable source can be cited, it could stay, so far as I am concerned.

For my analysis of the "garbage in garbage out" approach of the article cited directly above, scroll up to my 13 February 2009 entry under "Requesting third opinion".

In short, I disbelieve this particular article as a reliable source.

Georgejdorner (talk) 04:43, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Didn't realise this was being discussed when I removed the paragraph in question. However, the above few posts don't make it seem to me any more likely to be sourcable or less like the oversimplistic and misleading POV of whoever originally wrote it. Having been challenged, Wikipedia policy is quite clear that it needs to be removed unless it can be sourced, and the burden of evidence is on those wishing to keep it. Cheers, Miremare 18:58, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

If you read the statement and source above, a reasonably verifiable article lists all of Richthofen's victories by type which shows 35 of the victories were over observation or bombing aircraft, and while the listing does not specify the dates of the actions, it does provide a source. This topic seems to be one of interest and although a number of sources have been provided over the last two years, numerous editors have reverted or removed the reference sources, leaving the statement "hanging there." From the list, it is apparent that Richthofen did have success against more modern types and fighting scouts as well. The original author/editor claimed that he had scored "kills" against numerically and technologically superior aircraft, which is borne out by seeing the SPAD 7, SE.5A, Bristol Fighter and Sopwith Camel for a total of 21 in the victory column. FWiW. "I have no horse in this race." Bzuk (talk) 19:21, 4 June 2009 (UTC).

I see what you mean, but rather than assume which planes are superior to which other planes, and seeing as we don't know what he was flying when he downed most of these, we still need a source to state that he was "flying inferior machines". Also, I'm not entirely sure what the "outnumbered" bit is referring to - is it the numbers of aircraft in the average engagement, or strength of the opposing airforces in general? Miremare 20:58, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

If paragraph is tagged with "citation needed", why not leave it "hanging there" & give someone the possibility to come up with a verifiable source (not legend)? Frania W. (talk) 14:47, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Instead of playing the reverting game, why not change the sentence to something like:

***It is also significant that while Richthofen's early victories and the establishment of his reputation coincided with a period of German air superiority, the assertion (by some) that the majority of his successes were achieved against a numerically superior enemy, who were flying fighter aircraft that were on the whole better than his own, needs to be irrefutably verified.***

The paragraph could even be put as a footnote. Just a thought.

Frania W. (talk) 17:59, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid I am the "guilty" one who inserted the original paragraph! The intent of the paragraph is to counter the picture of Richoften as a hawk swatting butterflies. I should have "answered" the reference request earlier, but was never sure about exactly what it actually related to. I have added a reference to a complete itemised list of R's victories in a reputable souce (copies and versions of this list also exists elsewhere). We DO know exactly when, what and where each victory claimed was - and we also know more or less which fighter type R was flying when he shot down each one. Up to June 1917, when German air superiority can be said to have begun to fade, R was credited with 56 enemy aircraft - 24 of these during "Bloody April". He shot down another 24 during the period of general Allied superiority from (say) June 1917 to his death on the 21st of April 1918. Thus "the majority of his successes" is innaccurate and I will change it (in a moment) to "many of his successes". The great bulk of R's victories were of course scored using the famous Albatros "D" fighters - the D.II, D.III and D.V. It probably does NOT need a reference to confirm that while the Albatros types were superior to the Nieuport 17, the F.E.2b, DH.2, FE.8, DH.5, and Sopwith 1 1/2 strutter, and was also superior in at least some respects to the Sopwith Pup, Triplane, SPAD S.7, early Bristol F2a and SE.5 - it was seriously outclassed by the Sopwith Camel, Bristol F2b and the SE.5a. The Fokker triplane, which R flew exclusively from early 1918, was inferior in most respects to either main British Fighter, although it had the edge in some chacteristics. Overall, the Germans were badly outnumbered in the air - especially during 1918 - although one takes the point that this would not necessarily apply to every particular air fight. I DON'T think all this belongs in R's article, even as a footnote, although the paragraph could well need editing to make it clearer what we are talking about. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 23:20, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Linkspam

Long overdue link cleanup. Several Polish and German language links must be moved to wiki.de and wiki.pl, several of the links were inactive. A few of the links were removed because they were blatant commercial linkspam, links to online shops hawking everything from DVDs to other merchandise. The remaining links were nonspecific, i.e. they were generic pilot sites with little to no information on the Red Baron, and the links themselves weren't even to the specific sections mentioning him. A few links were MFA sites, Made For Adsense, and blatantly advertisement driven. Wikipedia is not a link repository, the links that are there are noncommercial and informational. 74.248.89.30 (talk) 01:13, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't see all of them as linkspam, but you have made your case sufficiently. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 01:25, 16 June 2009 (UTC).

Since this now appears to be a crusade, identify each link's problem, one by one, in the edit history rather than making massive deletions. Any large scale alterations of this nature should first be talked through on a talk page. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 11:22, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

User reported as non-communicative on talk page See report, now claiming reversion due to vandal attacks. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 21:07, 20 June 2009 (UTC).

Guynemer

The sentence about Guynemer's last flight DOES seem slightly suss. I have checked a few sources and Guynemer's fall seems to have been a bit of a mystery - which would preclude him being a good example of the "well-known ace falls to momentary carelessness" syndrome. On the other hand the original author of the paragraph may well have had an excellent source in mind - the "mystery" of Guynemer's death could well be Gallic hype for all I know!

Give people a reasonable opportunity to find a ref before deleting the sentence, however. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 03:33, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Agree...thank you for checking. I thought the IP made a good attempt at posting a citation request so I took the liberty of placing it for prudence's sake. I'd say 'fair' to pulling the sentence after 10-14 days.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 03:46, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I added a couple of references about the day Guynemer went missing. Unfortunately they don’t specifically mention "target fixation/CCS" nor the exact way he was killed. They do however cover the two-seater and the flight of Fokkers though. Also one of them covers the German claims about his death as well. All in all I think it’s still a bit mediocre as far as a link to target fixation and CCS, but I will keep looking for a more direct connection. Colincbn (talk) 06:45, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Bolko

After a bit of work on the question of Bolko von Richthofen it seems almost certain that there are two near contemporaries with this name - one is Manfred's little brother - the other a distant cousin of theirs. The two are naturally frequently confused. I have added a disambiguation page and moved the page on the cousin (more famous in his own right - although of no concern to us here whatsoever). --Soundofmusicals (talk) 06:10, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Illustrations

I have fiddled about with these to try to get a reasonably decent display - if they are now really hopeless in some screen definitions I suppose we will have to try again? --Soundofmusicals (talk) 19:54, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Unhistorical POV nonsense about Richthofen's death

Allowing recent edits would make this article (and Wikipedia) a laughing stock. PLEASE read any reputable source on the subject - there are quite a few in the references at the bottom. The only reason why anyone could suppose Richthofen was NOT shot down by groundfire is simply that somehow it is more "romantic" to suppose that he "met his match" in the air. By 1918 groundfire was in fact very dangerous indeed, and quite a high percentage of casualties among airmen on both sides was caused by it. By all means bring the question up here - but don't rush to edit this particular section without some kind of rationale, together with your actual evidence - because it will just get reverted on the spot. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 13:26, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Snoopy and the Red Baron

Should the fact Snoopy, has an obsession w/ the Red Baron, be mentioned in this article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.72.211.134 (talk) 02:25, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Good Faith edits by "SluggoOne"

These were evidently made in good faith - several were at worst harmless, and one or two probably an improvement. On the other hand most of them were at best unnecessary - and a few needed reverting, as they either deleted information or introduced ambiguities. If the changes were to be reintroduced in smaller batches we might be able to discuss them point by point. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 04:44, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I couldn't disagree with this more if I tried. What's key here is that I didn't remove one bit of highly consequential information, and the article is now more streamlined and readable. The WP:NOR-violating mentions of various other nations' flying aces aside, I was particularly galled at repeated references to Richthofen as "the Baron" or "the Red Baron;" had he been captured by Canada, Britain, Australia, or the US, he would've been executed as a war criminal and we'd have had another template to add to the bottom of the page. I've been ill at ease for a very long time at the admiration Richthofen has gained amongst people who he would've killed had they been fighters in WWI. Sure, he's no Hitler, but if he fought for Germany, his death could've have happened fast enough.

Gotta love the word "evidently" up there. Its use is blatant, textbook assumption of bad faith, and garbage like "one or two probably an improvement" violates WP:AGF even more, coming close to violating WP:NPA. You obviously didn't check my edit history. I understand, since such a process is devastatingly complicated and difficult, but had you, you would've learned that I am miles and miles from a bad faith actor. Please do not, under any circumstances, revert anything until you've gotten into detail about any of your concerns. (You know. Like I just did there, and like I did in my original edit summary, and like I did in my ensuing edit summary, etc. Substance is hard to come by, I know!) Şłџğģő 06:04, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Pardon me, SluggoOne:

"[...] had he been captured by Canada, Britain, Australia, or the US, he would've been executed as a war criminal [...]"

Are you sure? The following is more likely:

"[...] had he been captured by Canada, Britain, Australia, or the US, he would've have been made a prisoner of war [...]"

--Frania W. (talk) 14:02, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree with the majority here, the recent edits by SluggoOne are inconsequential and do not IMHO further the development of the article. FWiW, re: "I've been ill at ease for a very long time at the admiration Richthofen has gained amongst people who he would've killed had they been fighters in WWI"; is there a whiff of WP:NPOV in the edits? Bzuk (talk) 16:14, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Prolific??

"Prolific" is a word used to describe (for instance) a mother who has many children, or a composer who produces a great deal of music, an artist who paints many pictures, an author who publishes many books. In other words it implies creation and life - the exact opposite of he success of an air ace which is measured, after all, in destruction and death. So while I appreciate the good intentions of the editor who wanted us to say that Richthofen was the most "prolific" ace rather than the most "successful" I think this is really about the worst possible word. It may be possible to improve on the word "successful" - but I really don't think this word is especially "loaded".--Soundofmusicals (talk) 22:27, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. I don't think the term 'prolific' can really be applied here. 'Successful' means literally 'full of success'. If we count each of Manfred's confirmed victories as a success, he has 80 successes. What is not a success would be getting killed/shot down. I believe this happened two or three times. This still leaves us with at least 77 successes if we subtract non-successes from successes, so Manfred is still the most successful ace of WW1. Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 23:53, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

"Of all my accomplishments I may have achieved during the war, I am proudest of the fact that I never lost a wingman." - Erich 'Bubi' Hartmann

--Tdadamemd (talk) 03:41, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree that successful is not pejorative but an objective measure, merely the recounting of the success of being a fighter pilot with the most aerial victories. FWiW, changing a descriptive term when you have no consensus, as evidenced by the "string" above, is not conducive to the development of this article. Bzuk (talk) 04:32, 6 May 2010 (UTC).

As for that Bubi quote- that has nothing to do with objective "success", rather, it deals with subjective camaraderie. He is not saying "I am successful because I didn't die", he is saying "I care more about the fact that I didn't let my friends die than the number of victories/successes that I achieved". Thus, it really doesn't prove anything in regards to the nature of "success". Go find another quote, one that actually supports your position.Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 18:06, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Latest nonsense about confirmed air victories

PLEASE anyone who wants to have another go at messing around with the magic "80" of Richthofen's confirmed victories bring it up here first!!

It is true that British records indicate that at least 76 of the Baron's victories seem to coincide with British losses (the others may very well be French or Belgian - only the British kept loss records that are detailed and accurate enough for this sort of thing! - Strange but true!) This however is the work of later historians - the official British line was always that the Baron's score was inflated for propaganda purposes. To repeat - the Allies in general and the British in particular never "confirmed" anything - got it yet???

The "confirmed" bit is from Luftstreitkräfte records - and is there to distinguish the kills recognised by Richthofen's own superiors from his other "unconfirmed" victories that failed their (quite stringent) criteria. Any other figure is essentially guesswork - it may well be fun, but it doesn't belong in an encyclopedia.

This is the lead paragraph - Richthofen's actual "confirmed" score is what belongs here. Questions raised by his score are in fact discussed in adequate detail further down. Please read down to the end before you go changing a very well researched and referenced article on the strength of the first website on the subject that you can find!!

As someone else has remarked - there is a great deal of nonsense published about Richthofen - we try very hard here to avoid this rubbish where we can. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 23:48, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Talk about missing the point. I have experience of flying ace articles. Just because the German air service credited him with 80 does not mean they were "confirmed". It is the most inappropriate word to use in any flying ace article. It is always "claimed" or "credited with". As it blatantly obvious there is no consensus on this aspect, one side should not be presented over the other. Dapi89 (talk) 00:18, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

And personal opinions about sources by annons off the internet are useless and worthless. Fanboy nonsense. Dapi89 (talk) 00:19, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Lastly, It is absurd to attribute the notion of "confirmation" to the side making the claim. Its the most flawed concept ever known. Dapi89 (talk) 00:21, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Since all you can do is repeat and revert, I can't do very much except repeat myself - the victories WERE "confirmed" by Luftstreitkräfte records!! - it is important to note this to distinuish them from "claimed". Of course this does not mean that the claims were 100% accurate - but then in this sense we haven't a "confirmed victory total for anyone, have we? In the the interests of reconciliation and getting on to more important things we'll omit the word, but the other stuff you added to the lead is unnecessary here as (to once more repeat myself) covered further down the article. There is no "British" or "Allied" confirmations of anything. (A third repeat - will you read what I am actually saying please, to avoid having to repeat myself again!!)--Soundofmusicals (talk) 00:38, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me, I think I've done more than that. The reply above is a riddle of contraditions right ontop of each other. It seems you're trying to defend the indefensible. The point is that the German military were in no position to confirm anything. They can only accept the claim. So you are wrong to say the victories WERE "confirmed" by Luftstreitkräfte records. Fortunately, you contradict yourself to the correct view Of course this does not mean that the claims were 100% accurate. This is telling because it completely defeats the idea that there can be "confirmed kills". And you are absolutely right, but then in this sense we haven't a "confirmed victory total for anyone, have we. This is the sad truth of aerial warfare, particularly when dealing with large total claims. Dapi89 (talk) 00:54, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Talk about the "fog of war"! Mark Sublette (talk) 15:05, 9 May 2010 (UTC)Mark SubletteMark Sublette (talk) 15:05, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Removal of "confirmed"

Given the very latest edit, I'm satisfied. Dapi89 (talk) 00:30, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

So I should hope! But semantic quibblety-poo remains a silly waste of time! --Soundofmusicals (talk) 22:34, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

"However"

There may well be a rule in somebody's style book that you don't begin a sentence with a conjunction like "and", "but", or "however". Circumstances alter cases, however. Cutting all leading conjunctions from a passage of perfectly good prose can seldom be accomplished without distorting its meaning - or at least making that meaning less clear. I'm certainly not going to get into a revert war over this but read the whole paragraph! The last "removed however" is not only appropriate but its absence doesn't ring TRUE, somehow - what the text is trying to make clear is that he wasn't an exceptional pilot HOWEVER he was a superb shot. Somehow "He wasn't a great pilot; he was a good shot", while technically it carries the same meaning just looks strange - I mean why mention these two things together? - oh yes, they were contradictory aspects of the the abilities that made him a top ace. Stick a "however" or "but" in there and its just that little bit clearer though, isn't it? --Soundofmusicals (talk) 04:43, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I understand what you are saying here, but where the original "however" was placed in the sentence, it seemed to imply his marksmanship contrasting with his tactical and leader, not that his leadership, tactical, and marksmanship skills stand in contrast to the fact that he was not a spectacular pilot. However, I have retooled the sentence and added 'however' at the beginning to give the section the proper flow and improve clarity. I think this should be desirable for all parties involved. Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 08:09, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Spot on!! I actually thought the "however" was in its logical place (where you have put it) before we got into this - certainly that's where it belongs. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 22:05, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Mannock's score

I think there isn't any discussion about Mannock's number of victories shown in this article. I haven't got informed about this special case but i don't think it's correct to show a number here and link to an article (list of aces) where we can find another number. I understand this kind of subjects are hard to make clear, tho...just wanted to note it. --Mezod (talk) 21:24, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Mannock's score is a special case. Read the section about his score in his article for details. Richthofen is probably the only other ace who has had his score so rigorously "researched" - without there being any definitive answer. I think it would be best to simply to take "officially credited" score - to be consistent with other aces (most of them really) in the same situation. In any case, I agree that its untidy, at best, to seem to endorse more than one of his supposed "scores" in different articles. Feel free to "tidy this up" yourself if you like! --Soundofmusicals (talk) 22:22, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Ghost writer?

I think, on re-reading Burrows at least, that this borders on OR, in that it is an attempt to summarise quite a bit of existing evidence of at least one "other hand" in Der rote Kampfflieger. The original translator into English (J. Ellis Barker) characterised it as "the writings of a gentleman got up by a journalistic hack". Several other commentators since have noticed passages that seem to be interpolated purely for propaganda purposes, or that express opinions we know (from his letters for instance) R did not have. There are other parts that reveal quite plainly that they were NOT by R. - since they reveal a layman's lack of knowledge of flying and/or an unrealistically romantic idea of battle. Given that we want a fairly succinct summary rather than a full review of the evidence I think that ditching our hypothetical ghostwriter and simply stating that work was heavily censored and edited (as agreed by all references to little book that I can locate) will have to do. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 08:14, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

It WOULD be lovely to know what the "Intelligence and Press" (i.e. propaganda) department of the Luftstreitkräfte, who got R to write the book in the first place, actually did with his original manuscript, so that the (very widespread) "speculation" of how and to what degree they changed his original text could have a firmer basis. I suspect our original ghostwriter might not be too far off the mark, but... --Soundofmusicals (talk) 08:33, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Right, I agree. I just think we should produce a source for our (not unfounded) speculations.Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 18:52, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Read the relevant page of Burrows if you can get hold of it (my page numbers are from the "Mayflower" paperback edition - you may need to use the index to locate the exact passage). He presents a good deal of evidence that actually supports the ghostwriter bit - but is very cautious about firm conclusions. I suspect this is in part at least because he relies on Der rote Kampfflieger as his main primary source - being too open about criticising the book would cut the ground from under his own feet a little! (Cynical old man, aren't I). There ARE other biographies of R - perhaps more widely researched - that might for all I know present a firmer conclusion. All the same, I am happy enough with the text as it stands - the idea that we do not have Richthofen's original text IS essentially speculation, albeit very well founded speculation, no matter how many other writers feel the same way. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 01:31, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

It's what we can document, not what we suspect... Mark Sublette (talk) 01:35, 12 June 2010 (UTC)Mark SubletteMark Sublette (talk) 01:35, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Expanded lead??

I think the lead, although it IS a bit curt, is probably about right - If we are going to expand it then we need to be pretty selective, rather than giving a complete summary of every point covered in this (quite long and detailed) article. Could anyone disagreeing raise their arguments here and let's get consensus before we go saying the same thing twice (or three times) over. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 00:56, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Per WP:LEDE, "The lead serves both as an introduction to the article and as a summary of the important aspects of the subject of the article.

The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any notable controversies. The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources, and the notability of the article's subject should usually be established in the first sentence."

So yes, things should be brought up in the lede and then later in the article, in greater detail. The lede I came up with covers all the important parts of the article I saw in summary style, I think its length is proportional to that of the article. --Cúchullain ^t/c 01:04, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Great you've come here - there is no such word as "lede" it is an introduction or "Lead" please. My point is not that the current intro isn't a little short - just that we don't need quite so much matter as you want to insert. Perhaps the points in your expanded lead - at least the really important ones - could get a mention, without going into the ins and outs so much? At this stage we probably need to get a few other opinions. Sorry if I'm getting grumpy about this - I am listening. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 01:14, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Just to prove it - how's the current version - adding the essential points from your expanded lead? --Soundofmusicals (talk) 01:32, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

First, I must point out that "lede" is a perfectly acceptable spelling, and it is quite common around Wikipedia ;). Second, your version looks mostly fine to me. It's a bit brisker than I would have done, considering the length of the article, but that's not a big deal. I made a few slight changes to your version - I condensed the text into paragraphs and made one or two style edits - but most significantly I added the "Red Baron" nickname into the introductory sentence. That's far and away how he is best known (literally millions of Google hits, for what that is worth), so it ought to be mentioned right up front. I didn't remove anything about his aristocratic background, however. I would also like to see the "Flying Circus" in the intro, since it's so prominent in the article (and indeed, in most sources about him that I've seen). Otherwise it's looking good, we'll get there yet.--Cúchullain ^t/c 02:22, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Hey sounder, "lede" is legitimate. It is a derivative and colloquialism but is a part and parcel of the editing world. It appears to have stemmed from earlier times when type setters and editorial staff used shorthand such as this, and the origin is a bit cloudy, but it is still in use today. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 02:29, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

OK have it your own way - "lede" or "lead" - I think there are larger issues here. Personally I think this intro (note avoidance of both) is still a bit on the "windy" side - but an improvement on the mini-article it was, anyway. I have adjusted the text a little - of course his becoming a national hero followed his warlike feats - the text as it was almost implied the reverse! I STILL think the "Red Baron" nickname and the fact that he was an aristocrat go much better together - hwoever you look at it they are linked, even part of the same thought. Insisting that alternative names MUST go in the first sentence rather than the second seems a bit silly - especially when it produces a quasi non-sequitur like this. What do you think about THAT one, oh noble Bazooka!! I reckon where it was is quite "up front" enough - especially in bold type. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 04:05, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

It's usual practice here, per the manual of style, that when someone has a pseudonym, nickname, etc. by which they are very well known, it is included in the introductory sentence. This is the case for everyone from rappers to wrestlers to revolutionaries, and even countries like the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. It's not a non-sequitur to give the other name along with their real name; in this case, Richthofen is simply much more familiar to modern readers as the "Red Baron" than by his own name, so it ought to be as up front as possible. At any rate he wasn't known as "the Red Baron" because he was a member of "an aristocratic family with many famous relatives"; he was called that at best because he was a Freiherr and flew in red planes.--Cúchullain ^t/c 13:00, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

S, personally, I liked the earlier edit of the lede better, but c'est la vie. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 13:19, 16 July 2010 (UTC).

He was a Freiherr ("baron" - although just "lord" is a better translation really) because of his membership of his aristocratic family - the two things go very much together, to put it mildly. He was called a "baron" because that's what he was. And you get to be a baron (or the holder of any hereditary title or designation) because of who your family are, that's how it works. So to say "he wasn't known as "the Red Baron" because he was a member of "an aristocratic family" is the very plainest of nonsense, isn't it?

I fully agree about the nickname being better known than the real one in this case. In fact many people probably recognise "The Red Baron" as having been a German fighter pilot who have never heard the name Richthofen at all. I have no problems whatever with being "upfront" with the nickname. But if you're going to cite the MOS, read (rede?) what it actually says - it doesn't say "in the same sentence" or even "as closely as possible", but simply "closely following". I think in this case, since the very next thing we mention is his family, that it follows plenty close enough. This is a detail, of course, but I think one worth getting right. If the only arguments you can muster are as poor as this you don't have much of a case. What grates for me is having to mention "The Red Baron" twice so close together that we call it "his famous nickname" the second time round. This is awkward prose, and inferior to how it was in the first place. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 13:41, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I have to grudgingly admit that Soundingboard is quite accurate in his analysis of the change as nothing I have seen so far indicates a significant improvement on the original text, neither from the standpoint of scholarly research nor writing style. J'est mon vue, n'est pas... FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:14, 16 July 2010 (UTC).

I'm coming at this purely from a style perspective. As with the examples I gave, in any GA or FA, the first paragraph contains all the defining information about a subject; it "needs to unambiguously define the topic for the reader..." As such, where a subject is known (overwhelmingly in this case) by another name it needs to be in the first paragraph; it is generally (ie, preferably) in the introductory sentence itself or else the next one, but in the least always in the first paragraph. Personally, I don't see the need to explain where the name came from in the lead, as we have a whole section on it. It's not properly explained anyway. The "Baron" part of the nickname is from the Freiherr title, which is often translated as "baron", and the "Red" part is from him painting his planes fancifully, which isn't even mentioned.

I might suggest removing "Red Baron" from the first sentence and adding another sentence to the first paragraph saying something like "On account of his aristocratic background and his use of distinctively painted aircraft, he was known as the Red Baron." The source is Peter Kilduff's Red Baron, p. 6.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:41, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Remember not to use "plane" in your submissions as the term is considered a colloquialism derived from "aeroplane" or its American cousin, "airplane." Neither term is currently in use in Wikipedia Aviation Group articles and is deprecated whenever possible. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:52, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Understood. I assumed "aircraft" was preferred. Looks like Sound has made the change; I'll go ahead and add the bit about the painted flying machines and we can move on.--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:08, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

(Going back to first indent!!)

How's the latest version - just moving the sentence up into the previous paragraph? Personally I feel this is no improvement over the original, as it was if anything more prominent (and of course "followed just as closely" as the first sentence of the second paragraph. Alternatively, I considered putting it in as the second sentence - but this breaks up the strong link (the First World War) between the current first two sentences. Quibbling about which sentence the Red Baron name should be mentioned in - and then switching to paragraph strikes me as pretty meaningless. The point of the MOS is that a well known alias like this needs to be in a prominent position near the top. Counting words, sentences or paragraphs in order to define prominence is all very well if it doesn't interfere with prose style. As for the "red" bit - this is very amply covered in the very first section of main article - if it can only be included into the lead as infelicitously as you suggest I really think it can wait until then. Mention of the family, however, DOES belong in the lead - as it is not inconceivable (if rather unlikely) that someone could come to this article as a result of looking for another famous Richthofen - the link to his family is therefore potentially at least very useful indeed. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 15:17, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I think that "distinctively painted aircraft" is vague, uninformative and pretentious. Apart from this, as I said in my last post, I think that the "red" bit doesn't need (nede?) to be here in the same way that the aristocratic bit does. I also think that moving the sentence out of the first paragraph, and either putting it back into the second, or making it the second paragraph in its own right - would actually fulfil the spirit of the MOS suggestion better, by making it MORE prominent (and just as close). None the less, while I am quite enjoying the experience of the Buskin actually agreeing with me I have had enough of this for tonight and will retire to rest (it's half past one in the morning where I am) and leave it to others to resolve this weighty matter. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 15:33, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't think either the red bit or the baron bit need to be in the intreaux (take that!), but if we're going to explain part of the name (or feebly try to, by vaguely referring to his "aristocratic family") we might as well do the whole thing while we're at it. It also doesn't need to be in the first paragraph, in the exact same sense that the article doesn't need to ever become a GA.

At any rate there are other matters to get to. The intro is still lacking in some important material. As I said, the "Flying Circus" should be mentioned, since it gets an entire section in the body of the text. Additionally, the sentence on his death is so vague that it's fair well useless. We are told that there is debate about his death, but at this stage we hear none of it until the section itself. We should at least be told that it's generally agreed he was shot down by Australian ground forces, especially since the discussion of his death takes up probably a good quarter of the article.--Cúchullain ^t/c 16:03, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Lets have a look at a real GA - the one on the Baha'i Faith. Since this an article about a religion, there is a fair bit about God in it, but the only mention of Him in the "first bit" is that Baha'i is a monotheistic religion. A good, "GA-like" intro is succinct, and everything in it is necessary (needs to there) to fulfil the role of the "lead" (as the MOS quaintly calls it). This role (to paraphrase the MOS a bit) is primarily to identify the subject and define the general scope of the article. The fact that the Red Baron's family is famous quite apart from the career of its most famous member NEEDS to be in the lead, to provide a measure of disambiguation (i.e. to assist in defining the subject). Someone who has been lead to this article by the name "Richthofen" may well be interested in this person, but not necessarily so - some reference to the other Richthofens is called for. The Red Baron's nickname (i.e. the Red Baron) NEEDS to be there also, because (to understate the case a little) it is very well known, and in fact some users may not even be sure they have found the right person until they see it. The two things are in fact both there for the same reason (namely, to identify the subject - the primary aim of the introduction). There are also extremely intimately related, in fact he is called a Baron very specifically because of his membership of the Richthofen family. Hence it is clear, succinct and in every way appropriate to put these two things into the one sentence. The "red" bit is relatively very trivial, and distracts us from the point of the sentence. It adds nothing whatever but completeness, and the lead is by definition NOT necessarily complete (otherwise no need for an article to follow!) It (the "red" bit) can very well wait for the first of the specific sections, which immediately follows, and treats the subject in some detail. That's how it used to be, and frankly I think this made a good deal more sense. More "GA-like" in fact.

The reason why the subject of the controversy about R's death is treated at such length in the main article is that it is pretty intricate - there are quite a few imponderables. A brief summary is liable to be (as your initial attempt probably was) simplistic (i.e. too simple to be accurate). A simple reference to the fact that the controversy exists is in this case preferable - anything very much more we say at this stage will need to be explained before it is either understandable, creditable, or clear - and any such explanation will not only make the lead drag on for far more than "four paragraphs" (and four very diffuse, long winded paragraphs at that) - but will end up usurping the function of the relevant section in the main article.

I am not averse to the addition about the "Flying Circus" being the nickname of Jagdgeschwader 1 - although this is of pretty marginal interest forthe lead it does round out our brief summary of R's military career. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 00:55, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

If you think the previous 3-sentence lead was "more-GA" like, you're kidding yourself. I linked above to two "real GAs" on people who are known by nicknames or pseudonyms, Dr. Dre and Che Guevara. El Lissitzky, El Greco, and The Notorious B.I.G. are "real FAs" with the same issue. And how do they all handle it? Why, they deal with the nicknames right in the introductory paragraph, which include an article's essential identifying information, including the names by which the reader will recognize them. Also, in each case this is followed by 1-3 further paragraphs which incorporate all the important parts of the article. That's what needs to happen here.

I can't for the life of me see why you think it is absolutely necessary to mention his family in the lede, especially if it's buried in a piped link as it previously was: "...an aristocratic family with [[Richthofen|many famous members]]". Elizabeth II's family with many famous members is quite a bit more famous, and yet her article survives without it in the lede. And again, I don't see why it's imperitive that the "aristocratic family" bit and the nickname go in the same sentence, especially as the previous wording implied that his being an aristocrat somehow explains why he was called "Red Baron". In reality it wasn't just because he was part of an aristocratic family; he was specifically a Freidherr, which is often translated as "Baron".

Perhaps the solution is just to make the text less opaque and link directly to the article, or to a more intuitive link (as I've tried to do). Maybe something along the lines of, "Scion of a prominent aristocratic family, Richthofen bore the title of Freidherr..."

The current treatment of his death is inadequate. We mention vaguely that there is discussion but don't even suggest what that discussion might be. This is just pointless waffling. We should at least say what there is discussion about (ie, that it's debated who shot him, and how he got into that situation to begin with). For example "There has been much discussion and debate concerning who fired the fatal shot, and how the characteristically cautious Richthofen became involved in such a dangerous situation." I also think it ought to be mentioned that it's now generally believed he was killed by ground fire, since this easily verifiable (AFAICT)--Cúchullain ^t/c 04:00, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't think we are going to get any closer to agreement here - you have done nothing but repeat your argument over and over, and I suspect from your point of view it could look as if I am doing the same. Anyway, personally I think the current lead - while I am more than ready to concede it is better in most respects than the original before your first edit (almost the first thing I said was to acknowledge that the original was a little sketchy) - is quite long enough. It meets the requirements of the MOS reasonably neatly, being succinct and factual without attempting to fully summarise the unsummarisable (if that's not a word it should be). It certainly doesn't present all the facts - but then if that were possible the article as a whole would not have needed to grow bigger than a stub! I suppose on reflection that leaving in the "red" bit here - even though we repeat it a few lines into the very first section, is (while a bit redundant) no really big deal. The Buzzsaw's editing of your original prose here has made this grate less, anyway. I would be very disappointed if the lead said any more about the very difficult "Richthofen controversies" (there are several - of which "who killed him" is only one) beyond mentioning that they exist. I have already tried very hard to explain why this is - but even a bare statement that R was killed by groundfire (ALMOST certainly the case, of course) is just too simplistic to stand on its own without very much less explanation than we include in the specific section. The article is long enough without boiling our cabbages twice on this (and several other) questions. The bare mention that controversies exist is useful in itself to alert people new to the subject to this fact - and confirm to people who are familiar with the controversies (and may very well have strong personal opinions about them) that they are discussed further down the page. Trying to do more at this stage really wouldn't work. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 07:29, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Once more unto the breach dear friends once more! I've fiddled with that infamous lead one last time! I think putting the "famous family" link separate up the top is probably an improvement - especially as this enables us to stick the nickname even closer to the real name. (It gets rid of the repetitous matter about the colour of the Richthofen a/c too - actually they were all "red" in only the broadest sense - the one he was killed in was more a purple or maroon colour anyway!!). I've tweaked the prose here and there - and reintroduced a couple of para breaks - feel they do make it read a little easier, anyway. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 08:36, 17 July 2010 (UTC)