This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Nonsensical

Hi. I'm not about to go and post edits since there's a vitriolic flamewar happening here, but this article is pretty abysmal. It is full of contradictions in dates and involved parties. I haven't even got quarter way through the article but so far:

"the Stuka first flew in 1935 and made its combat début in 1936"
Then lower down:
"and produced the Ju A 48 which underwent testing on 29 September 1939.[1]"
What are the correct dates? Obviously the latter cannot be because the aircraft was in service for the Spanish Civil War.

Another example:
"The Ju 87s principal designer, Hermann Pohlmann, held the opinion [ ....] Pohlmann continued to carry on developing the ideas of Karl Plauth(Plauth was killed in a flying accident in November 1927)"
So, was Pohlmann the initial designer, or did he expand on the work of the initial designer???

I am unable to develop an idea of the chronology of development as it is written.

More time spent fixing, less time spent arguing on the talk pages, perhaps? -Martin 220.253.165.90 (talk) 16:46, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

The only point you have is the mistake with regard to the date. As is says, Pohlmann was is considered the principal designer, although other members of the team, like Plauth, contributed to the early development. The article is not that bad actually, and is in the process of expansion. Things don't get done over night you know. Instead of insulting the efort of other editors, if you think you can better their input, why don't you try contributing to the article itself? Instead of using words like "abysmal". Dapi89 (talk) 00:49, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

bombers vs fighers

Speaking of nonsense. There is still a lot in the article like: "the Ju 87 was vulnerable to modern fighter aircraft; ... caused the Stuka to require heavy protection from German fighters. ...on all fronts the Ju 87 once again became easy targets for enemy fighter aircraft". True, but nonsense. The Ju87 was a bomber and what WW2-bomber could effectively defend itself from fighters? A few could fly so fast and high that they could hardly be caught, but not even a B-17 could stand up to fighter attacks on its own and that plane wasn´t called a fortress for nothing. Perhabs we could tell the readers that other single engine bombers were just as vulnerable.Markus Becker02 (talk) 17:52, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

"True but nonsense".....another example of "Markusian" confusion?

Was the B-17 withdrawn from any theatre permanently because of losses? No. Was any other German/Allied combat aircraft withdrawn from any particular theatre on that basis? No. As has been explained before on this page just because this aircraft was not meant to be a fighter, or withstand fighter attack doesn't mean it was not vulnerable, or that this should not be mentioned. It is a well documented fact. Try reading the operational history.

As for other bombers, you actually have a point Markus. So what's stopping you adding that information to those articles? I notice that the disastrous raids over Schweinfurt have already been mentioned and linked on the B-17 page (and I helped), and the same with the Fairey Battle, Blackburn Skua and IL-2 articles, to name a few. All make it explicitly clear that these types of aircraft suffered heavy losses. So what's the problem in having it here? Dapi89 (talk) 21:39, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't want to disturb a nice heated discussion but I do want to mention what the veteran Ju 87 gunner spoke of when I took the picture (see article on wreckage at the Luftwaffemuseum) and maybe this relates to the rather poor self-defense characteristic of the Ju 87. When I joined his presentation he spoke of the tremendous blind spot behind the aircraft (I don't know if the blind spot was especially large on the Ju 87 or if his assessment was based on experience with respect to other aircrafts). But this blind spot combined with the fact that he didn't want shoot at his own tail plane (yes that was possible) forced the pilot to alter direction frequently. I had the impression that this maneuver was similar on what I read on British bomber do and what the German night fighters called a "cork screw" maneuver. Anyway, this constant change of direction made his aiming very difficult and hitting an enemy fighter rather impossible. Again, this is his first hand experience and what he spoke about at the museum. MisterBee1966 (talk) 22:10, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

The simple truth is that any unescorted bomber can not stand up to fighter attacks. As a result the bomber is either withdrawn or get´s a fighter escort or in case of the RAF´s bomber command seeks the protection of darkness. Small single engine planes like the Ju87, SBD, TBD, TBF and so on are most vulnerable, B-26 and Beaufighters are next and eventually even the mighty B-17 was not send on missions into Germany without a fighter escort any more. So saying that this or that bomber was vulnerable to fighter attacks is superfluous. And by the way, the TBD was withdrawn from combat after Midway. Markus Becker02 (talk) 23:08, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

That is not the point or the issue. This failure is mentioned on a good few of those pages, and the ones that are lacking should have this put in as well. I refer to my earlier comments. Dapi89 (talk) 07:56, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I´d like to propose the following. We change Although sturdy, accurate, and very effective, the Ju 87 was vulnerable to modern fighter aircraft, like its peers the Fairey Battle and the Blackburn Skua to Although sturdy, accurate, and very effective, the Ju 87 was vulnerable to modern fighter aircraft, like any other single engine bomber. Or is anybody knowing a WW2 single engine bomber that could duke it out with fighters? Markus Becker02 (talk) 18:55, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

The IL2 scored a few aerial victories, and was well armoured and difficult to shoot down.... unlike the three above. Dapi89 (talk) 19:00, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

The IL-2 was indeed tougher, but she still suffered -or would have later in the war- heavy casualties when operating without a fighter escort. The german version of wikipedia, the article about Erich Hartmann and the interview with the Il-2 pilot strongly indicate this. Markus Becker02 (talk) 19:28, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

True. I am now starting to agree, although not for the same reasons. I think the refs to the Battle and Skua are perhaps too specific for an intro. I would modify your version to: like many other single engine strike aircraft. Dapi89 (talk) 19:37, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

"Many other" is better, still it raises the question what other single engine bombers were capable of defending themselfs from fighters. And I´d prefer "bombers" over "strike aircraft". What´s a strike aircraft? According to Wikipedia´s definition anything from a Hs123 to a FW190 can be one. Best leave fighters turned fighter bombers out. Markus Becker02 (talk) 01:44, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Another good point, although if one wanted to be pedantic about such things, it could be argued that the Typhoon, 190, Spit, 109 and P-51/47 etc etc were also vulnerable when carrying out low level attacks - in 1944/45 P-51 Mustangs suffered badly to fierce heavy fire that protected airfields. Perhaps settling for "other dive-bombers", which are usually single engined, would be best. Dapi89 (talk) 13:25, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

We got a misunderstanding here. I was refering to vulnerability to attacks by fighters, not AA-fire. Anyway, "other dive-bombers" sounds ok. Markus Becker02 (talk) 14:26, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Trivia

As a newly registered editor to Wikipedia, I am very surprised to being subjected to an aggressive edit war. I have been contributing a lot without feeling any necessity to register, since no one has ever just deleted my contributions before.

Ever since the early 70's when I became a WW2 aviation buff and was fascinated with this plane in particular, I have noticed the massive tendency to emphasize the dramatic effect of diving planes on film by adding the sound of an attacking Ju-87 Stuka.

This illustrates the massive impact this plane has had, since it has influenced our whole perception (true or not) of what an excessive descent/imminent crash of an airplane sounds like.

As a new editor I do not want restructure too much. Therefore I have added the following where the sirene and its effect is described and can be embedded consistent in the line of argumentation.

", not to mention the sound of the sirene became the movie icon for practically any diving aircraft on film, including a helicopter in the opening sequence of 007: For Your Eyes Only."

A number of Wikipedia users/editors who apparently feel some kind of ownership or right to bully others to accept their conform ideas of what is relevant and what is not for this article, have repeatedly deleted this part, even though it is clearly stated that you should (according to the five pillars of Wikipedia) not get into edit wars and (quote) "Act in good faith, never disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point, and assume good faith on the part of others. Be open and welcoming"

It may be a personal thing to feel that it insults one’s intelligence is insulted to be subjected to such a naive effect, that is also the full extent applicability of the concept ‘personal’ here.

I want to apolologize for being the first one who blows the wizzle on this naive Hollywood phenomena and therefore is unable to substantiate the relevance with links to other internet pages. But that does not mean that the argument of lack of documentation applies here, since anyone can verify it. I have named the most significant example I can remember and it is only to minutes and twenty seconds from the start. And James Bond films are very significant and uses this effect massively, applies it both to helicopters(?) and jets (closing sequence of “Goldfinger”).

If you some reason think that this contribution unbalances the structure of the article, please do not just deleted it!!.

Add a trivia section (most articles has one) and move it there. You do not own this article. Others may feel as enthusiastic about this plane as you do and they may have different ideas about what is relevant about this plane than you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by HenrikHansenDK1631 (talk • contribs) 16:11, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

You are right I do not own the article and neither do you. As the person adding the material to the article the burden of proof is on you to prove that the material you are adding is true. Your suggestion to remove it from the section you are adding it to and create a trivia section is incompatible with the trivia guidelines. You say it is unprovable with a reliable source so it does not belong. A new name 2008 (talk) 16:22, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Also as I was reading through your explanation again I noticed another item to draw your attention to. It appears that this original research on your part and if it is original research it does not belong in the article. A new name 2008 (talk) 16:44, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

To the new editor; 1) The "information" is appallingly inapropriate to the lead of a serious article. 2) It is uncited 3) It is a tiny obscure fact, if indeed that it was it is 4) the language is not appropriate for an encyclopedia anyway. Dapi89 (talk) 14:34, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

To Dapi89

I am appalled with the position you are taken

1) The information is reliable and provable with a minimum of efford. I concider the informtion provided to me by my own ears and eyes very reliable.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GfzZKneaFS4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iH0yd30HZEk

2) In my opinion the information is both within the scope of relevance and seriosness as I understand it, since it has elaboreted my understanding of the plane's influence, how obscure you may think it is. And for the latter part, I am very capable of (as I trust other Wikipedia users are) of deciding myself.

I suggest creation if a "Ju-87 in popular culture section" and have the information moved there, and urge you to act in a more contructive manor. That the information is tiny is not an argument in your favour, and your whole line of arguing (actually an exaggeration since you don't) contracdicts the principles you refer to and what I concider Wikipedia to be.

I am a big fan of Wikipedia, but now I have serios doubts about the validity of the articles, if someone like you can supress information I consider both relevant and reliable. The information is definately within the scope of Wikipedia, and if not in this article, where then?

I do not feel safe if you are to act as judge. Leave the information on or move it to a section where it does not disturb your concept of serioussnes!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by WW2HistoryBuff (talk • contribs) 14:37, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Your answer appears to be that this information is original research and should be accepted. Original research is never appropriate for wikipedia. A new name 2008 (talk) 14:53, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I think the concept 'research' is big word for a five minutes search on Youtube. It has been claimed above that the information is not provable by a reliable source. I tried to validate this claim, and it was unable to do so. I must agree with HenrikHansenDK1631: Apparently somebody feel a strong ownership of this article, since SOME rules apparently applies sometimes and sometimes not. Apparently you are watching this page on 24/7 basis, so maybe that person is you, and you cling on to what you can. The whole information was valuable to me, since I have been wondering about the same thing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WW2HistoryBuff (talk • contribs) 15:30, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

To begin with, I am not an anonymous editor any more than you are. Yes this article is on my watch list and changes show up on the list when I update it. I do not own the article, all I have ever asked for is a reliable source that verifies the information provided. The two editors that are inserting the information both indicate that the information is easily verifiable by listening to a movie but neither one has been able to provide any reliable source that confirms the information. Listening to a movie is not verification that the sound we hear is from a Ju 87, that is original research. Both have also suggested moving the information into a new section of its own (Popular culture). In my opinion that is a trivia section which is discouraged. So in summary:

The material is unsourced
The material appears to be original research (as evidenced by original authors statement)
The option for moving to own section is not in compliance with guidelines

If there are any reliable sources to verify the information given it might be appropriate to put the information somewhere in the article. That would depend on what the source was and what it says. I have searched on the internet for any source to back up this information and have not found any. A new name 2008 (talk) 15:58, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Hey, hey!!

Thank you both of you. For support and for naming me a researcher. Modesty however forbids me to accept such credit. However I did small scan in my 007 movie collection, and came up with the following:

Goldfinger: Learjet crash in ending

You only live twice: Cessna descent with 007 tied up in backseat

You only live twice: Helicopter chase over volcano

Octopussy: Opening sequence, Hangar fly-through in Microjet chased by missile

The living daylight: Hercules C130 crash

The living daylight: Sea plane attacking boat

Licence to Kill: Closing sequence with Cessna and tanker (very little)

Goldeneye: intro sequence, just before the credit sequence

The World is not enough: Paraglider chase in mountains (?!!!!)

Since validity is such a big concern for you, does it not bother you to see the general characteristics for the Ju-87 extended to practically any plane? Ok, I have not seen it with paper planes, but I gather it is only a matter of time. And by the way: Three quaters of Wikipedia information would have to be discarded, if these principles you refer to, was enforced the way you do. You make them work the against the spirit in which they were created, since you apparently concider yourself the supreme owner of this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by HenrikHansenDK1631 (talk • contribs) 16:00, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I sincerly doubt that you would accept any source as reliable ;-) When your concider the weather in order to decide what to wear outdoor does you not trust your own sence or would you leave your raincoat at home in rainy weather because the weather broadcasting services has reported sunny wather all day?

Be constructive and help me!! The evidence is massive!! At the end of the day this informaton will be in this article, since I am sick and tired of this hilarious move effect. And the only way to stop it is to inform about it. Showing that it would not go on unnoticed. How would you approach this task? I concider having a professor at Havard/Yale/Princeton to do a piece on it is little overkill to what your refer to as 'tiny'.

Make suggestion we can both accept.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by HenrikHansenDK1631 (talk • contribs) 16:16, 2 January 2009

Youtube it not a reliable source. You need a reliable and published source. This trivia is not appropriate to a lead anyway. There isn't any other way we can tell you this. You are continuing to put this in without regard for what we are trying to tell you. It appears that you have more than one account and are now adding as an Ip. This is a form of Sockpuppetting and is not acceptable. You have been warned that continuing to add "information" that is erroneous and unverifiable will result in you being reverted and eventually blocked. This is a serious article, please refrain from adding rubbish, its making a mockery of it. Dapi89 (talk) 18:49, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

To begin with WP:assume good faith, I have stated if you provide a reliable source for the information we can work the information into the article. Second, as I have stated multiple times now, I do not own the article, I am only removing information that has no source for it and has been said to be by the original editor to be original research. I have looked on the internet for sources and could not find anything to support the information, now if you want the information in the article the burden of proof is on you to show that the information you want to add is verifiable with reliable sources. If you can not show that, then the information does not belong. I am not saying the information is not true, just that unless you can show that it is verifiable it does not belong. A new name 2008 (talk) 21:01, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it is that much of an issue, but I agree it should be not included in the lead section of the article. The suggestion to create a 'in popular culture' section does seem reasonable though, as the Jericho sirens are indeed used as sound effect in countless movies (normal diving in planes do not make such sound). One of the most famous example I can think of is the opening scenes/scores of Pink Floyd's 'The Wall'. Kurfürst (talk) 21:40, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Regarding your Pink Floyd argument: This is (for once) an example of valid use of the Jericho Sirene since according to the movie (true or not) Roger Water's father was killed by a bomb from an attacking Ju-87 Stuka http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TrXxyvaF728 (rather long video clip, skip the first 8 min and 30 seconds). I am not sure I understand your line of arguing?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by HenrikHansenDK1631 (talk • contribs) 15:04, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Here is the real problem!!: I can just as easily assume the role of a watch guard of Wikipedia principles as you can. Just as I can say, that your line of arguing is not serious (which I happen to think) since your are using an anonymous account to accuse me of mockery, which you in my opinion are doing to me. Especially since others are concidering my contributions within the scope of serouisness, and consequently you are are not serious. Since you apparently ARE convinced of the validity of my claim I concider the burden of proof lifted and you are obviously NOT in good faith. You are using WP principles for reliability against their intentions and acts as a de-facto owner. The main thing is whether or not the information is verifiable, and it is since my claim apparently has been verified to you.

You have not been able to substantiate the claim that a simple observation is reseach, and therefore I do not accept it.

Regarding your accuse of Sockpuppetting: We are several people in a college sharing the same outgoing IP address, and the diffence between me and WW2HistoryBuff can be established by voice confirmation (even our genders are diffent), so I must recent that. Especially since Dapi89, New User 2008 and perhaps Kurfürst are obviously the same judging from the above text :-)

So I hope you can understand why it is hard (not to say impossible) to submit to your definition of seriousness.

BR Henrik Hansen —Preceding unsigned comment added by HenrikHansenDK1631 (talk • contribs) 15:48, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Well allow me to retort; your last comment is extremely ironic. You have not read the links given to you about sources and information verifiability, you are new to wikipedia, and yet you profess to know what is proper and what is not. I think I can speak for most wikipedians when I say your position is farcical and feeble to say the least. Kurfursts suggestion of a popular culture section is a good one, but this still needs to be verifiable by a good source. It seems you are no longer interested in logical debate, and I have now reported the disruptive behaviour to the appropriate authority. You will not be allowed to make a mockery of a serious article. Dapi89 (talk) 18:12, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Page protection

The powers that be have decided it is a matter of trolling. The page has now been protected. New users and Ips will not be able to edit. Dapi89 (talk) 20:53, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not "a power that be" - I am a volunteer with an ability to stop an edit war. One of the arguments not yet raised is WP:Weight; what our friends are saying may be true and verifiable by third party sources - but it is an unimportant aspect of the notability of the subject (it may be argued that the sound is used because the Stuka is a notable icon, but not the other way round). However, having a variety of accounts exist simply to edit war over one non-consensual line in the introduction points more to trolling than academic concerns, IMO. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:33, 4 January 2009 (UTC)