Talk:Blohm & Voss BV 238

Conflicting accounts of the destruction of the aircraft
With reference to the edits immediately preceding, and including, revision 483226770, I'm not quite clear why Wikimapia is treated as less reliable than Wikipedia itself. Both are crowd-sourced sites which by their very nature are effectively peer-reviewed. Even if this type of peer-review does not meet the strict (?) requirements of scientific journals it does seem to be widely accepted and a reliable filter of information. After all Wikipedia contains many unreferenced facts and figures (we do our best to provide references, especially good references, but who in this day and age can say what is a 'good' reference).

The text in Wikipedia about the destruction of the aircraft by American planes was itself unreferenced, and a quick internet search suggests it was no more reliable a 'fact' that those presented on Wikimapia. Indeed the following link suggests that in this case the Wikimapia 'facts' are more reliable than the Wikipedia 'fact': The Blohm & Voss BV 238 from The Great Planes and warbirds Community

I accept the state of the article in revision revision 483226770, but would argue for the reinstatement of the 2 Wikimapia references, on the basis that it is better to know where a claim was sourced, than to be left in the dark, as was the case for the American destruction claim.

In this way future editors will be better equipped to refine the veracity of the various claims presented, and make conflicts explicit where they exist. In such cases the conflict itself represents the current state of the 'truth'. In such cases the truth is that there is no 'truth'. When this is the case it is important that it be presented explicitly and transparently.

PS. I will add the warbirdsforum link as a reference. I hope it is acceptable. This link itself cites, as a source of information about the fate of the BV 238, the magazine: "Luftfahrt History" magazine no. 1. This can be found at: Blohm & Voss Bv 238 - "Der Stolz von Seedorf" - 1944 das größte Flugboot - it is in German and must be purchased to be read. Although I have not read it I will add it as an external link for future reference.

The adding of these 2 references has now created a new revision revision 483366837 into which, I believe, the Wikimapia reference(s) should be reinstated.

Cricobr (talk) 14:12, 22 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Wikimapia does not cite its sources, nor is it policy on editorial oversight clear. I suggest that the onus is on you to prove that it is a reliable source. You can raise the issue at Reliable sources/Noticeboard for third opinion. Forums are also generally not accepted as reliable sources. Can be useful in a lead to follow up with a RS, but are not RS of themselves. I can also ask at the Wikipedia aircraft project and Military History project for some help in expanding and referencing the article. GraemeLeggett (talk) 16:54, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

GraemeLeggett, I'm not going to pursue this issue. I have done what I believe should be done, which is to provide the best possible information I have found, suitably referenced so that subsequent editors will be stimulated to provide better information and references where possible. This, for me is the idea of Wikipedia: that we arrive slowly and perhaps erratically at the best possible information and references that can be found. If conflicting versions appear, it is most likely that the 'truth' is not well recorded anywhere and that various versions of that 'truth' really exist. I believe Wikipedia should record such conflicts transparently, rather than pretend that they do not exist. In this case the Americans probably believe absolutely in their version of the truth, the Germans in theirs, and the British in theirs. I agree that Wikimapia is less well 'regulated' than Wikipedia, but I edit on both, and the quality of my edits aims to be the same. I trust others are doing likewise. Where I find errors on both I attempt to fix them. And I do find errors on both!

Cricobr (talk) 12:36, 23 March 2012 (UTC)


 * It is most likely that the US intel officer was correct in his assessment of the aircraft being a BV 222. But then again it may have been the British aircraft that sank a BV 222.
 * (Previous unsigned statement by User:Petebutt 11:27, 13 May 2012)
 * I've added "ref improve section" template. Currently the section mentions four "sources", but no refs for any of them.
 * According to American sources
 * According to the British
 * German sources –based in part on the testimony of nearby inhabitants and Blohm & Voss employees
 * the BBC in 1974 Ssscienccce (talk) 19:54, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Pierre Clostermann involved?
I don't have a copy to reference, but I'm pretty sure that Pierre Clostermann's The Big Show claims that he was involved in the attack on the BV 238. I don't recall him claiming to have shot it, only to have been there, although the implication of more is left to the reader. Does anyone have a copy handy to check this? Maury Markowitz (talk) 00:24, 26 November 2013 (UTC)