Talk:Der Stern von Afrika

Recent edit
Please note that this material diff is self-cited to a primary source; that's why I removed it. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:12, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Anti-Nazi?
The section that I was directed to (Hans-Joachim_Marseille) does not contain material that leads me to conclude that Marseille was "rabidly anti-Nazi". In fact, the way the plot of the movie is rendered there seems to contradict what's in this article. According to the movie article, Marseille went to Italy to receive a decoration; he was not hiding there until "the Gestapo tracked him down" and pressured him to return to North Africa. According to this page, he returned out of his own volition and despite the protestations of Brigitte. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:34, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Your source is not expert or reliable and it runs contrary to everything that is known about Marseille and the information given on his article is sufficient. But I can add to it.
 * So far as this this 'source' is concerned; it is quite clear he knows very little about the man even to a basic degree. Marseille visited Rome in August 1942 to receive an Italian award from Mussolini. Thereafter, he disappeared with an Italian girl upon his return. The Gestapo authorised a search for him (this is in the article). Dapi89 (talk) 23:11, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Rabidly anti-Nazi
As I stated on the main page, the sources that the Marseille article is built on are of questionable reliability; pls see: Talk:Hans-Joachim_Marseille.

I disagree with the removal of cited information:
 * "reverted bull shit. A media 'historian' isn't qualified to comment. It is a firm fact, was Marseille rabidly anti-Nazi."
 * "no expert and bull shit."
 * "its bull shit, re; biographers Tate, Heaton and Spick. See Marseille and Nazism on his article"

Material removed:


 * The media historian James Chapman described the film as a "whitewash" that presented an "acceptable face of wartime heroics" in West German films of that period. He film did not portray Marseille's Nazi convictions, instead presenting his a rebel in trouble with his superiors.

K.e.coffman (talk) 15:35, 22 November 2016 (UTC)


 * I've posted this discussion to:
 * Neutral point of view/Noticeboard
 * Reliable sources/Noticeboard
 * K.e.coffman (talk) 15:44, 22 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Continuing your campaign to attack articles on WWII personnel and denigrate Marseille no doubt.
 * This 'media historian' or whatever he wants to call himself, is not a Marseille or Luftwaffe specialist and his comments, said without thought, reason or explanation, should be treated with contempt.
 * The literature specialising on JG 27 and Marseille is emphatic that he was anti-Nazi. This agenda pushing crap needs to stop. Dapi89 (talk) 17:15, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * A problem I see is that the "media historian" is giving his opinion not just on the film but also as to historic fact of the person portrayed. He can offer an opinion on the film overall, I would say but he is not a historian of the person portrayed, nor holds himself out as a World War II or Nazi Germany historian from what I can see. So he would be "bootstrapping" an expert opinion beyond his area of expertise (I see this type of thing in my day job). I know nothing of the other authors and or historians put forth, so I will not comment on them. Kierzek (talk) 22:36, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * This is about a movie, not about the person Marseille. Thus it does not make sense to discuss Marseille's political convictions here. It is more important to address the image that the Nazi propaganda painted of Marseille and how that image was transposed into the campaign of rearmament of post-war Germany. There is a significant amount of research on the movie, and it has been highlighted by contemporary critics and historians alike, that the 1957-movie was strikingly close to Nazi propaganda. I will add more content to the article to illustrate that point.--Assayer (talk) 01:33, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Surprisingly, this turned out to be a notable movie; I found quite a few sources that mention and / or discuss it in detail:


 * link


 * link


 * link


 * link


 * link

K.e.coffman (talk) 01:40, 23 November 2016 (UTC)


 * I think it somewhat tendentious to insist on using tertiary sources which are primarily about cinema and film to support the claim that Marseille was a Nazi, while ignoring secondary sources primarily about Marseille himself that describe him as "openly anti-Nazi", such as the biography by Heaton and Lewis, The Star of Africa: The Story of Hans Marseille, the Rogue Luftwaffe Ace. London, UK: Zenith Press (2012). --Nug (talk) 08:01, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Let me say two things about this: First, this is an article about the movie (which shows a fictionalised version of the man), not about Marseille. As such, secondary sources about the movie are exactly what we should use to write the article. On the other hand, the list by KEC is not quite as impressive as it looks at first glance - it seems to contain at least one duplicate (two different editions of the same paper), and I found only one that clearly seems to say that Marseille was a Nazi - the others just put him into that context. If the opinion that the movie was unfair to Marseille's endorsement of or opposition to Nazis is notable in reliable sources, then we should include that - but without ourselves judging if that criticism is justified or not. See WP:SYN. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:27, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
 * The issue is WP:UNDUE. Undue weight is given to a media historian's opinion that this individual was a "fervent Nazi" (and thus the basis of his criticism of the film as a "whitewash"), while giving zero weight to the opinion of a military historian in a biography that the same individual was "openly anti-Nazi". --Nug (talk) 11:47, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
 * You cannot counter opinions about the movie with sources about the man - that is basically the definition of WP:OR. One reason why this is difficult is that the two statements are only superficially contradictory - one may have supported that Nazis early on (and Marseille certainly fought to support the Nazi state and Nazi war) and have a change of heart when learning about some of the atrocities committed by the Nazis. Playing Ragtime at Hitler at a private party is a fairly mild form of protest, I'd say. But this kind of argument is why we rely on what reliable sources have to say directly about the movie - if some call it a whitewash and others consider it a fair portrayal, then we should include both opinions. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:56, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
 * It is not OR to point out fact from fiction if a real person is portrayed in a film; it happans all the time; the film should mention the review or opinion, but not in a way which carries undue weight or goes beyond the area of expertise of the author of said opinion. It should be presented in context when discussing the man. Look at the film article on Battle of the Bulge (film), for example, it has a section on "Historical inaccuracies". Kierzek (talk) 13:21, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, we have to disagree about our interpretations at WP:OR then. Also notice that Battle of the Bulge_(film) starts with a big fat "unsourced" header.... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:26, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Here is another example, Tora! Tora! Tora! This one having a section, "Historical accuracy", with cites Stephan, which is not the point. Kierzek (talk) 13:36, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I added Robert Tate, who has done an exhaustive book on Marseille and his character. I added his view on the movie which was entirely critical because it failed to show Marseille' clear and obvious anti-Nazi views. Dapi89 (talk) 18:53, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

"Clear and obvious anti-Nazi views" is quite a strong statement. What does this mean exactly? K.e.coffman (talk) 19:00, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
 * The Military History Research Office (Germany) (MGFA) published an evaluation of Marseille in early 2013 and came to the conclusion that "it is not known that Hans-Joachim Marseille has, through his overall actions or through a single outstanding deed, earned praise in the service for freedom and justice [as defined in the current guidelines for military tradition]" (es nicht bekannt ist, dass sich Hans-Joachim Marseille durch sein gesamtes Wirken oder durch eine herausragende Tat um Freiheit und Recht [im Sinne der heute geltenden Traditionsrichtlinien] verdient gemacht hat).  It also explicitly states that there is no academic biography of Marseille, and that "occasional attempts in the popular literature to  suggest [...] an ideological distance to National Socialism are misleading" (Der gelegentliche in der populären Literatur unternommene Versuch, durch den Hinweis auf Marseilles unsoldatisches 'Draufgängertum' und seinen 'ehrlichen Charakter' eine ideologische Distanz zum Nationalsozialismus zu suggerieren, führt daher in die Irre). I would say that the MGFA as a source beats any number of popular press books. We may live in a postfactual world, but not yet on Wikipedia.  --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:43, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
 * However MGFA doesn't state Marseille was a "fervent Nazi" either. I note that Chapman doesn't provide any footnotes or cites in his book as to the source of his view, and it was published before Heaton's biography. Chapman takes issue with the historical accuracy of the portrayal of the real Marseille, okay, if we are crossing the boundary into a discussion of historical accuracy then WP:DUE requires us to cite what military historians say about the real Marseille as well. --Nug (talk) 19:48, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Stephan has been told before that academics don't usually write biographies of lowly pilots. In Tate's case, he sought academic assistance. Mr Paris has already shown us how casual and careless he can be with his remarks. Dapi89 (talk) 19:54, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I've read through the piece, and if Stephen thinks this "trumps" three biographers whose work he hasn't even seen, then I think that says it all. I agree with Nug. Plus, the information provided is nothing more than a series of assertions that offer no explanation let alone sources. Dapi89 (talk) 20:01, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Is Military History Research Office (Germany) (MGFA) now an unreliable source as well? K.e.coffman (talk) 20:04, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
 * You don't seem to listen: They don't provide an explanation for their conclusions. Dapi89 (talk) 20:05, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, given that we communicate (or at least try to ;-) in the written form, listening is a bit beside the point. But more seriously, of course the MGFA explains its reasoning. Have you read the report? While we are forbidden from WP:OR, that is exactly what we expect experts to do. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:20, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Also a bit rich. When the Austrian and German State Archives supported work done by Berger you still opposed his use. Dapi89 (talk) 20:06, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Is there a contention that MGFA is not a reliable source for the statement "occasional attempts in the popular literature to suggest [Marseille's] ideological distance to National Socialism are misleading"? K.e.coffman (talk) 20:08, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
 * The fact is that MGFA does not support Chapman's contention that Marseille was a "fervent Nazi". --Nug (talk) 20:11, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Leaving aside whether or not Marseille had "Nazi convictions" (which I've not attempted to re-insert into the article since the discussion started), is MGFA a reliable source for the statement "occasional attempts in the popular literature to suggest [Marseille's] ideological distance to National Socialism are misleading"? K.e.coffman (talk) 20:14, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Let's keep this discussion on-topic, which was the attempt to insert Chapman's contention that Marseille was a "fervent Nazi" into the article. Does MGFA support that claim? --Nug (talk) 20:18, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
 * @Coffman: It doesn't qualify the remark! 'How, why and where', if the latter is needed. That is the maxim. Just saying it isn't enough, or the study of history would be a right quagmire. Dapi89 (talk) 20:20, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

The topic of this thread is "Rabidly anti-Nazi". The contention has been made, and I'm trying to clarify what it's based on. It's a simple yes or no question K.e.coffman (talk) 20:29, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Is MGFA a reliable source for the statement "occasional attempts in the popular literature to suggest [Marseille's] ideological distance to National Socialism are misleading"?
 * The MGFA statement doesn't actually cite Heaton's biography in its bibliography, so it is WP:SYNTH to suggest that it's statement "occasional attempts in the popular literature to suggest [Marseille's] ideological distance to National Socialism are misleading" applies to Heaton's biography. --Nug (talk) 20:30, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Or Tate's. Dapi89 (talk) 20:35, 23 November 2016 (UTC)


 * I've not asked about Heaton or Tate specifically. The question was whether or not MGFA was reliable for statements such as:
 * "it is not known that Hans-Joachim Marseille has, through his overall actions or through a single outstanding deed, earned praise in the service for freedom and justice [as defined in the current guidelines for military tradition]"
 * "occasional attempts in the popular literature to suggest [...] an ideological distance to National Socialism are misleading"
 * Yes or no? K.e.coffman (talk) 20:38, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Irrelevant per WP:NOTFORUM. We are here to discuss changes to the article based upon reliable sources. Since MGFA doesn't mention any of the specific sources under discussion, it is irrelevant. --Nug (talk) 20:52, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Fair enough; I've moving the MGFA discussion to: Talk:Hans-Joachim Marseille as more appropriate venue for this discussion. Here's the link: Talk:Hans-Joachim_Marseille. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:08, 23 November 2016 (UTC)