Talk:Erich Hartmann/Archive 2

Recent removal of sourced statements
Please note that the talk page is the place for major discussions to take place as to the direction of the article. The recent removal of sourced statements is untenable. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 00:26, 30 January 2010 (UTC). I've mentioned the reason of removal. Why do you consider it untenable? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.52.101.196 (talk) 00:31, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

You're supposed to provide some evidence that the source for the deleted info was unreliable. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:09, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, but the key phrase there is "Hartmann witnessed widespread rape and murder of civilians." It is vague and alleges mass rape and murder of civilians by military personnel of a major country. Such strong claims do require much better referencing than the one provided. Materialscientist (talk) 01:25, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I am not telling that it is unreliable. It is a view of minority. Try to google another source for the statement. There are lot of books published around nowadays, and a lot of them contain nonsense simply to rise their sales. Russian mass murder and rape of germans at the end of WW2 is a modern fashion among western writers and public. However statistic does not confirm those theories about ugly brutal russians killing and raping everything that moves. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.52.101.196 (talk) 01:31, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Is there doubt about a statement that is also verified in the authoritative Toliver and Constable biography (1970) that provides an extensive author's note on p. 188. I suggest that removing the statement after it was identified as contentious is exactly the wrong thing to do. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 01:33, 30 January 2010 (UTC).


 * How was it "verified"? Simply by stating? Did Erich Hartmann ever tell anything like that in any of his interviews?


 * What evidence have you that it is a minority view? What evidence that is not propaganda have you for your statements? Ian.thomson (talk) 01:35, 30 January 2010 (UTC)


 * As i said try to google another source for that and you'll find nothing. That is the evidence. And of cause everything that does not tell or imply that russians are simply brutal inhuman animals is "a propaganda" and contrary terms are of cause "the truth". Really, everybody knows that those russians are evil and do not really deserve to live on the planet.


 * There is a MO of "crusading" that clearly shows an effort at revisionism; simply stating an ambiguous "minority view" is not an argument. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 01:38, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Propaganda, crusading or whatever .. Could someone explain me why the removed phrase is not an allegation of international crimes committed by a major nation? Materialscientist (talk) 01:46, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The statement was attributed to Hartmann's own diaries and based on his eye-witness account of atrocities. Toliver and Constable carefully draw out Hartmann's views and that he is not labeling the entire Russian people and that he had no hatred for the Russians. "The events in this chapter (Ch. 13) have been set down to show their shocking effect on Erich Hartmann."" (Tolliver and Constable, 1970, p. 188). FWiW Bzuk (talk) 01:55, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Bzuk, that nonsense doesn't even sound robust. If they were "shot on the spot" I maybe would have believe in it. But arranging "hanging on the spot" is something really strange. And i wonder what did their commander said about losing his man? Like "oh they were committing atrocities and didn't smell really well, so i shut them". 84.52.101.196 (talk) 02:04, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Getting clearer; did I understand it right that the authors carefully prepared the reader to the (controversial) information? Was the information confirmed independently? Was it disputed? Is this all reflected in the phrase being deleted? The reason for my questions is serious doubts in NPOV of the discussed text. Materialscientist (talk) 02:02, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The remainder of the author note which comes as an insert to the text is a scholarly debate about the causes of "savagery" on the battlefield and an exploration of the pathological uses of sex against a vanquished foe. There is abundant proof in archival footage of the Russian pillage of Germany, but the authors instead of glorifying the excesses, try to make the reader understand the underlying motivations behind the "social sickness" of the events. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 02:09, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, so the source says that the russians were raping german solders? oO Did they eat those solders afterwards? Cause, you know, that is what we normally do in russia with POWs. 84.52.101.196 (talk) 02:30, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * On p. 187 of the Toliver and Constable biography is an extensive description of the hanging of three Russian soldiers, an occurrence, that was deliberately instituted in order to quell the destabilization of the prison compound. The officer in charge felt that the "situation had to be stabilized" and that a new dimension was brought to the prison staff that of "shame." Nowhere is there a condemnation of the Russian actions, moreover it is an affirmation that rule of law and common decency should prevail even in those tense times. FWiW, do you even have one source to back any of your statements? Bzuk (talk) 02:21, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Did that even happen in prison? oO If FWiW is me, than, i do not have any statements. I just have strong doubts about this part of the article. It doesn't sound really robust and consistent. And smells like typical FoxNews or BBC programme or article about russia. Could you please make a scan or a photo of that part of the book?84.52.101.196 (talk) 02:30, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * That's it, that's all you have? no sources? The book is online see: Russian prison. FWiW, 10 seconds of even casual research would have revealed this information.Bzuk (talk) 02:40, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * your link doesnt really lead anywhere. Only to web page, that ask for registration. And which source do you want to see? Source that says that Erich Hartmann have never actually seen how russians were raping german POWs in camps?
 * Actually Hartmann does mention rapes and Russian soldiers being executed in his last interview. http://www.hotlinecy.com/hartmann.htm

84.52.101.196 (talk) 03:57, 30 January 2010 (UTC) No doubt rape accompanies war, it is a common phenomenon. My concern are:
 * Phrasing and accuracy - the deleted sentences did sound suspicious and sooner or later would induce an edit war. "Hanging on the spot" is incompatible with military procedures.
 * The deleted part was sourced to Kaplan whereas the arguments above originate from another source
 * The quoted source apparently focuses on the causes of rape at war, which is a serious topic, but. The text written for such books need proper adaptation (if used at all) before inserting them into biography articles. If we are talking about specific facts, then we need to be careful and detailed in who saw what and who did actually witness the events (at least in footnotes). Materialscientist (talk) 04:27, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I've read quickly the chapter from the google book. Didn't find anything about raping. There is something about beating though. 84.52.101.196 (talk) 04:32, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, there was a rape, the girl claimed three Russian soldiers had committed the crime. The Russian General had the soldiers trussed up and hanged "on the spot." The details of the rape occur on pp. 186–187. The reason for such a summary judgement was to be a "lesson in discipline." FWiW, I don't have the Kaplan source at hand but since another editor has used it as a source does not negate the fact that an entire statement was deleted based on the "it doesn't sound right argument." Bzuk (talk) 05:09, 30 January 2010 (UTC).
 * This doesn't seem to justify the discussed sentence "Hartmann witnessed widespread rape and murder of civilians." Materialscientist (talk) 05:16, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * As indicated, I do not have the Kaplan source but Toliver and Constable do substantiate the claims with extensive notes on incidents that Hartmann was witnessing that stretch from Chapters 12–14. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 05:22, 30 January 2010 (UTC).

Just to put us all on the same picture here. The passage that is being challenged is the following.

"After being handed over to the Soviets, the German group was split up into groups according to gender. Hartmann witnessed widespread rape and murder of civilians. When the outnumbered Americans tried to intervene, the Soviet soldiers charged towards them, firing into the air and threatening to kill them. Order was later restored, and some of the guilty soldiers were hanged "on the spot" by a Soviet commander."

My understanding of this discussion here is whether this is factual or not. There is no question at least to the fact that this story, whether true or not, can be cited. The information is in Toliver and Constable and various other sources as well. I suggest mediating the wording of the paragraph and suggest rephrasing it slightly, something like this:


 * According to Hartmann's own account, the German group was split up into groups according to gender after being handed over to the Soviets. He then claims to have witnessed widespread rape and murder of civilians. He goes on to state that when the outnumbered Americans tried to intervene, the Soviet soldiers charged towards them, firing into the air and threatened to kill them. Presumably order was later restored, and some of the guilty soldiers were hanged "on the spot" by a Soviet commander.

Would this work? MisterBee1966 (talk) 16:44, 2 February 2010 (UTC)


 * There is no issue here. All I see is one anon who wants a sourced statement watered down or possibly removed. Philip Kaplan also supports Toliver, et al. He refers to the crimes in mentioned detail (Mr B above). It is not for others to interpret what did or did not happen. There is no evidence that Hartmann was lying, there is no counter evidence from the anon - just a diatribe of accusation. My message to the anon: read properly. Dapi89 (talk) 19:08, 2 February 2010 (UTC)


 * When the US forces handed Hartmann over he was located at a open air compound with some 50,000 civilians. The text:

''The first thing the Russians did was to separate the German women and girls from the men. What followed was a brutal orgy of rape and debauchery by Red Army soldiers. When the greatly outnumbered Americans tried to intervene, the Russians charged towards them firing into the air and threatening to kill them if they interfered. The raping continued throughout the night. The next day a Russian General arrived at the encampment and immediately ordered a cessation... Later when a few Russians violated the order again and assaulted a German girl, she was asked to identify them from a lin-up. There were no formalities, no court martial. The giulty parties were immediately hanged in front of all their comrades. The point was made.''. Philip Kaplan. Dapi89 (talk) 19:17, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The removed text was a poor paraphrasing of this (reasonable) statement. Please do keep it as a quote, or suggest a better rephrasing here. Materialscientist (talk) 22:24, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * No it wasn't. Dapi89 (talk) 23:05, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree with the earlier editor who wrote "There are lot of books published around nowadays, and a lot of them contain nonsense simply to rise their sales. Russian mass murder and rape of germans at the end of WW2 is a modern fashion among western writers and public." This is the same kind of image of Russians that Hitler foisted on his countrymen. And those editors who continue inserting such rubbish into Wikipedia are perpetuating the same stereotypes. There will always be some authors who will slander various races and countries, and of course it is always possible to argue that as these are "reliable sources" therefore their writings must be included. A measure of the reliability of Kaplan is that he does not even understand the difference between Russian and Soviet. But this crap will remain because Kaplan is after all, a "reliable source". Steel2009 (talk) 22:44, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Stop being disruptive Steel2009. Stop following me around wikipedia, it comes under wikipedia stalking, now termed Harassment. You have no interest here and know nothing about the subject. So you and your "comments" will be ignored for the guff they are. If some moron reading this generalises it is not our fault. Philip Kaplan is not a racist. So be careful what you say. The only person at risk of slander here is you. Anyway, I'm not wasting any more energy here. You've failed. Dapi89 (talk) 23:03, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * BTW, its worth pointing out that it seems you share the same ignorance as Kaplan, "Soviet"/"Russian". Pft. Dapi89 (talk) 23:17, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Dude, don't have an inflated sense of your own importance. If you see my editing history, you will see I generally edit history articles, and specifically WWII articles (which apparently you edit a lot of too). I could as well be following MisterB around. I have no idea why you think I don't know the difference between Soviet and Russian. Steel2009 (talk) 00:59, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * What do you have to back up your last statement? That the Russian Army was responsible for atrocities in their sweep through Germany is a matter of historical record backed up by countless researchers. When Erich Hartmann wrote that he was a witness to some of these events, he did not typify them as the act of barbarians, nor did he castigate all Russians as the same. His biographers have taken great pains to clearly state his intentions to describe the acts of rage that he saw as atypical. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 03:55, 3 February 2010 (UTC).
 * Bzuk, don't give him legitimacy by trying to reason with him. This guy argued consistently for the inclusion of German war crimes against Soviet POWs in the Blitzkrieg artcile (irrelevant I know) yet he has a problem with Soviet war crimes being added to an artcile in which it is highly relevant. Go figure. Dapi89 (talk) 12:24, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * If something is labeled atypical, that is more reason to doubt its validity. On the other hand, if something is typical, it carries more weight. If you want a modern parallel, do bear in mind that travelers to Europe in 2003 say that they saw a completely different Iraq war in the media, than the one that they saw in the US. It is the task of enlightened scholarship to rise above the obvious biases and try to put forth as objective an account as possible. And was there really a creature such as the "Russian Army"?

Steel2009 (talk) 19:25, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Source? Bzuk (talk) 23:47, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Source? Try http://www.goebbels.info/press/macasev-danas.html Steel2009 (talk) 19:40, 4 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Self opinionated nonsense. What does this have to do with Erich Hartmann? Can you prove he was lying? Do you have contrary sources? What has goebbels go to do with this? Its desperate wikilwayering by somenone who can't have his way. Dapi89 (talk) 19:51, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I pretty much had my way with you whenever I wanted to. Steel2009 (talk) 02:45, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, that's enough; this discussion is going nowhere and descending into inneundo and baiting. I'm closing it right now and suggesting that people get back to the business of writing an encyclopedia. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 05:17, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Good call. The joker's suffering delusions of grandeur. Best not waste more time on the troll. Dapi89 (talk) 11:16, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Air-to-Ground missions?
I've read the Blond Knight of Germany and recall that in one part it talks about how Hartmann was on his way to recon and strafe a Russian troop convoy but on the way they encountered Soviet air forces and engaged them. Can anyone provide other sources that describe air-to-ground operations that he was involved in? Obviously this would exclude the Soviet war crimes allegations. Hartmann is, of course, noted for having the most air-to-air kills but knowledge of air-to-ground actions could be used to make an estimate of how many people he actually killed. XXVII (talk) 15:49, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Personal life
Might this article benefit if a little detail of his personal life was included? The information that's there is a little scattered, so it's hard to know much about his life outside of work -OOPSIE- (talk) 05:51, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll try and add a few more things of interest over the next few days. We had to slim down the size of the article to get the article to GA - one of wikipedia's irritating limitation policies. Dapi89 (talk) 08:22, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Dubious statement
How exactly does the common cold "progress to" angina pectoris? Last time I checked one's a minor upper-respiratory disease caused by viral infection, and the other's not even a disease; it's a painful symptom of mid-stage obstructive heart disease, caused by cholesterol blocking blood flow to the heart. I'm not sure what kind of medical science they have in Germany, but this is ridiculous and anti-scientific and I'm going to reword it if nobody objects. Bravo Foxtrot (talk) 01:39, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Find an alternate source that supports your contention. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 04:28, 21 October 2010 (UTC).
 * Here it is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angina_pectoris —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.183.236.96 (talk) 12:50, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Years of service
Years of service ignore the time spent in Soviet captivity. Hartmann, as every other Wehrmacht POW, would have been in continuing service until such time as he returned to Germany to be de-mobilised. This is an odd and glaring error. Perhaps the author has some reason for having included it? Gr1bble8s (talk) 00:24, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The Wehrmacht ceased to exist in 1945. The Luftwaffe was officially disbanded in 1946. There was no German military in existence until 1955. So there was no military for him to demobilised from. Yours is the only 'odd glaring error'! Dapi89 (talk) 13:54, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

On the picture with the caption Oberleutnant he is a Hauptmann. On his right Kragenspiegel you can see three wings. On the Schulterklappen on can see a button and two stars. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.221.19.97 (talk) 22:46, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Hypocoristic
MisterBee1966, could you please provide me a more detailed reason for reverting my edit? Such as why we need an unwieldy and little known term like 'hypocoristic' which even my spellchecker doesn't know, and why, in addition to the reason I gave in my edit summary, in the lead of an article about a famous fighter ace we even need to include the definition of an aerial victory? I'm reverting as I think these are unnecessary complications for the lead. The mayor of Yurp (talk) 16:32, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Sure, I gladly give the reason. The term aerial victory was once mandated to have a stand-alone explanation. The terminology we agreed upon was aerial victory = an aerial combat encounter resulting in the destruction of the enemy aircraft. I can't comment on the quality of your spellchecker but the term is known to me and again was used and passed the various reviews. MisterBee1966 (talk) 16:56, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
 * That mandate seems to be coming from a peer review for another article on Helmut Wick ( '(...)it would be helpful to briefly explain what exactly is meant by "aerial victory". This might best fit in a note (...)', no suggestion that it belongs in the main body of the lead, is there?), and the lead for that article (like all other articles on major fighter aces) doesn't include this mangled definition of an aerial victory that you insist on keeping for this article. You and me might be familiar to the word 'hypocoristic', but I bet the vast majority of the people who consult WP don't, so, as outlined in our MOS, let's write for them, not the technicians.
 * Referring to '352 aerial combat encounters resulting in the destruction of the enemy aircraft', I'm fairly sure that Hartmann encountered more than one aircraft on each occasion, often downing more than one in each encounter, and therefore he had 'less than 352 aerial combat encounters resulting in the destruction of the enemy aircraft', right? Otherwise among the top scoring aces of all time he would be notable for being the only one who limited himself to one kill per combat encounter. The mayor of Yurp (talk) 22:55, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
 * What is being referred to here is 352 successful dogfights. In each air battle a pilot participates in a separate and distinct dogfight whenever he engages a different individual opponent. Umpteen dogfights can occur in a single mission/encounter, but not all of them result in a claim for a victory. Misterbee1966 has correctly explained this, albeit to the "Nth" degree. Each victory counts as a successful (and separate) dogfight, or "encounter". Dapi89 (talk) 17:46, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

LaGG-5 or La-5
Hartmann's notes say he shot down an "LaGG-5." No doubt the Luftwaffe thought (incorrectly) that's what it was called, given the LaGG-3 designation of its predecessor. However the article is stating what Hartmann shot down, not what his notes say, therefore "LaGG-5" is incorrect. --FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 18:19, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
 * No, the sentence and the reference are about a LaGG-5 and that should be shown (maybe with an explanation). The link goes to the correct page. LaGG-5 was a correct designation by this time as that's how the germans called these machines. --Denniss (talk) 20:31, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
 * No, LaGG-5 was not a correct designation, even if the Germans though it was. It wasn't a German design after all. The sentence was not about an LaGG-5 because there was never any aircraft of that name. I agree with BilCat that unless it's a direct quote the correct designation should be used.--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 11:51, 20 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Unless it's a direct quote, we should use the designation that our WP article uses, La-3, though noting in a footnote that LaGG-3 appears in the source is probably fine. I think the equivalent of using "LaGG" here would be allowing US-related articles to use Me 109 or 110 in certain cases, and we don't generally do that either. - BilCat (talk) 21:59, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Inconsistency - Hartmann feared to be attacked a second time?
The chapter Civilian life states: " However, fearing a second attack, he became cautious and limited his appearances at public events. He stated: "I am retired and I am a civilian, and now I like to have my rest and peace. I do not live for exhibitions."[50]". I can nowhere find a detail about the first attack, apparently it's related to someone publicly attacking him for having been a Luftwaffe ace. Where has this bit of information went from the article? --Pudeo' 20:00, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * ? The sentence above refers to an attack of angina pectoris. It is in the line above the one you quoted. Dapi89 (talk) 20:03, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks for clarifying. Perhaps it was just beyong my comprehension that angina pectoris is referred as an "attack" (as it is not rather as severe as an heart attack for example) and that it has something to do with limiting public appearances. But perhaps if I wasn't the only one, it could be edited to (directly) refer to the medical condition. --Pudeo' 20:09, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Transfer to Galland
According to Toliver / Constable Hartmann asked Gallands Successor as COG Fighters General Gollob to return to his old unit.

One reason for the wish to return to the eastern front was that in the "defense of the Reich" many German fighter aces were killed or wound by supirior, in number and quality, American and British fighters. --176.199.13.235 (talk) 15:49, 19 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Quote by Hartmann from a conversation with Eric "Winkle" Brown on page 10 here:  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.24.216.123 (talk) 20:54, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Ashamed of war service
Why should he have been "ashamed of his war service", he should be proud of his achievements. And what does this have to do with his opting "to go on a hunger strike and starve rather than fold to "Soviet will", as he called it"?Royalcourtier (talk) 07:02, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
 * It reads "Hartmann, not ashamed of his war service, ..." MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:37, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on Erich Hartmann. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070526032108/http://members.aol.com:80/falkeeins/Sturmgruppen/hartmannclaims.html to http://members.aol.com/falkeeins/Sturmgruppen/hartmannclaims.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110902010742/http://www.hartmannerich.com/?page_id=9 to http://www.hartmannerich.com/?page_id=9

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 02:24, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Glorification
We can all appreciate an achieving soldier, but is this article seriously more concerned with mocking the Soviet Union than with him being the most deadly Nazi pilot, having shot down and undoubtedly killed many of the pilots of the 352 Allied aircraft he shot down? The introduction reads as if he even needed to be convicted of War Crimes in the SU when he was one of the staunchest tools of Hitler. But no, 10 years in a labour camp is what the article portrays as inhumane... Bataaf van Oranje (talk) 17:18, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I've observed this glorification of WWII German officers, pilots and tankers -- in some cases, even members of the SS -- is par for the course in Wikipedia. Similarly, the Soviet Union's army is usually described as being incompetent and brutal to their own men. Germans: brave, if mistaken. Russians: incompetent, brutal fools. I guess Wikipedia loves its Germans! 190.194.216.151 (talk) 02:08, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree with the sentiment expressed, even though it's been a while. The sourcing is problematic as well:
 * a coffee-table book by Philip Kaplan Fighter Aces of the Luftwaffe in World War WWII -- 18 citations
 * Work by -- 20 citations

From The Myth of the Eastern Front: The Blond Knight of Germany is a "hallmark of romanization", with its "insidious" title suggesting medieval chivalry that "not only fails to characterize the conduct of the German Army in the East, but, indeed, marks its opposite".

Trevor James Constable does not appear to be a serious scholar; the wiki article describes him as:


 * "an early UFO writer who believed that the UFO phenomenon was best explained by the presence of enormous amoeba-like animals inhabiting earth's atmosphere.

Any feedback or opinions? K.e.coffman (talk) 23:51, 8 July 2016 (UTC)


 * This author indeed sounds like he has an abnormal mind, UFO and all. But as authors on aviation combat, both seem to do alright, with Zabecki and co recommending them multiple times, Kaplan and Mitcham too

I don't think Smeler and Davies, who themselves wax poetic mainly on the name of the book (at lengths!) without pointing out which specific details are wrong historically, can be used as a good basis to judge the book either. As for the name, well, it was a nickname of Hartmann, already used during the war, like Bubi, Black Devil...etc (likely even more famous than those two, considering that the Soviet aces seemed to know him more by that one, according to the bio of the famous woman ace Litvyak. The Soviets in this bio seemed to be impressed by the nickname. Perhaps Toliver and Constable thought it was edgy and sounded like something which helped to sell books - and you cannot blame authors for that). To be fair, aviators, dark types or not, are easy to romanticize, even the Litvyak book does that to Hartmann, with a tinge of romance (not as knight in shining armour of course). Deamonpen (talk) 15:58, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

What is a "precision board clock"?
Can any experts explain what is a "precision board clock"? ...mentioned in section https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erich_Hartmann#Knight.27s_Cross_of_the_Iron_Cross "...Hartmann shot down two enemy aircraft before his fighter was hit by debris and he was forced to make an emergency landing. He then, in accordance with Luftwaffe regulations, attempted to recover the precision board clock. As he was doing so, Soviet ground troops approached..."

Or perhaps it is a "precision bombing clock"? 68.35.173.107 (talk) 00:01, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
 * A Chronometer, see --Denniss (talk) 08:01, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

"Luftwaffe" of the Bundeswehr
I changed the section heading for the second time: diff. After my first edit, editor changed it back to Luftwaffe with this series of edits: diff.

Please note that the Luftwaffe, as used in English wikipedia, ceased to exist in 1945. I consider this to be a POV edit; please refrain from changing it back to Luftwaffe. K.e.coffman (talk) 09:03, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
 * No.
 * It was actually the Bundesluftwaffe see the German article here].
 * In any case, it was dissolved in 1946 not 1945.
 * If you don't understand an article ask. Your opinion is irrelevant. Dapi89 (talk) 17:04, 21 February 2017 (UTC)


 * This is English wikipedia and the article on the post-war air force of West Germany is called German Air Force and not Luftwaffe. If the editor believes that Luftwafffe is the more appropriate name for the German Air Force article, then I would suggest requesting a move of that article, rather than imposing a Germanisation of the name within this article.


 * For the "his nose is long and straight" language, please see this edit over at the Hans-Joachim Marseille article: "reverted OR/un-necessary interpretation" by editor.


 * I believe the above is a sufficient justification to revert the edit. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:49, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

The Germans do not refer to the current air force as the "German Air Force"! I suggest some reading is in order for you. The description of the image was put in place to aid blind users. It is not for Wikipedians to remove them at random. Dapi89 (talk)


 * Re: "description for blind users", it has not been removed. Please check.


 * Please also help me understand why the article needs to use German language terminology, while en.wiki uses German Air Force and Inspector of the Air Force. Is there any guideline or policy that this edit was reflective of? K.e.coffman (talk) 02:07, 23 February 2017 (UTC)


 * please advise. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:01, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
 * It is up to the discretion of the creator how subsections are titled. Wikipedia is to inform, so obviously the translations are helpful. The articles you mention are not subsections. In any case I'm sure you've seen Luftwaffe and Wehrmacht, or perhaps Kriegsmarine? Dapi89 (talk) 23:15, 24 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Yes, Luftwaffe was the air force of Nazi Germany, as used in English-language literature. Same literature does not use Luftwaffe as the name of the post war German Air Force. Please also help me understand why the article needs to use German language terminology for the post-war air force, vs the name that aligns with en.wiki's article? K.e.coffman (talk) 00:09, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, actually it does. What is this literature you speak of? Or is it based on selected work? Bundesluftwaffe is used by English literature on the topic. I'd also say that aligning with the Wikipedia article isn't the most important thing. It should be called what it is. Dapi89 (talk)
 * I actually don't get the impression that "Luftwaffe was the Air Force of Nazi Germany and German Air Force is the modern one" in English academic literature. In common perception, maybe?


 * A quick google search of

German Air Force and Bundesluftwaffe will show you that the "German Air Force" is a term frequently used to refer to the German Air Force of the Nazi Era, as well as the one of the pre-Nazi Era. For example:
 * The Rise and Fall of the German Air Force (1933-1945) (by British Air Ministry)
 * The German Air Force Versus Russia, 1943, Volume 3 by Hermann Plocher, Air University of the United States Air Force. Aerospace Studies Institute. USAF Historical Division
 * Zabecki, in his numerous works that he authors or co-authors, frequently refers to the WWII Luftwaffe as the German Airforce too.
 * [Above Ypres: The German Air Force in Flanders 1914-1918 by Bernard Deneckere


 * I think a solution for this is "Bundesluftwaffe" (also a term widely used) - It cannot be mistaken for anything else. Or, if we want to avoid both Germanization of the Wikipedia and the confusion between Airforces of different eras, just call it German Federal Air Forcelike some authors do.

--Deamonpen (talk) 03:15, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Of course, I would agree with retaining Bundesluftwaffe. "German Air Force" wasn't an accurate description of the German Imperial Air Service, and, even though I have the literature you mention, Luftwaffe is used overwhelmingly in English speaking countries for World War II related subjects. Dapi89 (talk) 20:53, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Discussion at NPOV noticeboard
I believe that this has been sufficiently addressed at the NPOVN: link. Would there be any further objections? K.e.coffman (talk) 04:31, 5 March 2017 (UTC)


 * I've notified the editor here, to which there was no reply. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:16, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Rapes
''The first thing the Russians did was to separate the German women and girls from the men. What followed was a brutal orgy of rape and debauchery by Red Army soldiers. When the greatly outnumbered Americans tried to intervene, the Russians charged towards them firing into the air and threatening to kill them if they interfered. The raping continued throughout the night. The next day a Russian General arrived at the encampment and immediately ordered a cessation ... Later when a few Russians violated the order again and assaulted a German girl, she was asked to identify them from a lineup. There were no formalities, no court martial. The guilty parties were immediately hanged in front of all their comrades. The point was made.''

What does this have to do with Hartmann? Creuzbourg (talk) 15:45, 25 April 2017 (UTC)


 * I removed it; pls see diff. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:25, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Tags
The sources in the article are not suitable for a GA; I would consider some of them to be WP:QS. For example, the main source in the article is The Blond Knight of Germany (1970) by the authors Trevor J. Constable & Raymond F. Toliver. It was described in The Myth of the Eastern Front as "hallmark of romanticism". The German language version of the above book was profiled at the recent conference in Germany, "So was the German Landser"; the commentary on the book is as follows: "JENS WEHNER (Dresden) studied the portrayal of the air war on the Eastern Front in the books of the American authors, Trevor J. Constable and Raymond F. Toliver. He presented on the bestseller Holt Hartmann vom Himmel! The History of the World's Most Successful Jagdflieger, published by Constable and Toliver in 1970 in the USA and 1971 in Germany. The books were very popular. As a general rule, the argumentation concerning the statistics and the war situation on the Eastern Front is contradictory and lacking in reflection [not sure if the right translation]. These included the Nazi propaganda elements of the Fliegerassen and stereotypes about the Soviet Union and communism. According to Wehner, the latter could be traced back to the Cold War and the tensions between the US and the Soviet Union. Furthermore, in the books by Constable and Toliver, the political and social consequences of the Second World War were completely ignored."

I'm sure that other sources in the article can be 'unpacked' in similar fashion. If mostly unreliable sources are used, then the level of detail is WP:UNDUE. I will restore the tags. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:00, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't think so. There isn't consensus for this. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:52, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

The Blond Knight of Germany
Hi Re this edit: "It is only a couple reviews of a book. It is not enough to have "In popular culture" portion", could you help me understand your objection to this section? K.e.coffman (talk) 19:28, 1 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Hello. It is dedicated solely to a discussion of a book, which is relevant on the Wikipedia page for the book but not this one in my opinion. It is not enough for an "in popular culture" or a similar title to just be reviews of a biography, it is tangential. Kyle Delwood (talk) 06:34, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I respectfully disagree. The book is an only full-length biography on the subject; it was discussed by several RS. I believe it belongs. To address your concerns about the scope of the section, I propose that it would be titled as The Blond Knight of Germany. Please let me know of any feedback. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:06, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Possibly a section could be named "Nicknames" and cover the "Bubi", "Black Devil", and "Blond Knight of Germany" all in one section? Currently they are interspersed throughout the page and may be difficult to find. In this scenario, there could be mention of The Blond Knight of Germany book without it being a tangential section. For example:

The "Hartmann's youthful appearance earned him the nickname "Bubi" (the hypocoristic form of "young boy" in the German language), and Walter Krupinski, to whom Hartmann was assigned as wingman, would constantly urge him: "Hey, Bubi, get in closer"." sentence could be moved into this new section. Then the "so Soviet personnel consequently nicknamed him Cherniy Chort ("Black Devil")" could also be added. The Los Angeles Times link I put in mentions he was known "to the opposing Soviet pilots on the Eastern Front as "the Black Devil of the South" because of the black-painted nose of his Messerschmitt 109" and "known to his countrymen as "the Blond Knight of Germany"". At this point, then mention "In 1970 Hartmann was the subject of a biography which used The Blond Knight of Germany nickname as its title" and something such as "It was a commercial success and enjoyed a wide readership among both the American and the German public, but has been criticised as ahistorical and misleading in recent American and German historiography. It has been described as one of the works that promoted the Clean Wehrmacht myth."? Kyle Delwood (talk) 10:24, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I disagree. The book is the only full length bio on Hartmann. It's the major source in this article. The removal of the section strikes me as non-neutral. Please advise. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:35, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

The content is not about Hartmann or his influence "in popular culture", but simply reviews of a book that is about him. It is a leap in connection that was not stated in the section. This is tangential. If the title is renamed to the book's title then this is even more tangential. He did not write the book. In my proposed section introduction of the book would be related to the topic as its title is one of Hartmann's nicknames, and a little discussion may be relevant.

Kyle Delwood (talk) 19:25, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Note by a German native speaker: I doubt the book title translation "Fetch Hartmann from Heaven!" is correct. It could also be translated to "Shoot Hartmann down" (vom Himmel holen -- to shoot down [a plane]), which I think is the meaning the title intents. 87.79.160.252 (talk) 23:38, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

NPOVN
I disagree. You’ve removed a well-sourced section, and inserted material cited to a dubious source (the 1986 L.A. Times article, which seems to be in large part based on the same book). I restored the section pending discussion at WP:NPOVN. Please see the discussion at: Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:03, 9 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Hi — coming here after seeing the post at WP:NPOVN. What is your objection to the "in popular culture" section? A novel about Hartmann places Hartmann in "popular culture," and the importance of the book is highlighted by the availability of scholarly reviews. Are you suggesting that a novel about Hartmann is irrelevant to him or his place in popular culture? Or that criticism of the novel about Hartmann casts him in a negative light? -Darouet (talk) 18:23, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

The book is not a novel, for the record. I am not saying the book is irrelevant to Hartmann but that a section just about reviews of the book which do no not pertain specifically to Hartmann's influence in popular culture is tangential. If you see above, I mentioned that I think discussion would be relevant as an extension to his nickname "the Blond Knight of Germany". But things such as "According to Wehner, the latter could be traced to the prevailing attitudes during the Cold War. Further, the political and social consequences of World War II were completely ignored" are simply a review of the book, not about Hartmann's influence in popular culture.

Kyle Delwood (talk) 12:05, 10 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Since this is a GA rated article I've removed the contentious text until consensus is achieved here on talk first. --Nug (talk) 19:30, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

NPOVN 2
The consensus at NPOVN seems pretty clear to me; please see: Section in WWII bio article. --K.e.coffman (talk) 03:35, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I restored the deleted content; pls see diff. The content removed is relevant to the section and I don't see a reason to shorten it. No concerns about the totality of the section have been expressed at NPOVN. If there are concerns, I suggest discussing them at NPOVN as the thread is still open. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:46, 14 January 2018 (UTC)


 * I gave a reason to remove the sentence in the earlier section. You did not respond to my argument so I took that as agreement that the sentence did not pertain to the topic. The other changes are small. Why are you rewording "clean wehrmacht" to a title that is not the title of the page on Wikipedia? There is no reason for this. Kyle Delwood (talk) 13:30, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Apologies, I misunderstood the intent of your earlier comment (...that a section just about reviews of the book which do no not pertain specifically to Hartmann's influence in popular culture is tangential) to mean it was still about the section in its entirety. I did not respond as I understood the matter to have been sufficiently addressed at NPOVN.
 * I disagree with the removal, since the revert. Please note that Wikipedia operates on the Bold-Revert-Discuss cycle. You've been reverted several times. If there are still concerns, I suggest that the matter be taken to NPOVN as the thread is still open there. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:24, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

In popular culture section changes
Hello fellow editors. I have re-inserted an entry into the In popular culture section of this article:

The character Erica Hartmann from the mixed-media franchise Strike Witches is based on Hartmann. She has the black tulip design from Hartmann's aircraft painted on her striker unit and also has a sister named Ursula, referring to Hartmann's wife.

The insertion had been previously deleted by User:Denniss who said that it was “not real so irrelevant”. Though I would agree that the insertion is “not real”, in the sense that it is from fictional media, it is still relevant as the section is about cultural depictions of Hartmann and the Strike Witches franchise does exist. Currently, the In popular culture section has only one entry on The Blond Knight of Germany so I feel it would be beneficial to expand the section. For anyone who would like to delete this change, feel free to discuss first. Tsushima6 (talk) 07:45, 21 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Popular culture items must comply with WP:IPC and WP:MILPOP, which your addition does not. In addition, Wikia is not a reliable source. - BilCat (talk) 14:21, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree with this removal: diff. This material does not meet WP:MILPOP. In addition, it fails WP:NOR and WP:WEIGHT. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:11, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the comments. I will revise the entry in accordance to the Wikipedia guidelines. Tsushima6 (talk) 09:30, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:22, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Erich Hartmann (c. 1943).jpg

Good article
I have renominated since the issues were addressed but ignored by the editor seeking the delisting. Dapi89 (talk) 15:55, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I have raised the delisting of the article by the nominator of the article for GAR at Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations as the instructions for closure of discussions states that closure should be done by an uninvolved editor.Nigel Ish (talk) 20:10, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Since everybody associated with the GA process appears to be quite happy that someone can both nominate and decide consensus on whether to delist, I will unwatch the page. I'm sorry to have wasted my time.Nigel Ish (talk) 22:59, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Hartmann was summoned to the Führerhauptquartier Wolfsschanze
The person fought to implement Nazi genocides. The page contains Nazi propaganda, please respect millions of victims. Please compare to the German page, which isn't so childish like this one.Xx236 (talk) 09:58, 24 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Please post sensible recommendations only. Dapi89 (talk) 11:49, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history
HI, just a quick note about a current discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history (WWII content: Otto Kittel, other GA/FA articles) that editors of this page may be interested in. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:25, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Peter Stockert-what are his credentials ?
This author is used to source some dubious claims.What are his credentials and is he a historian? In publication Przegląd historyczno-wojskowy, Tom 14(page 218) issued by Ministerstwo Obrony Narodowej this author is named as "improving" German versions of events and mixing tales with actual facts --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 22:25, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

I have found another source, this time German, that describes Stockert's writing as apologetic

"Eicke: Eine SS-Karriere zwischen Nervenklinik, KZ-System und Waffen-SS

"Ein weiteres typisches Beispiel apologetischer Vertuschungstaktik lieferte Peter Stockert 1996, der in einem mehrbändigen Werk über die »Eichenlaubträger« ." page 20


 * What does the Polish Ministry of Defence claim? Do you have anything more from Niels Weise? An accusation doesn't provide much information. Or facts. Dapi89 (talk) 19:27, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * FYI - as explained Stockert's contribution to this article is list of dates and events. There are no stories or justifications in his publications. Dapi89 (talk)


 * I removed a sentence sourced to Stockert about Hartmann's convictions having been vacated in 1997; preserving here by providing this link. My rationale was: "source is not reliable for this claim; I was unable to confirm it". K.e.coffman (talk) 15:39, 26 January 2019 (UTC)