Talk:Erich Hartmann/GA1

GA Reassessment
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.''

The article fails criterion #2b "all in-line citations are from reliable sources". The article is largely based on The Blond Knight of Germany which has been criticised as ahistorical and misleading (please see the linked article). The book is also likely to be semi-fictional; please see discussion here:. Given the questionable source, the article also fails criterion 4 as being non-neutral. --K.e.coffman (talk) 22:51, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Delist. Much of the article is based on a dubious source known to have fabricated claims. I am not convinced that the sources exist to write a good article; ideally there would be a scholarly biography that examined the Hartmann's life in detail and could be used to distinguish fact from fiction. buidhe (formerly Catrìona) 09:20, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
 * If you look closer, Toliver & Constable is not the only unreliable source used here: at present his death is referenced to Find a Grave, and there are multiple citations to dubious, self-published websites in the "Combat record" section. In addition, the Toliver & Constable source is used to reference what I would consider extraordinary claims, such as the alleged sidearm/Hitler incident. When I said that Toliver & Constable fabricated things, I am referring not only to 's list linked above, but also to T & C's account of Hartmann's request to return to his original unit in 1945 — contradicted by Hartmann himself. buidhe (formerly Catrìona) 20:26, 6 January 2019 (UTC)


 * reject delist. The complaint lacks credibility and as usual is full of opinion. The link to the biography, itself a creation of the complainant, is based on two scholars' opinions which are, at best, vague. Their comments don't contain any specific examples to justify the criticism and their own work is criticised for failing to prove the case they make. Perhaps the editor above would also like to demonstrate how Constable and his co-author have fabricated information. Dapi89 (talk) 18:28, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I'll remark on Assayer's comments as and when they appear. I can't find Hartmann talking about the 1945 incident. I did a search and found his name only once talking about his opinion of Allied pilots. Dapi89 (talk) 21:23, 6 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Delist — Note: Dapi89 is a significant contributor to the article. As mentioned, sources—with emphasis on The Blond Knight of Germany—are semi-fictional and non-neutral.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 22:15, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
 * So what? Does that mean I cannot comment? Dapi89 (talk) 16:41, 7 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Delist per above. – Vami ♜  _IV♠  17:11, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Delist As I explained in greater detail before (see Coffman's link above), in an interview Hartmann himself acknowledged that several aspects in his bio were made up by the authors Toliver/Constable. Based upon that somehow seminal bio the article relates several anecdotes as facts, which are questionable, to say the least. The concerns are known for over a year and have not been properly addressed.--Assayer (talk) 23:53, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I may add that The Interrogator by Toliver has been thrashed by historian Stefan Geck in his study on the Dulag Luft (2008) for its method and unreliability. That it is popular among American authors is a serious problem, but does not enhance Toliver's reliability.--Assayer (talk) 01:12, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
 * COMMENTARY. This looks to me like a hitjob and much is original research, so I have to defend the author of the book Raymond F. Toliver. Toliver was one of the most respected military aviation historian in the world who wrote multiple books on the subject including Fighter Aces of the USA, Fighter Aces of the Luftwaffe, and Blond Knight of Germany. Two of the above titles have won top nonfiction awards of the Aviation-Space Writers Association. Beside this, I think the best book he wrote is The Interrogator: The Story of Hanns Joachim Scharff, Master Interrogator of the Luftwaffe who is widely used and taught by the US ARMY, CIA and FBI.
 * His books are quoted in numerous research papers and journals as well as books. Some examples: The Canadian Air Force Journal, the official publication of Canadian Chief of the Air Staff source, CIA source, Directorate of Operations Research source, NATIONAL DEFENSE INTELIGENCE COLLEGE source, US ARMY source.
 * His books are held by the many libraries around the world. See in Australia: Libraries: Australian War Memorial - Research Centre, National Library of Australia, State Library Victoria.
 * More information on the author pls read the obituary.
 * The criticisms provided by the initiator in the articles he wrote are misleading. Ronald Smelser and Edward J. Davies never read the book and their only problem is with the name of the book. As they should have known better is the publisher who choose the name, and they choose this name because they wanted to sell as many books as possible. The German publishers choose a different name! Jens Wehner criticizes stereotypes about Soviet Union which was a horrible regime and the close attention to technical details which is no reason for not being reliable.
 * The Blond Knight of Germany is a well written biography about Erich Hartmann and is a worthy contribution to the aviation history. The book is not widely used in the article and is not the job of editors like Assayers to do original research. World famous university professor like Richard J. Evans, Ian Kershaw, Peter Longerich, Timothy Snyder will never write a military biography about a single soldier of Nazi Germany, and what Raymond F. Toliver wrote after years of research is the best we have. FOR PEOPLE WHO ARE GOING TO POST UNDERSTAND THAT THE BOOK IS A WELL RESEARCHED BIOGRAPHY OF ERICH HARTMANN AND IS NON-FICTION. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DiorandI (talk • contribs) 00:46, 7 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Delist - Assayer's comments (including the linked diff in K.e.'s initial comment) on the reliability of Tolliver & Constable are convincing - the yelling above is not. That would be enough to delist if it was the only problem with the article, but it is not as others have also identified. Parsecboy (talk) 16:51, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Why the rush to delist without giving proper time for corrections of assumed issues? Am I to assume that even without T&C that, that would not be enough ? Dapi89 (talk) 17:14, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I haven't seen any indication that anyone is going to actually do the work of overhauling the article in the short term. If you're going to, that's fine, but there's also nothing inherently wrong with delisting now and doing another GA review once the article is in better shape.
 * But yes, there are other references that are problems - for instance, what makes hartmannerich.com or http://acesofww2.com/germany/aces/hartmann (which is a dead link), or http://members.aol.com/falkeeins/Sturmgruppen/hartmannclaims.html reliable sources? There are also copyright issues - how is File:Erich Hartmann (c. 1943).jpg in the PD in the US? Ditto for File:Messerschmitt Me109G.jpg. Parsecboy (talk) 17:30, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Don't ask me about copyrights, I have no idea or inclination to read up on it, and I don't think that is our main concern at the moment.
 * The links can be swept away. They're not really needed from what I can see. It'd be better if the article can be cleaned up now to save wasting time in another review. Dapi89 (talk) 17:45, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Sure, but the point is, somebody needs to figure out the copyright situation on the photos, since the GA criteria require images to be suitably licensed. They can be removed (and the 109 can very easily be replaced), of course, but it's still an issue that needs to be resolved.
 * It would be ideal if the article could be fixed now, but it's a matter of who's willing (and able) to do the work. Parsecboy (talk) 18:17, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I’m not sorry Parsecboy, but I believe some people here want to denigrate and cast aspersions about the author of the book to discredit him. I pointed out with examples that he is highly respected author and his books are used as a source in research papers, journals, academic works, studies, US ARMY, CIA. He is not fringe and doesn’t write fiction or semi-fiction. Assayer complaints are just opinions where he believes that there no way that thing could had happened or that thing or this is too good to be true. I think most of his opinions are wrong. In a interview Hartmann gave he details that encounter with Hitler:


 * Source It seems to me that is very accurate what was written in his wikipedia page. Now Parsecboy, do you believe Assayer opinions that is too good to be true or Erich Hartmann the person who was there? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DiorandI (talk • contribs) 18:21, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Hartmann himself said that Constable and Tolliver played freely with facts - I'd suggest you ask yourself the same question. I'd also point out that Trevor James Constable was a UFO-ologist and a promoter of quackery (as you can see from his article) - hardly what I'd consider to be a reliable author. Parsecboy (talk) 18:31, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Were dealing here with Assayer opinions about “Who believes that Barkhorn, Krupinski and Wiese visited Hitler intoxicated and that Hartmann put up Hitler's hat (a jolly good story)? Who believes that Hartmann was allowed to carry his pistol while he received the Diamonds from Hitler personally? Since the beginning of the war no one who approached Hitler was allowed to carry a firearm. That was one of the reasons why the plotters of 20 July planted a bomb. In short, the whole article is full of such details too good to be true.” As I pointed out above all of this is true. So if Assayer lied about this he may have lied about other opinions. Also where do you know that Hartmann said Toliver played freely with facts? Hartmann was not involved in the writing process but he was interviewed to a considerable degree about his life and career. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DiorandI (talk • contribs) 18:42, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I find it curious that you have no problem finding his opinion of the anecdote about Hartmann carrying his Walter, but you seem to have such trouble reading the rest of it. I'll help you out: "Kühn also used this interview for a piece in his book Luftkrieg als Abenteuer ("Air war as adventure", 1975), to which I am referring. It turned out that Hartmann considered Toliver to be a friend, but was not realy involved in the writing process. He said that the book featured only few authentic statements directly from him. What may interest us, is the fact that Hartmann also acknowledged that several aspects in his bio were made up by the authors, for example, what he allegedly thought after his visit with Hitler shortly 20 July 1944. Thus we know from Hartmann himself that Toliver/Constable dealt with their subject freely and that their work contains elements of fiction, apparently to fashion a certain image of Hartmann." What evidence do you have that Hartmann was interviewed extensively for the book? According to Hartmann as relayed in Kühn, he was not. Parsecboy (talk) 19:48, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
 * , I urge you to read Arbitration/Requests/Case/German_war_effort, esp. item 4, on reliable sources. I further urge you to not start out by personalizing a possible dispute over content--that is, it seems you dispute content statements and claims about the unreliability of sources, and you seem to blame that on people's supposed agendas rather than on a factual disagreement. That is not a good way to start a Wikipedia career. Drmies (talk) 23:25, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Hartmann and the side arm
It is clear that Assayer's remarks on this issue are wrong. Hartmann said that was what happened; you may argue that Hartmann embellished aspects of it, or call him a liar. What you may not do is say T&C made it up. See the following: https://migflug.com/jetflights/final-interview-with-erich-hartmann/ Dapi89 (talk) 18:51, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The interview was videoed. FYI Dapi89 (talk)
 * I think we're getting a little bent around the axle about something that isn't actually the crux of the matter. The point is that Hartmann was not as involved in the book as Constable and Toliver might like us to believe (and that C&T added or embellished aspects of their biography), which calls into question its overall reliability. Whether any single event described therein is accurate or not isn't really all that relevant. Parsecboy (talk) 19:50, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm just going through the accusations one by one. And the first story complained about was true, at least to the degree Hartmann told it. I'm not going to argue the case for the authors. As it stands, they have been largely removed already. And I'm confident the citation that remain are easy to deal with. Our colleague above maybe getting bent out of shape, but if he is reading this, he should relax. There is plenty out there that can cover this article. Dapi89 (talk) 21:13, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
 * First, for those interested, I will cite Dieter Kühn at some length.
 * "Und so spreche ich mit Hartmann kurz auch über die Entstehung dieses Buches […]. Der „blonde Ritter“ bestätigt, daß ihn mit Toliver, dem Piloten, Freundschaft verbindet, seine Mitarbeit an diesem Buch habe vorwiegend jedoch nur darin bestanden, Adressen und Kontakte zu vermitteln, das Buch enthalte nur wenige direkte Äußerungen von ihm selbst. Wir können aber davon ausgehen, daß er es akzeptiert." (Luftkrieg als Abenteuer. Kampfschrift. München: Hanser, 1975, p. 111) = And so I briefly talk to Hartmann about the genesis of this book [...]. The "blond knight" confirms that he is friends with Toliver, the pilot, but his involvement with this book consisted mainly in communicating addresses and contacts; the book contained only a few direct statements by himself. But we can assume that he accepts it.
 * Kühn later refers to a quote by Toliver/Constable which reads: „Vielleicht hatte sein Vater Recht. Als er zur III. Gruppe des JG 52 an der Ostfront zurückflog und auf dem Feldflugplatz der 9. Staffel in Lemberg landete, schob er die quälenden Gedanken beiseite. Die harte Pflicht ließ ihm keine Zeit mehr zu Grübeln.“ As he flew back to III Gruppe of JG-52 on the Eastern Front, the words of his father and Usch mingled in his mind with the confident predictions of the Führer. He could not decide between optimism and pessimism, and when he touched down at the 9th Squadron's base at Lemberg the mental debate ended. The stern business of duty came first. (1985ed., p. 107) One may note the omission of the “Führer”’s predictions in the German translation. When Kühn questioned Hartmann about these thoughts, Hartmann answered: “Ich möchte sagen, daß das mehr dichterische Freiheit ist. Ich möchte heute behaupten, quälende Gedanken sind in der Jugend seltener als harte quälende Pflichten, die erfüllt werden müssen.“ (p. 117) = I would like to say that this is more poetic licence. Today I would like to say that tormenting thoughts are less common in youth than harsh tormenting duties that have to be fulfilled.
 * Kühn did not go through the whole content of the book with Hartmann. But the Toliver/Constable book is clearly closer to a novel than to a reliable biography.
 * Second, I won’t quibble about the reliability of these interviews, conducted and edited by Colin Heaton, published or hosted by and on sites like MiGFlug & Adventure GmbH. Even if Erich Hartmann confirms and retells some of the anecdotes, that does not mean that they were facts. Wikipedia did not consider Philip Roth to be a reliable source on himself. Likewise Erich Hartmann is not a reliable source on Erich Hartmann. Thus, substituting the Toliver/Constable source with an interview hosted on some website does not resolve the issues. Given the fringe character of most of the other literature being cited (e.g. Kaplan and Weal), it is also not clear, whether these authors conducted original research, or simply took their information uncritically from Toliver/Constable.
 * Third, those anecdotes are unnecessary details and do not conform with WP:SUMMARY.--Assayer (talk) 00:38, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry, that still isn't satisfactory. It is standard practice to use a quotation through a third party. I don't recall quotations or interviews being condemned on Wikipedia.
 * You'll have to prove that they (Weal and Kaplan) have done so and log another complaint against them. Thus far this assessment is based around the unreliability of T&C. Once they have been erased you'll be left holding an empty sack.Dapi89 (talk) 00:55, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Can you delete all traces of Franz Kurowski while you're fixing things? – ♠Vami _IV†♠  02:08, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * There are also a number of harv errors that need repair: There are no references for "Bergström 2007", "Bergström 2008", "Mitcham 2012", or "Airpower Journal (Air University United States Air Force) & winter, 1991". – ♠Vami _IV†♠  02:15, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes of course. The Air power Journal is a complete citation and been given in the inline fashion only. I can add it to the biblio as well as the very well-known work from Bergstrom, and Mitcham. David T. Zabecki has also made some information on Hartmann available. I doubt anyone will have a problem with him. Dapi89 (talk) 12:45, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Neither Weal nor Kaplan provide any notes. Their studies are not scholarly, but “popular history” to put it mildly. There is not much that can be proven. It would be interesting to learn, though, whether there went some original research into the works of Weal or Kaplan. But I don't think that the WP:ONUS is on me. Yes, without Toliver/Constable the sack is nearly empty. As buidhe observed above, I am not convinced that the sources exist to write a good article. A lack of reliable sources does not justify the use of unreliable sources to fill the void with legends.--Assayer (talk) 13:01, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * They don't, you're quite right, but some reliable sources operate the same way. But the onus I think is on those making the claim that either the author or their publishers are unreliable. In Weal's case, Osprey have been used to cover both Allied and Axis forces; in other words they're not obsessed with the German side. And I think the recent replacements are certainly reliable.
 * FYI. Kaplan' s work on Hartmann is very brief. Dapi89 (talk) 15:48, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I've fond Weal so far to be reliable. That is to say, no reason to throw him into the trash with Gordon Williamson. Osprey is a tricky line to walk if you're not a wargamer. – ♠Vami _IV†♠  16:13, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Karl Schmider says that Weal has done "valuable work" on Luftwaffe fighter aces, stating that his work involves "painstaking research". He does note that his work has the flaw of lacking source notes. I consider him reliable, but not of academic quality. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 20:51, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Current state
Remarks, please. Dapi89 (talk) 13:42, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
 * T&C and Williamson are gone. Dapi89 (talk) 19:37, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the work so far. Some comments, based on the overall changes: diff.
 * is used for 24 citations. What makes it a reliable source?
 * Same question for
 * Is there an author & article title for ?
 * Some of the content has failed verification. For example:
 * Hartmann, for a time, used a black tulip design around the engine cowling near the spinner of his aircraft, so Soviet personnel consequently nicknamed him Cherniy Chort ("Black Devil"). -- Zabecki, p. 586 does not mention the tulip design, nor how long Harmann used the black markings for.
 * He also made several trips to the United States, where he was trained on U.S. Air Force equipment. -- Zabecki, p. 587 does not mention this.

--K.e.coffman (talk) 04:14, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
 * There are still a quite few anecdotes that can apparently be only traced to Hartmann, such as "According to Hartmann, all four of them got drunk ..."; "During his meeting with Hitler, after sobering up..."; "According to one account, Hartmann..."; "They began a revolt, overpowered the guards..." etc.
 * The removal of T&C cite resulted in Berger's cite being appended at the end of the entire para, encompassing material previously cited to T&C: . It's unclear whether the Berger source supports the 16,000 number. If this is the case, this casts shade on Berger as well, as a number of the 1955 returnees were former SS, police and civilian personnel; see Heimkehrer. Including them with the military returnees is misleading.
 * Berger itself is a self-published source: "Selbstverlag Florian Berger".

All the harvref errors I mentioned prior are still broken, with the addition of "Spick 1996". Raymond Toliver, Trevor Constable, and Gordon Williamson are still listed in the Bibliography despite having no references linking to them. Delete them. – ♠Vami _IV†♠  06:58, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I will deal with these issues in-depth later. But the two sources questioned were not a part of this assessment, and I have no reason to believe they are not reliable, unless of course there is a claim which can prove they are not.
 * Zabecki links the nickname to the paint scheme on the aircraft quite clearly. Other sources refer to the pattern as a tulip, that can be added in with Zabecki to cover that oversight.
 * There is no author in the USAF doc.
 * I made the assumption that they come from Hartmann; as do the authors. I believe the reduction of the stories to a few words is appropriate. Braatz has been hailed as reliable in other articles by other editors; I think Assayer was one of them. Peacemaker certainly was. 12:10, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
 * FYI Hartman-US equipment cant be dealt with its no problem. Dapi89 (talk) 12:11, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The issues raised around verification have been fixed. Zabecki remarks on the unit and equipment Hartmann commanded - Kaplan mentions he received training in the US. Dapi89 (talk) 12:20, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I believe the issues Coffman has raised have been dealt with. Dapi89 (talk) 16:44, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Follow-up
Still a few outstanding issues:
 * This is a Good Article Reassessment, and all sources are being evaluated. With that in mind, what makes Stockert and Kaplan reliable sources?


 * The article still contains a number of unverifiable anecdotes, such as conversations with Hitler, "he took a rifle and went to search for Hartmann", etc. Just because Hartmann (or popular history writers) claim that these events took place, they do not need to be replicated in an encyclopedia article. For example, the Zabecki source does not repeat any of them.


 * is not linking appropriately, even though the full source is listed in the bibliography.


 * Magazines generally don't publish pieces without attribution. If this page does not have an author nor title, then what is it? An ad? Alternatively, these details can perhaps be dropped: "Paule Roßmann taught Hartmann the fundamentals..." & "His approach was described by himself..."

--K.e.coffman (talk) 00:43, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The reason I listed the Zabecki & Berger misquotes as concerning was because the swapping of citations suggests that other sources may have been otherwise appended to prior T&C cites. I.e. does Kaplan contain the exact same content & Hartmann's quote as here: & ? Is Kaplan citing T&C then? Or they are both quoting from the same interview?


 * No indication that they're not, as I've said. Unless you can say otherwise.
 * Zabecki is not thorough though is he. Its a 300-word biography.
 * It isn't clear. I'll use another volume.
 * Why? It isn't logical to drop Hartmann details on his tactics. They enabled his success and made him notable.
 * Can't help with technical issues. I don't know why it doesn't work. Dapi89 (talk) 09:35, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Not completely. Kapalan is an extremely condensed source. It is partially quoted. Of course, all quotes will be from Hartmann. Whether this was from the same, or a different interview in which Hartmann reiterated the same information is not known. Dapi89 (talk) 09:35, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
 * My 2c on the Kaplan/Stockert issue: The publisher is not necessarily known for strong fact-checking, while the authors don't use footnotes and there is a high probability that they sourced the account from a fictionalized book. This would seem to indicate that it is not RS. I am not convinced that the self-published Berger book counts as RS either. bui<b style="color: White">dhe</b> (formerly Catrìona) 10:19, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
 * There is a lot of opinion there. Berger isn't in the article for anything other than to say Hartmann was a civil instructor. That can be sourced to Zabecki in any case. Stockert's source practically gives all the information in bullet point style paragraphs and really isn't interested in anything other than dates, awards and promotions. No stories there. Dapi89 (talk) 13:37, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
 * From the Good Article criteria, all inline citations are from reliable sources—even for non-controversial information. If the sources are not reliable, it fails. <b style="color: White">b</b><b style="color: White">ui</b><b style="color: White">dhe</b> (formerly Catrìona) 13:54, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
 * And? You've failed to show it is unreliable. That is the point. Explain to me why he was used on the good article of Hermann Fegelein, Himmler's little Nazi soldier. Dapi89 (talk) 15:33, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

WP:BURDEN
That's not how Wikipedia works. Dapi, your defense of unreliable source even merited an entry during the WP:ARBGWE case: Arbitration/Requests/Case/German war effort/Evidence. For the benefits of others, I'm reproducing it here:

Now Kaplan / Stockert are being put forth as reliable sources under the same rationales. I also had concerns about unverifiable anecdotes and swapping of citations, which have not yet been addressed, such as: Does Kaplan contain the exact same content & Hartmann's quote as here: & ? Is Kaplan citing T&C then? --K.e.coffman (talk) 18:51, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
 * That isn't true at all. In what way is asking for proof of unreliability unreasonable?
 * Are you seriously saying the factors that got Kurowksi labelled as unreliable apply to these authors as well?
 * Where is the evidence?
 * They have been dealt with. I've told you they have been. You can see from the article, they have been.
 * I've already told you, Kaplan is condensed. He covers PARTof the quotation.
 * It is the same with Hans-Joachim Marseille. You want something deleted on the basis of your opinion. It does not say in WP:Burden or WP:Reliable sources that authors should be deleted on the basis of opinion or because they do not have a PhD. Dapi89 (talk) 19:54, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I can put it this way: In what way is asking for proof of reliability unreasonable? This is what the site policy actually says. Are there any reviews of Kaplan or Stockert describing them as authoritative? Are they published in presses known for reliability or fact checking? Etc.
 * See Reliable sources: "Any of the three [i.e. the nature of book, author, & publisher] can affect reliability. Reliable sources may be published materials with a reliable publication process, authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, or both. These qualifications should be demonstrable to other people." (emphasis mine). K.e.coffman (talk) 20:09, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

It isn't. If neither criticism nor praise can be found, then it proves neither. I'm sure that is self evident. So at best we're at an impasse, particularly when one considers Kaplan was published by Pen and Sword; a well know publisher with no links to Nazis or their apologia. I know of no critical reviews levelled at them. Dapi89 (talk) 20:21, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

FYI. From Pen and Sword's website (this explains how Kaplan did his research; though this is also discussed in the book); ''This book examines the reality behind the myths of the legendary German fighter aces of World War II. It explains why only a small minority of pilots - those in whom the desire for combat overrode everything - accounted for so large a proportion of the victories. It surveys the skills that a successful fighter pilot must have - a natural aptitude for flying, marksmanship, keen eyesight - and the way in which fighter tactics have developed. The book examines the history of the classic fighter aircraft that were flown, such as the Messerschmitt Bf 109 and the Focke Wulf Fw 190, and examines each type's characteristics, advantages and disadvantages in combat. The accounts of the experiences of fighter pilots are based on archival research, diaries, letters, published and unpublished memoirs and personal interviews with veterans. The pilots included are Werner Molders, Gunther Rall, Adolf Galland, Erich Hartmann and Johannes Steinhoff.'' Dapi89 (talk) 20:30, 13 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Third follow up; see https://www.nyjournalofbooks.com/book-review/escort-pilot. Dr. Michael J. Deeb commends his work in this instance. Dapi89 (talk) 20:46, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Fourth, it appears as if your reading of WP:Burden is selective. It has come to my attention that there is also further guidance from the said page; "Once an editor has provided any source that he or she believes, in good faith, to be sufficient, then any editor who later removes the material has an obligation to articulate specific problems that would justify its exclusion from Wikipedia (e.g., why the source is unreliable; the source does not support the claim; undue emphasis; unencyclopedic content; etc.). If necessary, all editors are then expected to help achieve consensus, and any problems with the text or sourcing should be fixed before the material is added back."

So it would seem, as I suspected, the burden of proof is on those making the claim. Dapi89 (talk) 23:06, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

This GAR
A publisher's blurb is not sufficient. The other piece is about an Allied airman fighting on the Western Front; not a related topic. In re: BURDEN, sure, the concerns expressed during this GAR were about the sources being unreliable; undue emphasis; and unencyclopedic content: Sample content which fails both NPOV and RS:
 * Assayer: Neither Weal nor Kaplan provide any notes. Their studies are not scholarly, but “popular history” to put it mildly. There is not much that can be proven. (...) A lack of reliable sources does not justify the use of unreliable sources to fill the void with legends.
 * buidhe: My 2c on the Kaplan/Stockert issue: The publisher is not necessarily known for strong fact-checking, while the authors don't use footnotes and there is a high probability that they sourced the account from a fictionalized book. This would seem to indicate that it is not RS.
 * Myself: There are still a quite few anecdotes that can apparently be only traced to Hartmann, such as "According to Hartmann, all four of them got drunk ..."
 * Afterward, Hartmann practised diligently and adopted a new credo which he passed on to other young pilots: "Fly with your head, not with your muscles." During a gunnery practice session in June 1942, he hit a target drogue with 24 of the allotted 50 rounds of machine-gun fire, a feat that was considered difficult to achieve. His training had qualified him to fly 17 different types of powered aircraft, and, following his graduation, he was posted on 21 August 1942 to Ergänzungs-Jagdgruppe Ost (Supplementary Fighter Group, East) in Gleiwitz, Upper Silesia, where he remained until 10 October 1942.
 * When Hartmann's Crew Chief, Heinz "Bimmel" Mertens, heard what had happened, he took a rifle and went to search for Hartmann. Etc.


 * --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:30, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Sources are entitled to refer to the subject for information. You have not proven the source is untrustworthy. Who cares? The opinions of wikipedians are irrelevant. As for anecdotes, if this thing about the mechanic and his rifle and 1944 meeting is such a problem, then it can go. But it is a lame excuse to justify delisting the article. Dapi89 (talk) 08:25, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

The result of this GAR is delisted. While considerable effort has gone into the article, such as to remove Toliver & Constable's semi-fictional work, there are issues that have not been addressed: POV anecdotes; unreliable sources; etc.

New issues also keep cropping up, such as content failing verification, due to (possibly) swapping of citations without proper checking to make sure that the new sources support prior material; see:. Once identified, the Zabecki issues have been addressed, but here's the latest example:


 * Paule Roßmann taught Hartmann the fundamentals of the surprise attack, a tactic that led to his "See – Decide – Attack – Break" style of aerial combat.

The source -- STEALTH IS A ZERO-SUM GAME: A SUBMARINER’S VIEW OF THE ADVANCED TACTICAL FIGHTER, Capt James H. Patton, USN, Retired -- is a passing mention of Hartmann and does not mention Roßmann nor what he taught Hartmann. (It also took three tries during this GAR to pry out the author's info, which is concerning).

In this situation, it's hard to assume AGF re: existing content. I recommend that the improvements continue to address the issues identified in this GAR, with the attention to NPOV, proper sourcing, and verification. Then the article can be renominated. --K.e.coffman (talk) 03:37, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

You should not have closed this; there is no consensus.

The original vote was taken on the state of the article at that time, not since. And these points can be dealt with. Three sources attribute these tactics to Hartmann's tutor. The source about is reliable as well. Passing mentions in academic sources are just as reputable. You don't get to decide whether they are or not. Dapi89 (talk) 09:50, 18 January 2019 (UTC)


 * I've added another citation from Boyne and Deac confirming Roßman was indeed a factor in Hartmann's success. A direct quote can be supplied.
 * I'd appreciate it if Coffmann would not try and sneakily end this discussion until all editors have commented.
 * If you want to go through each citation one by one we can to show that they do say what is in the article.

I have reverted your removal of GA on the article FYI. Dapi89 (talk) 10:04, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Other contributors
Other contributors need to get involved. Otherwise it will be another case of one editor making a decision he or she feels is fit. That is not an appropriate way forward. Dapi89 (talk) 10:22, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Please see follow-on discussion at Dapi89's Talk page and Buidhe's Talk page. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:21, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
 * And? Dapi89 (talk) 13:48, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Meaning: I agree with the two editors who responded. --K.e.coffman (talk) 19:23, 21 January 2019 (UTC)