Talk:Hans-Joachim Marseille/Archive 2

GA Review: On Hold
I have reviewed this article according to the requirements of the GA criteria and have placed the article on hold until the following issues are addressed. As you address each issue, either strike through the statement/place a check mark next to the issue and state how you addressed it. If you disagree with a particular issue, state your rationale for doing so after the issue in question so a compromise can be reached.
 * 1) "Soon after, during a cross-country flight, he landed on a quiet stretch of autobahn and ran behind a tree to relieve himself." Can an inline citation be added for the information in this paragraph? I doubt somebody could make this story up but a reader may want to refer to it.✅
 * 2) "In July, in Vienna, he was given his final flight training and received an outstanding evaluation[10][11]." Inline citations should go directly after the punctuation with no space in between. Fix all of the other occurrences throughout the article (including ones like "No one followed me and I returned to Leeuwarden." [13]").✅
 * 3) "Another account recalled how Marseille once ignored an order..." This also needs an inline citation. Also if "Expecting nothing but "a well done Jochen" when he landed, he was given a thorough dressing down." is part of a quote, it should be cited as well; if not, reword "dressing down" for those readers who may not know what it means.✅
 * 4) "Steinhoff transferred Marseille,[17] to Jagdgeschwader 27 on December 24, 1940" Remove the comma and move the inline citation to the end of the sentence.✅
 * 5) "He scored two more kills on the 23 and April 28" Reword to "on April 23 and 28".✅
 * 6) "Marseille persisted, and created a unique self-training program for himself, both physical and tactical, which resulted not just in outstanding situational awareness, marksmanship and confident control of the aircraft, but also in a unique attack tactic that preferred a high angle deflection shooting attack and shooting at the target's front from the side, instead of the common method of chasing an aircraft and shooting at it directly from behind." This could use an inline citation.✅
 * 7) The quote in the box by Adolf Galland should be sourced as well.✅
 * 8) "Marseille's excellent eyesight made it possible..." Was his eyesight better than other people? If so this should maybe be mentioned in his early life section and maybe include a source as well. Perhaps "Marseille also drank an abnormal amount of milk and shunned sunglasses, to improve his eyesight." should be included before this statement for the benefit of the reader.✅
 * 9) There are a few brief single sentences/small paragraphs that would probably benefit from being merged with other ones or being expanded on with more information. The "Memorial" section should be modified a bit more to merge some of the statements.✅ I made a bulleted list out of the items since they are disjunctive.MisterBee1966 (talk) 21:03, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 10) Add a caption for Image:Bf109F-4 Gelbe14 Ma JG27 kl96.jpg✅
 * 11) "On September 30, 1942, Hauptmann Marseille was leading his Staffel on a Stuka escort mission [32][33], during which no contact with enemy fighters was made While" This sentence is missing a period at the end.✅
 * 12) "The commission’s report (Aktenzeichen 52, Br.B.Nr. 270/42) concluded that the crash was caused by damage to the differential gear, which caused an oil leak. Then a number of teeth broke off the spur wheel and ignited the oil. Sabotage or human error was ruled out.[37]" If this is directly from the report then it needs quotation marks.❌ The commission report is a two page German document which details the technical issues/background, steps taken for investigation and a summary of findings. The three sentences in the article are the condensed reflection of what the report is stating.MisterBee1966 (talk) 10:54, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 13) "Adrian Jacobus Botha who crash landed his aircraft.[39]." Remove the extra period after the inline citation.✅
 * 14) "of the 26 claims made by JG 27 on 1 September 1942..." Full dates should be wikilinked.✅
 * 15) In his death section, can you include any available information about what happened to his fiancé? Did she have a response to his death? Unfortunately I have no information regarding her immediate reaction to his death. The only reference to Hannelies Küppers I have ever found in literature is that, she together with Marseilles mother, attended a reunion of fighter pilots after World War II. MisterBee1966 (talk) 11:05, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I added a section to the "memorial" section to reflect this meeting. MisterBee1966 (talk) 21:03, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Altogether, the article was interesting to read and didn't have too many problems. I have left the article on hold for seven days for the issues to be addressed. Most of the above issues should be easy to fix and not take too long. If they are fixed in this time, I will pass the article. If not, the article may be failed and can be renominated at WP:GAN. If necessary to address the above issues, and progress is being made, an extension may be allowed. If you have any questions or when you are done, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 23:40, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


 * first fixes!MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:43, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

GA passed
Good job with addressing the above issues and adding more information about his fiancé. I have passed this article according to the requirements of the GA criteria. I made a few minor corrections concerning spacing/inline citations. Continue to improve the article, making sure that all new information is properly sourced and neutral.

Also, to anyone that is reading this review, please consider reviewing an article or two at WP:GAN to help with the very large backlog. Instructions can be found here. Each new reviewer that helps to review articles will help to reduce the time that articles wait to be reviewed. Keep up the good work, and I hope that you continue to bring articles up to Good Article status. If anyone disagrees with this review, an alternate opinion can be sought at Good article reassessment. If you have any further questions about this review, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. I have updated the article history to reflect this review. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 02:46, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Use of the terms "RAF" and "British"
To avert further misunderstandings and/or edit wars:

Non-British personnel in RAF formations during WW2 fell into several categories. They were either:
 * 1) individuals who had joined the RAF (e.g. Adolph Malan)
 * 2) on "loan" to the RAF under the pre-war Short Service Commission Scheme from a Dominion air force (e.g. Paterson Clarence Hughes...note the remarks about his uniform!)
 * 3) individual Dominion air force personnel assigned to an RAF squadron (e.g. Clive Caldwell in 1941-42)
 * 4) members of a Dominion Article XV squadron (e.g. No. 400 Squadron RCAF)
 * 5) members of another Dominion air force squadron operating under RAF control (e.g. SAAF  squadrons with the Desert Air Force).

I won't get into the thorny issue of the status of personnel from occupied Europe...let's just say it is a matter of controversy.

Regards, Grant  |  Talk  03:57, 15 January 2008 (UTC)


 * This seems to be fairly clear-cut; Marseille was engaged in an action over England on his first operational sorties during the Battle of Britain, encountering an RAF pilot (I am sure he did not enquire as to his ancestry or country of origin at the time) who happened to be flying a Hurricane fighter aircraft. The original editor made allusion to the RAF pilot being an experienced (or skilled) flyer. What other possible reading do you have of the passage in question? FWIW (could this be a "tempest in a teacup" issue?) Bzuk (talk) 12:53, 15 January 2008 (UTC).
 * Have to agree with Bzuk nothing wrong with the statement that it was a RAF pilot flying a Hurricane appears to be a statement of fact. Not sure about experienced tho - do we know his name he could have been on his first mission! MilborneOne (talk) 13:09, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * See, for example, my point 3 above. An RAF plane does not necessarily = an RAF pilot. Grant  |  Talk  14:43, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I had no intention of "going to war over this!". The revert was to provoke some clarification. It was not the "pilot" issue that irritated me, I couldn't care less about that. It was just the removal of "RAF" from the text. Although for arguments sake the odds (nearly 4 to 1) are heavily in favour of it being a British RAF pilot. Considering also the Polish units were first made operational on 30 August 1940 (or at least those equipped with Hurricanes) and that Marseille scored this kill six days before, it was probably a Brit. Dapi89 (talk) 15:16, 15 January 2008 (UTC).

Oh - the experienced issue. Well Marseille thought he was experienced, though Marseille himself was engaging the enemy for the first time, so what did he know! The only "evidence" of the skill of this pilot in literature is in Weal and Kurowski's works. The dogfight lasted for a full four minutes which according to them was hard fought, hence the text. Dapi89 (talk) 15:30, 15 January 2008 (UTC)


 * If the dogfight lasted four long minutes then both pilots were near the same level of skill. The RAF guy was probably just as new to the game as Marseilles. Binksternet (talk) 18:26, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Interestingly Wübbe states that the first kill was a Spitfire and not a Hurricane?! Do note that according to Wübbe, no official German records exist for the first 7 aerial claims. MisterBee1966 (talk) 21:09, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, I'm a bit annoyed! I compared Kurowski and Wübbe and they don't match! Example: Kurowski pages 129 to 133 date February 8, 1942, the reader gets the impression that Marseille shoots down 3 P-40 directly before the eyes of the Geschwader over the airfield of Martuba. On page 220 Kurowski claims that Marseille shot down four P-40 over the airfield of Martuba?! One of the pilots shot down was Flight Sergeant Hargreaves. Wübbe on page 31 is inline with the first two P-40 over Martuba airfield, including the story about Hargreaves. However according to Wübbe the second two P-40 were claimed in the afternoon over the Bay of Bomba. Also note that according to Wübbe the records for kills 15 to 38 (this includes the first two claims of February 8, 1942) are missing from the German Archives.

Assuming Wübbe is truthful about his statements and he actually used the available records form the Archives, then I can only deduce that Kurowski has written a nice story, however lacking any evidence and is most likely not true. MisterBee1966 (talk) 21:57, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I just checked Hans Ring, Jagdgeschwader 27, page 153 regarding the action on February 8, 1942 Ring is inline with Wübbe (only two shot down)! Accept for the minor detail that initally 7 Curtiss were reported but they turned out to be Hurricanes. MisterBee1966 (talk) 22:22, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the type (thought it would be nice) is all that important. Hurricane or Spitfire, it was the first kill. Dapi89 (talk) 00:27, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Well any detail is important, if it is being specified in the text. Likewise, "probably a Brit" does not mean it was a British pilot. Also, even if it was a UK national, it may have been a Fleet Air Arm pilot, many of whom were attached to the RAF in 1940. "RAF" is not acceptable shorthand for all of the Allied personnel in the Battle of Britain. Attention to detail is important for the credibility of the article. Grant  |  Talk  05:44, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Of course, but in the context of the information available. Some sources conflict over the type, so we don't know for sure. Marseille may have misidentified it making this debate irrelevant anyway. Having the exact type of aircraft destroyed on his first mission doesn't ruin the credibility of the article - it isn't essential. To satisfy everyone perhaps this should be listed "Spitfire/Hurricane"? Dapi89 (talk) 17:38, 16 January 2008 (UTC).

I dont see what the problem is with him being an RAF pilot whatever his background, he was flying in an RAF aircraft, under RAF control and unless you know his name the rest is speculation. On the 24 August 22 aircraft were lost by the RAF but only six pilots and four air gunners were lost or killed. Some of them can be discounted by being in the wrong place and most crashed on land. Assuming that it did crash into the sea then the possibilities could be: Apologise for the original research! - so he was not Fleet Air Arm but could be Belgian of Polish, if it was Seghers the Belgian then he was an experienced airmen with the Belgian Air Force before he joined the RAF. MilborneOne (talk) 20:28, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * P/O Eugene Seghers a Belgian with No 32 Squadron was shot down into the sea on the 24th of August by a Bf 109 near Elham at 16:30hrs in his Hurricane I (V6567). He got away with an enforced bath, he went on patrol the next day and had his first success three days later.
 * P/O P.Zenker from Poland was with No 501 Squadron. He was reported 'Missing' on the 24th of August 1940. He was shot down in his Hurricane I (L1865) during combat with some Do 17's and Bf 109's near Dover at 10:15hrs.
 * Sgt G.Hill from No 65 Squadron escaped injury when his Spitfire I (R6884) was shot down on the 24th of August 1940 of Margate at 15:35hrs.
 * P/O Zenker already had two "kills" to his name, a Ju 87 and Bf 109 and was considered an experienced pilot. Most Polish combat flyers had as much as 2,000 hrs in their logbooks before coming to England. FWIW, congrats to all for the FA rating! Bzuk (talk) 01:01, 17 January 2008 (UTC).

Milborne, you say "whatever his background, he was flying in an RAF aircraft, under RAF control and unless you know his name the rest is speculation". Well exactly; it is speculative and misleading to refer to anyone who flew an aircraft ordered from a manufacturer by the RAF as being "RAF"/"British". One consequence of such assumptions/speculations/abbreviations is that they (often inadvertently) feed/serve a perceived tendency for British (usually English) people/institutions to claim credit for people and things who/that were not theirs to claim. For instance, few people now realise, that about one quarter of the people in "RAF" formations during the war were Royal Canadian Air Force personnel. As a citizen of another vast and mostly empty Commonwealth realm, I feel quite strongly about this, as, I suspect, do many others. Grant |  Talk  12:30, 17 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry I did not say British I said an RAF pilot - which he was. I disagree with comments about percieved tendency etc as I think you are putting 21st century values into the 1940s. But I will have to agree to diagree about that point as it is not relevant to this article. I also have a COI issue so will not comment any further. MilborneOne (talk) 17:18, 17 January 2008 (UTC)


 * All I can say is: that usage of "RAF pilot" is tendentious, controversial and unbecoming of WP. Over and out from me too. Grant  |  Talk  01:40, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

British Commonwealth air force ranks
Please be careful with these. Those prone to confusion, in order of seniority, are:
 * Flight Lieutenant
 * Flying Officer
 * Pilot Officer
 * Warrant Officer
 * Flight Sergeant

Note also that the South African Air Force (like the USAAF) did not use the same system, preferring to use army ranks. Grant |  Talk  03:03, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

USAAF
I have done some more reading and it is likely that the statement, that all of Marseille's claims over North Africa were against the British Commonwealth's Desert Air Force, is not necessarily true. At least one victory was over a USAAF P-40. I will present the data and references some time later. The timeframe of interest here falls into the same timeframe that Russel Brown is questioning. MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:49, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Wübbe states that 57th Fighter Group USAAF was involved in the following engagements: 2 September 1942, 3 September 1942, 6 September 1942 and 15 September 1942. Wübbe directly linked only one of Marseille's victories (2 September 1942, Lieutenant MacMarrel) to the 57th Fighter Group. Nevertheless when comparing claims of JG 27 to losses on the Allied side, one has to include the American losses as well. I think? MisterBee1966 (talk) 16:50, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 57th Wing says that the 57th Fighter Group wasn't operational until October. That is backed up by the official US chronology, which says October 7. Could Wübbe have his dates mixed up? Grant  |  Talk  05:55, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, Brown is specifically discussing one action on 15/9/42, which only involved No. 239 Wing (at that time 3 Sqn RAAF, 112 Sqn RAF and 450 Sqn RAAF). In September 1943, some squadrons from the 57th FG became part of 239 Wing, which may be where Wübbe has erred.


 * And unless MacMarrel was a USAAF officer attached to 2 Sqn SAAF on an individual basis, I doubt that the 57th FG was involved in the action of 2 September. Grant  |  Talk  06:04, 19 January 2008 (UTC)


 * OK, I think I've found the answer. The USAAF official history (p. 27) says "elements" of the 57th FG were in combat with "RAF formations" from July. They flew over 150 sorties while attached to DAF units during the First Battle of El Alamein (p.30). Regards,  Grant  |  Talk  23:06, 20 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Great find! So one cannot rule out that Marseille (and others form JG 27) could have engaged with USAAF fighters in the timeframe July - October 1942. This is theoretically possible. Does Russel Brown include USAAF losses in this timeframe too? Do I understand correctly that the most notable discrepancy is 15 September 1942? Because according to Wübbe combat with elements of the 57th Fighter Group took place on that day? MisterBee1966 (talk) 11:27, 21 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The USAAF official history linked above is not exactly clear, but if I understand it correctly, individual pilots from the 57th FG were scattered around the DAF squadrons, to get combat experience. The report of 150+ sorties by 57th FG pilots during 1st Alamein at the end of July suggests about 10-15 pilots, among about six DAF P-40 squadrons.


 * For a few different reasons, I believe they were flying DAF Kittyhawks in July-September, rather that USAAF Warhawks. For instance, the USAAF official history mentions that "traffic congestion" was already a problem at DAF airfields, and there was backlog in airfield construction, even before the Americans were combat ready, so it would not have made sense to add USAAF aircraft to the mix, when pilots were the main shortage being experienced by DAF squadrons and it was common and sensible practice among the Commonwealth squadrons to pool and exchange personnel: e.g. many RAAF personnel flew with RAF squadrons, and at least two that I can think of served with SAAF squadrons. Given that the SAAF squadrons generally seem to have suffered the worst losses, it seems likely that the USAAF pilots were training with South African squadrons.  I can't find mention of individual USAAF personnel in the Australian official histories.


 * I don't have Brown's book at hand, but his attention to detail is impressive, almost obsessive and he is meticulous in identifying which Allied and Axis units were involved in each action, where possible. He definitely states that only JG27 and 239 Wing (comprised at the time of 3 and 450 Sqns RAAF + 112 Sqn RAF) were involved in the action of 15/9/42. I'm almost certain he doesn't mention USAAF personnel serving with 239 Wing that day, and I would expect any loss or damage suffered by them would be included in the overall summary for the Wing. From what I remember, Brown details those killed on 15/9/42 by name, those wounded, those whose aircraft was damaged and is even able to guess which P-40 pilots were erroneously claimed without actually being downed (much to the amusement, he says, of the Allied veterans who were still alive when he was researching the book).


 * So I would be interested to hear more details of Wübbe's description of the combat between JG 27 and USAAF personnel that day, such as the location, the Allied units involved, his sources, etc. Grant  |  Talk  14:02, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Here are some more links about the 57th FG in Africa,. Note that the 57th fighter group was in action on 15 September 1942, "W of Alamien". Dapi89 (talk) 21:07, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Those USAAF combat chronologies are notorious for a lack of generosity towards non-US units/personnel (to say the least). I suspect that "along with RAF" is a weasel way of saying "flying DAF aircraft". For instance, the USAAF official history says:


 * p15, the US Air Forces Middle East commander, General Lewis H. Brereton first arrived in Cairo on June 28; p28 says that 10 days after arriving, Brereton was sending "qualified observers" to DAF units.
 * p33 mentions the Arnold-Portal-Towers agreement, which stipulated (inter alia) that Americans should should serve only in homogeneous US units, but that this was "justifiably violated" with the 11th BG and 57th FG.
 * p35 the 66th FS of the 57th FG being attached to 239 Wing, but not until October 6.


 * Grant |  Talk  00:43, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Question: What puzzles me is the statement from Wübbe that MacMarrel flew the Curtiss P-40F, whereas the majority of P-40s from DAF units are referred to as Kittyhawk IA (P-40E). Here in Wikipedia the Curtiss P-40 article states that The P-40F/L was extensively used by U.S. fighter groups operating in the Mediterranian Theater. I wonder if this could be an indication that indeed some USAAF operated P-40s were in combat as early as September 1942. MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:29, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I think Wübbe has assumed that USAAF personnel = USAAF P-40s, which I think is incorrect, for the reasons stated above. I have not yet located a reliable source for this theory, but some WWW discussion boards/forums/etc actually state that Americans flew DAF aircraft while attached to DAF squadrons in July-September 42. Grant  |  Talk  17:27, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Edit conflict of national variety of English to use in this article
According to the Manual of Style, “In the early stages of writing an article, the variety chosen by the first major contributor to the article should be used, unless there is reason to change it on the basis of strong national ties to the topic. Where an article that is not a stub shows no signs of which variety it is written in, the first person to make an edit that disambiguates the variety is equivalent to the first major contributor.” In checking this article’s history, the first major editor to make a clear contribution was Sherurcij, who I believe is Canadian. Canadians employ a mixed style of generally recognized American- and British-style spellings. Please see MOS (spelling). Oh, and please assume good faith on the part of other editors. Askari Mark (Talk) 18:47, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Amen to the last part. Are we then allowed to use both? Dapi89 (talk) 19:21, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * MOS (spelling) is a good reference for what is preferred "Canadian-speak". Note that it lists the most common version first, where more than one variety gets used. If it's too confusing, then I'd recommend using British spellings, since those were the style to first stand out. Askari Mark (Talk) 19:28, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Eh, I speaks Canajan, and can helps sortout 'da artcle! (LOL) FWIW, you may regret turning Canadians lose on Wikipedia. Bzuk (talk) 20:33, 22 January 2008 (UTC).
 * Well, they do say that Wikipedia is the encyclopedia anyone can edit ... I suppose that also extends to Canucks. :P Askari Mark (Talk) 23:34, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The phrase "unless there is reason to change it on the basis of strong national ties to the topic" makes one consider how much the British lost to Marseille compared to other nations that speak English. This article creeps very close to having strong British ties to the subject. Me, Awm 'Murrican. Binksternet (talk) 14:51, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Having seen the mixture of US and British English in this article I've made a few edits to standardise to the British variety. We need to have one or the other and since there was a mix it seemed logical to move to British since most of his combat was with British Commonwealth forces, i.e. the article has stronger British ties than American ties. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:22, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Ian. It should be noted &mdash; without meaning to offend my many Canadian mates, that in the words of English in the Commonwealth of Nations, "Canadian English is regarded as one of two sub-varieties of North American English", rather than anything that could be called "Commonwealth English". And, with my tongue inclined slightly towards my cheek, considering the preponderance of SAAF units in North Africa and that South African fighter pilots were probably the majority of Marseille's victims in terms of nationality, perhaps the standard should be South African English. Grant 04:34, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Date links
Bzuk, I'm aware of the date preference system, however last time I looked the jury was still out of whether to link or not to link day-month fragments. FWIW, my usual (pragmatic) way of working is to standardise to whatever is most common within an article and this had - and still has - a mixture of day-month fragments linked or not linked. As with the style of English, we need to be consistent. Another practical issue with linking day-month fragments is date ranges. Your linking in "Between 16-25 September Marseille failed to increase his score due to a fractured arm" works fine if you have British date preferences ("16-25 September") but if you have US preferences it comes out "16-September 25", when the correct form would be "September 16-25". Nothing anyone can do about that technically I don't think, just another illustration of the limits of wikilinking dates. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:47, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

French Huguenot Ancestry
He was of French huguenot ancestry? No German ancestry? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.176.238.96 (talk) 20:29, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Have a look here Huguenot. MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:23, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Kill no. 18
The description is a little difficult to desipher. Does it mean the Germans and Italians claimed three each or three altogether? I take it the information is from Wübbe? Dapi89 (talk) 20:31, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I added one word, together. I hope this makes it easier to understand. MisterBee1966 (talk) 10:59, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Defence of the Reich
I wonder if this should be included as one of Marseille's campaigns. He flew fighter protection over the Leuna plant in the summer of 1940. D.O.T.R operations lasted from the first day of the war to the last. (Having read Caldwell and Muller's The Luftwaffe over Germany: The Defence of the Reich). Dapi89 (talk) 11:14, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

BTW, I have added some more info on Marseille's victims. But I am unsure about the credibility of the website. Dapi89 (talk) 11:16, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Strange quote?
"Bungay has pointed out the low military value of shooting down DAF fighters, rather than the bombers that, by mid-1942, were having a highly damaging effect on Axis ground units and convoy routes"

This sentence strikes me as nonsensical except Bungay proved that Marseille was ignoring bombers in favour of fighters. Blowing up bombers was nasty business for Luftwaffe fighters and the kill rate of Allied heavy bombers was comparatively low by any individual German pilot because you had to pour so much ammo into it until one went down. More importantly this sentence opens the question if Marseilles behaviour was different from any other pilot known who would rather go after easy kills like fighter bombers than slug it out with equally capable aircraft. More importantly I fail to see how that sentence is important for his biography, it sounds like an analysis of Luftwaffe combat tactics in North Africa. Even with his high amount of kills he wouldn't have affected how the German squadron prioritized targets and how easy/hard it was to go after the bombers. If it was not possible due to heavy escorts by the British one guy specialized in going after the escorts makes imo perfect sense and should have allowed others to go after the bombers. Altogether I fail to see the relevance of that sentence in regards of Marseilles. It would only fit into a bigger picture if backed by some argumentation why Luftwaffe failed at going after bombers.


 * Besides this being an Unsigned comment the sentence is relevant in the context of Marseille's claims; the Luftwaffe and JG 27 in particular, as the only Jagdgeshwader available, was the only protection the Afrika Korps had against constant attacks by Allied bombers and fighter bombers. Marseille and the rest of JG 27 were fully aware of this yet they persisted in going after the fighters - not one bomber was shot down on the day Marseille claimed 17 kills, ie; no-one took responsibility for attacking bombers while "one guy specialized in going after the escorts". In the meantime the German and Italian ground troops and supply lines were being pounded.


 * Which is why I didn't touch the entry or something. Anyway as you point out yourself the flaw somehow lay within the way the Luftwaffe operated over Africa. Again while it may be valid criticism of what the Luftwaffe did I fail to see its relevance in conjunction with one German pilot. If there was a mentality to go after fighters obviously none higher up in command did anything to correct it.


 * "Even with his high amount of kills he wouldn't have affected how the German squadron prioritized targets and how easy/hard it was to go after the bombers" Pure speculation. It could equally be argued that Marseille had such a high profile within JG 27 that he had every opportunity to influence what sort of targets should be attacked. There is always the possibility that had Marseille gone after bombers the rest of his Staffel would have followed his lead. With his abilities at using his 109 against fighters, who's to say he couldn't have found a way of attacking bombers with equal success?


 * "Blowing up bombers was nasty business for Luftwaffe fighters and the kill rate of Allied heavy bombers was comparatively low by any individual German pilot because you had to pour so much ammo into it until one went down." True against B-17s and B-24s, for example. The Bostons, Baltimores, Marylands and Blenheims which made up the bulk of the DAF bomber forces were not heavy bombers. Minorhistorian (talk) 00:17, 16 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Point taken. Which makes it kind of stranger that the Luftwaffe somehow consciously ignored easy kills in favour of risking a fight to the death with equally capable fighter aircraft. I mainly find the sentence out of place in criticizing one German pilot as you yourself state that it was a big problem not addressed by anyone of the Luftwaffe so either the Allied escorts did a marvelous job at keeping the Luftwaffe occupied with dealing with them so they got little opportunity to attack bombers or the whole Africa command of the Luftwaffe failed to appreciate targetting bombers. Even as commander of a Staffel it seems out of place to attribute this factor in the Luftwaffe's failure to him when obviously there should have been plenty of other pilots around less daring in attacking enemy fighters and rather out for an easy kill. Are there any quotes by Marseilles or his comrades that they only went up for fighters because they found it "unhonourable" to fight bombers. Such an attitude would imho be needed to make this sentence work as valid criticism of his shortcomings or attitude problem.

I don't mean to disrail the whole entry or start some pointless criticism. This point, while minor, simply stroke me as strange so I commented on it.


 * I also see your point. I don't have any such quotes I can cite; possibly someone else has.
 * It is interesting to note that Manfred von Richthofen has been at times criticised for shooting down so many "easy" two seat aircraft, eg: New Scientist. What such critics fail to mention is that "easy" victories against "poorly armed or less manoeuvrable aircraft" which were engaged in reconnaissance missions and bombing German military targets was militarily more effective than shooting down fighters.Minorhistorian (talk) 23:02, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

It should also be noted that some Luftwaffe units (as Galland said) focused on trying to defeat the escorting fighter screen first, then attacking the bombers. As the Luftwaffe was outnumbered from the time it stepped foot on African soil, it would seem this failure to deal with the bombers was down to numbers and doctrinal elements. Dapi89 (talk) 18:16, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Tate's opinions
Major Robert Tate of the United States Air Force rejects Bungay's notion of internal rivalry in the German Jagdgeschwader:

"This points out another very basic difference between German and Allied combat philosophy. While the Allies tended to hunt in packs and compete vigorously for kills, the Germans, at least in North Africa, tended to let the best pilots "have at it" while the novices would tend to sit back and enjoy the show. This is one reason the loss of an asset like Marseille was so devastating to the Luftwaffe in Africa. That kind of emotional destruction would not likely occur in Allied squadrons" .

I don't see how it is possible to say that Tate is disputing Bungay's observations; Tate wrote his piece in 1996 while Bungay wrote Alamein in 2002. If anything Tate's column is more of a hackiography in which he views Marseille with evident adoration. What evidence does he have to back up his claim about the Allied pilots "hunting in packs and competing for kills"? What is his source material when he says the "Germans, at least in North Africa, tended to let the best pilots "have at it" while the novices would tend to sit back and enjoy the show."? This in itself backs up what Bungay describes as a primma-donna attitude. Few of the novices in JG 27 had any chance to learn anything in North Africa and many became victims because of this. Bungay also specifically cites and quotes Eduard Neumann as one of those who describes internal rivalry being a problem in JG 27, something which Tate ignores, even though he was reading one of the books in which Neumann is quoted. I'm not disputing Marseille's skill and valour, nor am I disputing his claims, but using an unsourced and uncritical assessment to counter critical analysis is pushing things somewhat. Minorhistorian (talk) 00:01, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps it is not clear. It was not meant to say Tate was challenging Bungay's comments, merely that their assertions clash. The "opinions" described by Tate about the German combat philosophy are available in every decent text on the campaign. I have no reason to doubt the information he gives about the mentality of Allied pilots is accurate. If authors such as Donald Caldwell, who has written some of the best books about the Luftwaffe, graces this website I don't think it is suspect in any way. You are very much incorrect to say the German pilots were primma-donnas and elbowed the rookies out of the way. The cadets or raw recruits were shown what to do. Marseille tried to pass on his style this way, but few could pull it off. There are examples of German pilots, on all fronts, taking new pilots, attacking formations, then taking up the position of wingman and asking their charge to have a go. I thought I had all the filmed interviews with Eduard Neumann regarding JG 27, and he never mentioned rivalry being a problem, although it probably existed in all fighter squadrons (USAAF Fighter Groups were riddled with competition/rivals). Does Bungay footnote this quote? I see you have removed the bit you put in about German rivalry. Why? If Bungay said this was a problem and has a valid source it should go back in. Dapi89 (talk) 01:05, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree, there are plenty of good sources about German combat philosophy and perhaps Tate should go back to his article and provide some sources; when I cited Kurfurst, you quite rightly asked what book sources were provided and the same question could be asked of Major Tate. The subject of inter-pilot rivalry in JG 27, and, more importantly, whether it crippled the unit's military capabilities is a matter of some debate, and I think that who said what needs more clarity. Although Bungay mentions Eduard Neumann as a source (Alamein, pp 140-141), in the same paragraph there's also mention of an unnamed pilot of I./JG 27 that Bungay quotes: "some squadron leaders had the attitude "There is only one man who has the right to shoot down enemy aircraft - me!"" - which could also be construed as being said by someone with a grudge and a case of sour grapes. On reflection the reference is not clear enough to warrant a debatable issue being added to the page. As far as I know the Osprey book on JG 27 by John Weal makes no reference to this issue.Minorhistorian (talk) 01:17, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, well, Weal is the better of the Osprey writers, although even he falls short in thoroughness in some areas. He doesn't discuss Marseille's tactics, just his kill count and it is the same with the others. Some aces are ignored altogether. Take Karl-Heinz Bendert for example. He is credited with 51 kills while a member of JG 27, of which 36 were claimed over Africa, which if correct, is better than Caldwell. He is not mentioned in the book at all!!!! I think this is a case of kill count snobery. Pertaining to style. Kurowski picks up on this point, and so does (I believe) Fritz Dettmann. They assert that without the protection given to Marseille by his comrades he would not have been as successful, and probably would have been killed in action. As it was Marseille came close to this early on. Numerous accounts exist of Marseille attacking formations of Allied aircraft alone. The rest of the German pilots would circle above and call out warnings, only interveening if Marseille called fot it. Dapi89 (talk) 15:08, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

BTW, fair enough with regard to Tate. Dapi89 (talk) 15:10, 29 April 2008 (UTC) Italic text

Tate's book
Haing read his latest book, he gets his information from Eduard Neumann and Hans Ring/Christopher Shores. Dapi89 (talk) 00:07, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

No. 1 Squadron SAAF on 1 September 1942
According to J.Scutts No. 1 Sqdn SAAF Hurricanes were called away from the morning combat to attack a formation of Stukas, implying they were not involved. Calls for help were ignored as they were "too busy" with the Ju 87s, is this right? Dapi89 (talk) 20:07, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Bot report : Found duplicate references !
In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :) DumZiBoT (talk) 10:53, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * "Kurowski" :
 * Kurowski 1994, p. 156.
 * Kurowski 1994, pp. 212–213.

French Huguenot Ancestry
I already addressed this (see archive 2). He was of french huguenot ancestry. Does that mean he had no German ancestry? The huguenots fled to Germany in around 1700. He was born a few generations later with some "interbreeding" taking place. The huguenots in Germany have become Germans and he certainly was of more German than french ancestry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.176.246.114 (talk) 21:44, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

The sources, Wubbe and Kurowski, say "French", and they are the leading authorities on the subject. No, it does not mean he was not Germanic, his "German half" came from his mothers side. Dapi89 (talk) 00:34, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

"His "German half" came from his mother's side". So his father's side only married fellow huguenots and were entirely French? That is rubbish. As mentioned above the huguenots "interbreeded" with Germans and his father had most probably more German than French ancestry. Jochen Marseille was a German with German ancestry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.176.243.11 (talk) 21:31, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Probably doesn't cut it. So the "rubbish", as you call, is not rubbish all. Nobody is saying he was either French or German. He was a German of French decent. Kurowski and Wubbe say it this way, so must we. Dapi89 (talk) 19:29, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

@Dapi89 1) Read my posts thoroughly (28 August 2008/84.176.246.114 and 20 September 2008/84.176.243.11). 2) Of course, he was ALSO of French ancestry (Maybe from the French city of Marseille?). 3) Wubbe and Kurowski say "French", and they are the leading authorities on the subject. I don't   know Wubbe, but Kurowski is more a reporter of WW II and not a historian; and I guess they are both no genealogists. BTW I like some of Kurowski's books (he used some aliases). 4) His German half came from his mother. So his father's side was all French? See 1). 5) Kurowski and Wubbe say it this way, so must we. No comment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.221.65.22 (talk) 23:22, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

No, it is you who needs to read thoroughly. We use published sources here, not made up BS and guesses. Dapi89 (talk) 13:04, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Date error
Sorry, I speak English very badly, but in the list of victories, victory number 14 on 28 August 1941 and victory number 17 on 13 September 1941. The date for victories numbers 15 and 16 said to be on 17 June 1941, something obviously impossible.--Avicentegil (talk) 20:50, 1 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Nice work. I think this was correct initially, but must have been tampered with. I'll ask the person who has the source to sort it out. Thanks. Dapi89 (talk) 17:24, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * good spot! It must be 9 September 1941 for victories 15 and 16. MisterBee1966 (talk) 22:23, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Date of death of his father
I have readed in several places Marseille's father died at Stalingrad in 1942, here says he died in 1944. --Avicentegil (talk) 11:48, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * According to Walter Wübbe, Siegfried Marseille was killed by partisans near Petrykaw on 29 January 1944. I would be interested to know what sources you are referring too. You may also want to have a look [here], [here], [here] or de:Hans-Joachim Marseille . MisterBee1966 (talk) 12:45, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


 * My language is Spanish and I speak very bad English, so that the sources I am referring to are in Spanish, although I also found in English. Here is the detailed


 * [here]


 * “His father rose to the rank of general and was later killed at Stalingrad.”


 * [here]


 * “………que el padre de Hans Joachim, un general de infantería, muriese en Stalingrado”


 * [here]


 * “El 01 de Setiembre de 1942 durante la batalla de Alam El Halfa, Marseille recibió la mala noticia de la muerte de su padre, general de infantería que estaba destacado en Stalingrado”


 * [here]
 * “His father was an officer. Some sources indicate that his was a pilot in W.W.I, although this is unlikely. It is known that he was killed at Stalingrad while being an infantry general.”


 * My interest is because I'm translating this article for the wiki in Spanish, I am not thoroughly aware of the issue. --Avicentegil (talk) 15:21, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Interesting but I believe this is due to bad reseach. Walter Wübbe's book on Marseille is the best collection of documents and pictures of Marseille I know of. I doubt that he made a mistake here. And personally I trust a written book more than an Internet source. MisterBee1966 (talk) 20:14, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment, the picture on the Spanish Wiki with the two pilots standing next to the "Otto" Kübelwagen does not show Marseille. The pilot on the left is Ernst-Wilhelm Reinert not Marseille. I don't know who the person on the right is. MisterBee1966 (talk) 20:20, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


 * My congratulations for this excellent work and thank you very much for your comments--Avicentegil (talk) 22:15, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Recent removal
The information given from an Italian source is not verifiable. Given that I have never come across this before in any of the considerable number of books available on Marseille I regard the Italian magazine source as dubious. This is how rubbish often worms its way into this articles, because of journalistic b.s. Where did this magazine get such information? With regard to all the extra detail about Marseille's claims on 1 September 1942: they do not need to be in the main text. The massive claim table at the bottom exists so that there is no need to add the tiny detail such as at what time a particular claim was made. The use of the word "plane" is also irritating. Please use aircraft or fighter. Dapi89 (talk) 12:45, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Rumour
I tagged this with Unencyclopedic. 92.11.60.224 left comments on the article page {As requested by a fellow editor, tag added questioning suitability of content}. Maybe someone with access to all the references can elucidate.  Ron h jones (Talk) 23:28, 15 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Adding it was silly. Its cited and clear. Dapi89 (talk) 11:50, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Claim 23
Article says claim 23 was a Maryland of 203 Sqn on 24 September, a list of Marseille's victories in the Air-Britain Digest April 1974 says 23, 29.9.41, Maryland, Over the sea, 203 Sqn a few days later on the 29th. MilborneOne (talk) 12:18, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * According to Wübbe page 28 and 29: 19th claim was a Martin 167 at 13:30 on 24 September 1941 at Gambut. Marseille claimed 4 further victories, all Huricricane's, that day in a later mission. MisterBee1966 (talk) 22:27, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Mistaken?
Hello my name is Rainer and I am from Germany.

I read the text of this article and I saw this sentence:

Conversion from Bf 109 E-7/trop to Bf 109 F-4/trop in München-Riem and Erdingen.

Riem is a part of the german city München ( munich ). In Riem was a big airport until 1992. I think this part of the sentence is correct.

But perhaps the second place ( Erdingen ) could be incorrect.

Erdingen is a little village near Köln ( cologne ). The distance between München-Riem and Erdingen is approximiately 450 kilometers. Why should the training be made at two places which are so far away from each other ? As far as I know Erdingen has never had an airport or airfield.

Maybe Erding was meant. Erding is a little city near the much bigger city München ( munich ). The distance between München-Riem and Erding is only 30 kilometers. And Erding has an airport since 1935.

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fliegerhorst_Erding

Greetings from Germany. 84.150.20.213 (talk) 18:07, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Very good spot! Erding is correct. I checked Wübbe p. 47. MisterBee1966 (talk) 20:17, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Controversy
Copy edit from the article: "A very controversial event in The Star of Africa, the fictionalized 1957 movie about his life, described an incident that occurred shortly after Marseille was presented the Swords to the Knight's Cross. The young Oberleutnant, while on visit in Germany, was presented with evidence of the Final Solution (Holocaust). Shocked by this information, he did not return to North Africa but went into hiding in Italy instead. Only after the Gestapo established his whereabouts and pressured him, did he return to his Geschwader. Berger 1999, p. 210.  #tag:ref -The biographical film, Der Stern von Afrika, also known as The Star of Africa, was directed by Alfred Weidenmann and starred Joachim Hansen (actor) as Marseille.-group="Notes"."
 * This contentious passage needs more authoritative reference sources to remain; make the case in this talk page. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:11, 21 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Recognizing the treatment of bios of dead people differs somewhat, I find relying on events in fictionalized accounts & mention of unsubstantiated rumors, no matter how well cited, are garbage that should be deleted with extreme prejudice. If it really happened, & you can really cite it from a genuinely reliable source, leave it in; otherwise, take it out; this isn't Fictional biography of Hans-Joachim Marseille, nor even The Star of Africa (& even at the Star page, it's garbage that impugns Marseille to no legitimate purpose, because we can't establish it actually happened). This is not a gossip column. Rumor has no place here.   TREKphiler   any time you're ready, Uhura  15:47, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * It certainly has the ring of BS about it. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 15:51, 21 May 2012 (UTC).


 * Chaps, this has now been dealt with. It certainly was not BS!. Dapi89 (talk) 22:26, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Cecil/Douglas Golding
I do believe that the SAAF ace shot down on Jun 3, 1942 which is listed here as Douglas Golding is actually Cecil Golding.

He disputes Marseille's six kills in the following video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NqVTw-WuVes

A webpage with some information on his career: http://cecilgolding.yolasite.com/

DreadfullyDistinct (talk) 05:10, 17 April 2015 (UTC)DreadfullyDistinct

Tags
I restored the tags -- the article is overly detailed as discussed above and concerns over sourcing (Wubbe, Berger etc) still remain. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:02, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I've deleted them. You have no justification for doing so. You've repeatedly failed on this article, and others, to show these researchers are unreliable. THis is no place for your point of view, and these tags are close to being disruptive. 14:03, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Caption and inline tags
Note: all photos produced by official photographers are propaganda by default (diff) -- that's a given, and not "POV", as claimed in the reverting edit summary. If an editor wishes to attach a different caption then this should be cited to a reliable source.

Unilateral removal of inline tags is not appropriate, especially with an edit summary "reverted last edit by Coffman. Clearly disruptive. Please see WP:BURDEN and WP:NPA.

This and similar actions are beginning to look like article ownership, which is not conducive to the collaborative editing environment. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:53, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The only obstruction to that goal is you. Agenda-driven edits are not welcome. More assertions, and no proof. Seems to be your modus operandi.
 * This is a desperate attempt to assert your will on this article, speaking of WP:OWN. Dapi89 (talk) 20:22, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh, and speaking of the burden of proof, you are making the claim. Provide a citation. All the citation says is he was meeting Rommel, which he is. Dapi89 (talk) 20:31, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I've had a glance at the Disruptive editing. Among other things, it notes Engages in "disruptive cite-tagging"; adds unjustified tags to an article when the content tagged is already sourced, uses such tags to suggest that properly sourced article content is questionable.
 * This is what you're doing. Dapi89 (talk) 20:35, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Der Stern von Afrika (movie)
Could someone clarify the purpose of this passage in the "Marseille and Nazism" section:


 * Several popular biographies of Hans-Joachim Marseille have written about his distain for authority and for the National Socialist movement in general. This first came to the fore in Der Stern von Afrika (The Star of Africa), the fictionalised 1957 movie about his life, which described an incident that occurred shortly after Marseille was presented the Swords to the Knight's Cross. The young Oberleutnant, while on visit in Germany, was presented with evidence of the Final Solution (Holocaust). Shocked by this information, he did not return to North Africa but went into hiding in Italy instead. Only after the Gestapo established his whereabouts and pressured him did he return to his Geschwader. The film was directed by Alfred Weidenmann and starred Joachim Hansen (actor) as Marseille.

This passage appears to use the movie ("the first came to the fore") to suggest that Marseille had "distain for authority", if I'm reading this right. I suggest this paragraph be removed as it seems to use a fictionalised portrayal to discuss real-life traits of Marseille, and is confusing. Thoughts? K.e.coffman (talk) 00:34, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
 * To me the paragraph suggests that this was somehow portrayed in the movie. It also seems to correspond to the Karl Wolff-episode retold later. Be that as it may, it must have escaped the reviewers and critics of the movie. The story goes, as far as I remember, that Marseille goes astray with his girlfriend in Italy (he is to receive an award by Mussolini), but decides to return to his Geschwader anyway, no mentioning of the Holocaust and no Gestapo pressure involved.--Assayer (talk) 01:24, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

The paragraph is poorly structured and needs to be re-written. It is not clear whether the Berger reference relates to the movie or to the event. Heaton confirms that the Gestapo were looking for Marseille after he went AWOL in Italy, but doesn't mention the Holocaust as the cause. --Nug (talk) 02:27, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Berger is writing about the movie, not the event. The movie is not a factual representation of what actually happened - they never are. The story that Marseille found out about the Holocaust and went in to hiding is a creation of the movie. Recent research into this shows that will Marseille did come to know of something (see the article), it is unlikely he knew it's full extent for Wolff and his associates were only talking about Jews and Czech resistance fighters (and civilians). The conversation included the mention of concentration camps but it is not clear whether Marseille understood this to mean extermination centres (I am certain he knew what a concentration camp was). Quite why he went missing in Italy is unknown, as Heaton has found the records to show a Gestapo missing persons report was filed for Marseille in Italy. The movie deliberately links these two facts together, but it cannot be proven. Dapi89 (talk) 08:56, 26 November 2016 (UTC)


 * To sum up, I don't see a need to include the discussion of the 1957 movie in the section "Marseille & Nazism". Would there be any concerns about removing this passage? K.e.coffman (talk) 21:12, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Mention of the movie should remain, as it gives the MGFA text some context. --Nug (talk) 23:05, 26 November 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm not following -- how does a fictional movie gives MGFA's statement context? K.e.coffman (talk) 07:14, 27 November 2016 (UTC)


 * If Berger writes about the movie and that scene is not in the movie - in fact, in the movie Marseille goes sort of "into hiding", because he wants spend time with his girlfriend, she suggests desertion to survive and it is Marseille's friend Robert who reminds Marseille of his duty and his honor (interesting scene, but definitely no Gestapo involved) - what does that say about Berger's reliability as a source?--Assayer (talk) 21:57, 27 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Since there's been no response from the editor who objected to the removal, I will move the content about the movie. The movie mention belongs in a "In popular culture" section. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:04, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Popular literature is a part of popular culture, are you saying that MGFA's statement about "occasional popular literature" doesn't apply to the movie? --Nug (talk) 08:06, 2 December 2016 (UTC)


 * MGFA makes a statement re "in the popular literature", which seems unlikely to refer to the movie. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:23, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I removed that part. Regardless of what Berger writes or not, such a scene is not featured in the movie anyway. The whole story was added as a "rumour" by an IP in 2008. There is more to be written on Marseille in popular culture, so the section can be expanded.--Assayer (talk) 17:25, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Aid for deaf users
Is there a problem providing listening aids to the deaf who may want to read these articles? Dapi89 (talk) 19:39, 22 February 2017 (UTC)


 * As can be seen in the edit, the following material was retained:
 * "The head and shoulders of a young man, shown in semi-profile. He wears a military uniform with an Iron Cross displayed at the front of his white shirt collar."


 * The removed material consists of the following:
 * His hair appears blond and short and combed back, his nose is long and straight, and his facial expression is determined; looking to the left of the camera.


 * I agree with the reverting editor that it consists of "OR/un-necessary interpretation". Unless we have a reliable source that comments on the portrait in these terms ("long and straight", "determined expression", etc), this is unsourced editorialising and is unnecessary. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:51, 23 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Apart from the germanophile sounding description: How does this work as a listening aid to the deaf anyway? To my understanding a deaf person has no use for a listening aid, first, because by the very definition of being deaf he most likely does not care much for listening, second, because deaf people are not necessarily illiterate and, third, because deaf people are not necessarily blind either and can look at the picture by themselves.--Assayer (talk) 02:43, 23 February 2017 (UTC)


 * I think Dapi89 means "blind" rather than "deaf". We still don't need unsourced editorializing. Richard Keatinge (talk) 10:28, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I didn't bother looking really. It's an aid for the disabled, whether it enhances hearing of the deaf or aids the blind, I don't know how it works. It could do both, it could do neither.
 * What is most amusing, is the caption being described as a Germanophile remark! Does Assayer think that only those with a long nose, white shirt collar, or wear military uniforms have German heritage? If he does, then I would suggest he gets out and sees more of the World. I think he'll find a lot of people have those features!
 * Thirdly, OR? How exactly is that. It is like trusting people to write what a source says. If we don't trust people to accurately relay the information in the source, an issue which I have had on another article recently, then there goes Wikipedia. We can all see what is in the image. Dapi89 (talk) 18:22, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, a Germanophile is not simply an admirer of outer features traced to a certain heritage. Rather the term refers to an attitude, a certain bias, if you will, and that also implies the use of stereotypes. I was actually reminded of Franz Kurowski's style of writing. You know, how he described Hans-Arnold Stahlschmidt, for example: "Stahlschmidt was more stocky, stronger. His broad shoulders hinted at power. The brown eyes were unwavering and determined. The hair, parted to the right, was dark blond, and when he spoke it was in the somewhat sing-song dialect of the Siegerlands." That's not a particularly encyclopedic language is it? I couldn't tell the difference between a determined and a non-determined facial expression btw, but the wording fits the stereotype of the fearless pilot. I find such descriptions added to imagery of Werner Mölders, but not to, for example, that of Audie Murphy. To describe a picture in such ways is nothing else than interpretation. As a source, moreover, this image is a stylized propaganda image and needs to be viewed with reservations.--Assayer (talk) 00:37, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Ah I see. Kurowski was lying then? I assume you have seen other pictures of Stahlschmidt, and remarks from those who knew him, yes?
 * Fearlessness was a characteristic required of all combat pilots.
 * Explain to me something: do you regard all wartime portraits taken of RAF or USAAF fighter pilots propaganda? Or is it a slight you attach only to those images taken under totalitarian dictatorships? How do we view photographs of a human face and torso with "reservations"? Dapi89 (talk) 16:29, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
 * A serious question: Are you not at all familiar with the methodological discussion about the use of images in historiography? For starters you might consult Peter Burke, Eyewitnessing: The Uses of Images as Historical Evidence (2001). You should also familiarize yourself with some of the literature on the stereotyping of (white male) fighter pilots. I am saying that Kurowski makes use of such stereotypes.--Assayer (talk) 18:32, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Marseille and Nazism
Partial copy/paste from Talk:Der_Stern_von_Afrika:

Start copy/paste

(...) [The movie] 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) (...)
 * End copy/paste

To sum up the discussion above, is MGFA a reliable for statements such as: K.e.coffman (talk) 21:10, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
 * "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"?
 * In respect to statement "occasional attempts in the popular literature to suggest [...] an ideological distance to National Socialism are misleading" MGFA cites the following books:
 * Galland, Adolf; Luftwaffe. Die deutsche Luftwaffe von 1941-1945, Hamburg 1976.
 * Musciano, Walter A.: Die berühmten Me 109 und ihre Piloten: 1939-1945, Augsburg 1994.
 * Scherzer, Veit: Die Ritterkreuzträger. Die Inhaber des Ritterkreuzes des Eisemen Kreuzes 1939 von Heer, Luftwaffe, Kriegsmarine, Waffen-SS, Volkssturm sowie mit Deutschland Verbündeter Streitkräfte nach den Unterlagen des Bundesarchivs, Ranis 2007.
 * Kaplan, Philip: Fighter aces of the Luftwaffe in World War ll, Barnsley 2007.
 * Walle, Heinrich: Hans-Joachim Marseille. Der „Stem von Afrika. ln: Militär und Geschichte. Bilder, Tatsachen, Hintergründe, Rastatt 2004, S. 6-18
 * The article does not appear to use these publications apart from Kaplan, and since the article doesn't use Kaplan to make any suggestions about Marseille's "ideological distance to National Socialism", I don't see any issue. Extrapolating that statement to other books not reviewed by the MGFA would be WP:SYNTH. --Nug (talk) 07:11, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
 * That is an extremely odd and limited reading of the article. The MGFA makes a general statement about a class of literature. In no way does it restrict its claim to the sources explicitly listed. And it provides an explicit argument for that point, namely Es liegen keine wissenschaftlichen Erkenntnisse darüber vor, dass Marseille bereit und fähig gewesen ist, sich mit den ethischen Fragen des soldatischen Dienstes auseinanderzusetzen ("There are no scholarly results that indicate that Marseille was willing and able to deal with the ethic questions of a soldiers occupation"). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:54, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
 * And, MGFA is a thoroughly reliable source for this statement. Richard Keatinge (talk) 09:19, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure how you think MGFA's claim isn't restricted to the sources they cite, do you have evidence to the contrary? What if, in fact, that was the sum total of their literature review? How do you know? I don't think it is possible to apply that opinion, likely formed on the basis of those handful of cited sources, to all sources future and past. I note that MGFA doesn't tackle the issue of whether or not Marseille was actually a Nazi, but rather say some sources that suggest an "ideological distance" to National Socialism are misleading. At what distance did it become misleading? It is all too vague to be useful, IMHO. Surely MGFA would know if Marseille was a card carrying member of the NSDAP, or even point to an issue of Völkischer Beobachter where he might have endorsed some tenet of Nazi ideology, at least. But nothing concrete is presented. --Nug (talk) 09:59, 24 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Then the contention is that, since MGFA did not specifically call out Heaton & Tate, the latter should be considered reliable for the interpretation of Marseille as "rabidly anti-Nazi" and him holding "clear and obvious anti-Nazi views"? Do I understand this right? K.e.coffman (talk) 22:09, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
 * "Rabidly anti-Nazi" is your own constructed strawman. This discussion started after you attempted to insert text claiming Marseille had "Nazi convictions" several times:, , , text which is clearly contradicted by several reliable sources.
 * Participating in the war on the side of Nazi Germany in the Wehrmacht or Luftwaffe doesn't automatically mean a person has "Nazi convictions". It has been established internationally that only those who were members of the NSDAP, the German SS or one of the many other Nazi affiliated organisations were in fact Nazis. Had Marseille survived the war he would have received a state pension along with thousands of other WW2 veterans. He might have even become the Chairman of the NATO Military Committee, like WW2 German Luftwaffe fighter ace Johannes Steinhoff who is a recipient of the Oak Leaves and Swords to the Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross. Nobody accuses Steinhoff of having Nazi convictions. --Nug (talk) 23:39, 25 November 2016 (UTC)


 * The statement "rabidly anti-Nazi" originated from editor : "it is a firm fact, was Marseille rabidly anti-Nazi".


 * I've found this statement to be at odds with MGFA's assessment ("it is not known that Hans-Joachim Marseille has (...) earned praise in the service for freedom and justice"; "attempts suggest[ing] (...) an ideological distance to National Socialism are misleading" etc). I have been trying to clarify what the statement about said "firm fact" was based on. Perhaps editor Dapi can clarify. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:58, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
 * The statement "rabidly anti-Nazi" isn't in the article nor is attempting to insert it into the article, so it is unclear what you are attempting to achieve here, don't turn this article talk page into a battleground between yourself and Dapi89. --Nug (talk) 00:07, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

It has been established internationally that only those who were members of the NSDAP, the German SS or one of the many other Nazi affiliated organisations were in fact Nazis. - Please, give me a break. First of all, Marseille was a member of the Flieger-HJ. Does that make him a Nazi? I don't think so. On the other had, the Wehrgesetz of 21 May 1935 decreed that soldiers of the Wehrmacht were not allowed to be politically active. A party membership was suspended, as long as the individual served in the military. (§ 26) The logic behind that provision was that to serve in the Wehrmacht was a service to the Fatherland and thus a political activity. This changed only with a provision of 24 September 1944, in fact a reaction to the 20 July plot. Now party membership was allowed and the regime compelled every soldier to actively support the national socialist worldview. Thus there were not very many soldiers in the Third Reich who were members of the Nazi party or one of its affiliated organizations, but that does not mean that they were non-Nazi by definition. The notion of the non-political German soldier was nurtured after 1945, not at least by former generals' and admirals' memoirs. But it is a myth nonetheless. On this see the essay by Hans-Ulrich Thamer: ''Die Erosion einer Säule. Wehrmacht und NSDAP''. In Müller/Volkmann, ed., ''Die Wehrmacht. Mythos und Realität''. Munich 1999, pp. 420-35. A more recent essay by Jörg Hillmann Der Mythos vom unpolitischen Soldaten was published in M. Epkenhans, ed., Die Suche nach Orientierung in deutschen Streitkräften 1871 bis 1990. MGFA, Potsdam 2006, pp. 39-50.--Assayer (talk) 01:11, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Since Marseille died before the 20 July plot, he would have operated under the Wehrgesetz of 21 May 1935 that decreed soldiers of the Wehrmacht were not allowed to be politically active. Marseille wouldn't have been subjected to the post September 24 regime requirement that every soldier actively support the national socialist worldview, because he was dead. Thanks for confirming Marseille wasn't a Nazi. --Nug (talk) 02:04, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I fail to see how you can in good faith claim that as a proper reading of Assayer's comment, nor how you can think that your reply is historically valid. By your logic, no German soldiers pre-1944 were Nazis. I don't think that remotely jibes with the general understanding of the situation, or indeed reality. From family history I'm sure that one of my grandfathers (a Luftwaffe pilot who was KIA in '1943) was both a ardent Nazi and a soldier on active duty. You might want to take a look at Clean Wehrmacht and/or Goldhagen's Hitler's Willing Executioners to get an idea how far Wehrmacht and general population were entwined with the Nazi regime. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:26, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Don't confuse the committing of atrocities with adherence to Nazism. Committing atrocities isn't an indicator of being a Nazi, go ask the victims of Japanese Imperial Army and the Red Army, or even the Armenians from an earlier period. To suggest that atrocities committed predominantly by the land forces of the Wehrmacht in Eastern Europe is an indicator of a North African based Luftwaffe pilot's Nazi convictions is as misleading as it is absurd. --Nug (talk) 22:59, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
 * You seem to be missing the point. I was not claiming that Marseille was a Nazi (I don't think I ever have - I'm arguing that the preponderance of evidence is that he was not an ardent/rabid/... anti-Nazi). I'm refuting your (apparent) argument that a Wehrmacht member before 1944 could not have been a Nazi because of the 1935 Wehrgesetz. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:39, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Nug has a point here, although I doubt that he intended it that way. You did not have to be a staunch Nazi even to participate in the Holocaust. There has been ample research refuting Goldhagen's suggestion of elimininatory antisemitism. But neither is party membership the one and only indication for a person's ideological convictions nor does it necessarily betray the political motives behind his doings.--Assayer (talk) 21:51, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Evidence for Marseille's "anti-Nazi" stand
The article states: ''Later that month [= August 1942] Marseille was invited to another party function, despite his earlier stunt. Obergruppenführer Karl Wolff, of Personal Staff Reichsführer-SS, confirmed that during his visit Marseille overheard a conversation which mentioned crimes against the Jews and other people.'' What follows is a lengthy quote from Wolff, which I won't reproduce here. The whole thing is highly implausible. That event must have taken place between 1 August and 12 August 1942. It allegedly gathered most likely Göring, Axmann, Goebbels, but certainly Karl Wolff, Odilo Globocnik, Rudolf Höß, and Ernst Kaltenbrunner. I have not found any evidence, e.g. in Himmler's Dienstkalender, that supports the idea, that Globocnik and Höß were in Berlin in early August 1942. Heaton might have lost track of the dates anyway, because earlier in his book he summarizes the story: ''During an after-awards-ceremony festivity in Berlin in June 1942, when Hitler personally decorated him with the Oak Leaves and Swords to his Knight's Cross, Marseille overheard the truth about the fate of the Jews. This was confirmed by SS-Obergruppenführer Karl Friedrich Otto Wolff, last commander of the SS in Italy in 1945 and an early member of the Nazi Party, who was one of the early instigators of the Holocaust. (Star of Africa'', 2012, p. 5) What is more, we are told to believe that at this social event Wolff and Globocnik openly talked about the "Operation Reinhard" and the newly erected extermination camps Sobibor and Treblinka. At that time "Operation Reinhard" was top secret (Geheime Reichssache). According to Kurt Gerstein, who met Globocnik in Lublin on 17 August 1942, Globocnik said: "This whole affair is one of the most secret things of all in this time, one can say the most secret of all. Whoever talks about it will be shot on the spot." Heaton's sources seem to be interviews with Karl Wolff conducted by Heaton himself in December 1983 and January 1984 (, which is well before he took his B.A. in history in 1997). Karl Wolff himself spent the last ten years of his life writing his memoirs and giving interviews. He travelled with the infamous Gerd Heidemann in search of Nazis like Klaus Barbie and was a consultant for the alleged Hitler diaries. (Kerstin von Lingen, Allen Dulles, pp. 26-7) Wolff did as much as he could to prove the validity of the diaries by supporting the legend of their origin and claimed that the diaries proved that Hitler never ordered the extermination of the Jews, thereby cleansing his and Wolff's reputation. Wolff wanted to appeal his sentence based upon the evidence of these diaries (Jochen von Lang, Top Nazi, p. 364) Further information is based on an undated interview with Ludwig Franzisket. In general the notes of Heaton's book point to interviews with veterans and personae like Hans Baur (unrelenting Nazi and also with HIAG after the war), Artur Axmann, and Leni Riefenstahl, most likely conducted by Heaton himself, although it remains unclear when these interviews were conducted and where there are deposited. Heaton also relies heavily on Franz Kurowski's biography, which does not add to his reliability. The whole book therefore is largely based upon flimsy and questionable evidence.

I'll give another example, why all these stories and the gossip are unreliable. Heaton claims Marseille refused to join the NSDAP (Nazi Party) when asked (op. cit., p. 4) That seems to refer to a story related to Heaton apparently by Eduard Neumann, according to which maybe Nikolaus von Below himself asked Marseille if he would consider to join the Nazi party. (op. cit, p. 124) As I explained earlier on this page, until 1944 no soldier of the Wehrmacht could become a member of the Nazi party. So there was nothing what Marseille could have refused. Heaton claims that Marseille was perhaps the most openly anti-Nazi warrior in the Third Reich. In view of the effort and fate of the members of the 20 July plot that encapsulates Heaton's bias.

Many Marseille-biographers seem to hold the misconception that Jazz or Swing were outrightly banned in Nazi Germany. As scholars have noted, the Nazi attitude towards Jazz was inconsistent. In particular during WW II jazz gained popularity and initial radio bans were curtailed. Thus even music by Louis Armstrong, Duke Ellington, and Benny Goodman was broadcasted as "relaxed, strongly rhythmic music". There were even government-sponsored German jazz bands. (Pamela M. Potter: Music in the Third Reich, in: Huener & Nicosia, eds., The Arts in Nazi Germany, 2006, pp. 95-6.) See Michael Kater (Different Drummers, 1992,  pp. 126-130) on how the Deutsche Tanz- und Unterhaltungsorchester (German Dance and Entertainment Orchestra) was formed by Goebbels on Werner Mölders' instigation, who was himself an avid Glenn Miller fan.

Finally, Rafael Scheck is quoted at length, not with a text by his own, it appears, but with an interview, in which Scheck makes some general statements "without being familiar with Marseille" [!]. That's a highly dubious way to make a case for Marseille resisting Nazi ideals. In fact, Scheck is right when he speaks of "many nuances among the Germans of the Third Reich". As Clarence Lusane put it: ''I argue that Nazism’s racial agenda was complex, fluid, and contradictory as opposed to simple, straightforward, and unproblematic. A consensus reading of Nazism’s racial agenda reduces it to its most vulgar expression: the implementation of the “final solution” of mass extermination. In fact, the Nazi racial agenda, rhetoric, and practice changed over time, was unevenly applied and carried out, and was often contradictory, especially in the case of Afro-Germans and the experiences of other people of African descent. [...] [D]espite a vicious and unyielding determination to create an Aryan-only society, and an ongoing rhetoric of Negrophobia and antiblack racism, the Nazis did not deport or (initially) exterminate Afro-Germans and Africans, or remove them completely from German social life. In fact, in many cases, they were allowed to attend schools and work while Jews and Gypsies were not. More important, a perpetual debate in Nazi ruling circles on the black question extended through the entire dozen years of Nazi rule. These circumstances and occurrences demand a more complex reading of the will, capacity, and limits of the Nazis’ racial agenda. (Hitler's Black Victims'', 2003, p. 5)

Btw, "Letulu" was actually Mathew Letuku, who stayed with JG 27 until 1944, then ended up in Stalag 17 a in Austria and later in Chartres. He was freed by the British Army in 1945. (Ian Gleeson, The Unknown Force, 1994, pp. 203ff.) He was invited by the German foreign ministry in 1984 to attend a meeting of the veterans of the German Afrikakorps (Wübbe, 2002, p. 396.) and was still alive in the mid 1990ies.

In short, the statement by the MGFA holds true, and most of what is presented in the section of the Wikipedia article should be moved to the "popular culture" section, because it is full of mystifications and fabulations.--Assayer (talk) 20:07, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Just opinion. You've written a lot, without saying anything at all. Dapi89 (talk) 18:33, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
 * With regard to Gleeson; he seems to have misspelt the name and what is the evidence that he survived after 1984? All of this is OR to say the very least and is highly tendentious. Dapi89 (talk) 18:40, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I could have written less, if there were less dubious claims in this article. Don't mess up OR with RS. Instead, you should ask yourself: How reliable is a book that relies heavily on lengthy, unflitered quotes from interviews with people like Wolff, Baur, and Riefenstahl? Why is there no proper documentation of those interviews? How reliable are interviews with veterans, i.e. Marseille's comrades? And more specific: Why didn't you just google "Letuku", to find out who is mispelling? Or, if that's too much to ask, why don't you just crosscheck this very article and the citations given? Would you also need some evidence, that Joseph Goebbels is not spelt "Josef Göbbels" like Heaton does? How reliable is a book, whose title got its hero's name wrong? Or is there anyone who seriously claims that Marseille was ever called "Hans" instead of "Hans-Joachim" or just "Jochen"? --Assayer (talk) 20:41, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not confused. You are. You've collated unrelated/indirect sources to try and challenge two biographers who specialise in this subject matter. That is OR, pure and simple. And all OR by annons off the Internet are, by nature, tendentious. I don't need to ask myself any questions about these sources. We know who they are and we trust them to use sources in the right way. I say again, you fail to prove whatever it is you type. How do you know that their comments are "unfiltered"? It's another assertion. And what was so controversial about their statements in relation to this particular individual? In any case, the personal views of people Marseille met are pertinent, no matter who they are. It would be different if they were talking about a controversial subject. In any case, you're guessing. About the names; I've seen a signed a signed photograph by the south African soldier. I will endeavour to track it down. The rest of this is just semantics. It goes to show how shallow ones arguments are when anot editor is reduced to criticising Heaton for deciding to shorten the name so the title isn't excessively long! And desribing Heaton's work as hero worship exposes only your own bias. If he were so basis, why does he regularly expose Marseille and JG 27 for over claiming? This really is getting ridiculous. Dapi89 (talk) 09:48, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I am challenging the reliability of the "biography" written up by Colin Heaton. There is nothing OR about that. That work is wrought with errors, badly edited, devoid of proper citations, based almost exclusively upon interviews conducted some forty years after the events (actually a guess, because these interviews are not documented) and its claims show that the author does not know much about the Nazi state. As to Heaton's approach, recte bias, let him speak for himself: [Marseille's] story is one of stirring emotion, controversy and enigmatic heroism, and is told by the men and women who knew him. The problem of over claiming is an issue within the militaria literature, because it matters: Who scored the most kills? Given the hagiographic nature of this particular work you may be a believer "to  trust them to use sources in the right way", but I am not. I can tell which comments by veterans and old Nazis are unfiltered by the use of quotation marks. In Heaton's book whole paragraphs consist of such quotes. Are you seriously asking me, why reminiscences and anecdotes by friends, comrades and shady figures like Baur, Wolff and Riefenstahl are biased and unreliable? Yes, you are, but even you should notice, that Marseille's political convictions are controversial. Just read the MGFA's statement. But all that gossip stuff taken from Heaton's bio, some of which even "hero worshipper" Florian Berger, whom you consider to be "reliable", finds dubious, is written into the article as fact which gives it much more weight (and space) than the MGFA statement. That is  not WP:NPOV.--Assayer (talk) 02:06, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * There is when you try to use other sources to challenge his reliability as a whole. Add tendentious to that list when you consider they don't challenge him directly.
 * Wolff was no friend of Marseille and Berger does not find Heaton dubious, or even the Holocaust story to which I am assume you refer. The version Berger describes and rejects is very different to the one mentioned in Heaton's book. In any case, I'm tired of repeating myself. It's all opinion. The MFG comments are in the book, and so are all the others. We have a policy of inclusion here, especially when sources cannot be shown to be unreliable. Dapi89 (talk) 17:07, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Wolff is well known for obfuscating almost everything about the Third Reich. During his trial in the 1960ies he had denied any knowledge of the death camps. When the Hitler diaries began to emerge he was enthusiastic, because now there seemed to be proof that Hitler never ordered the extermination of the Jews. And that very same man told Colin Heaton (?) that he talked openly with Globocnik and others about Aktion Reinhard at some public reception? At some point he must have lied. Do you want to argue that Florian Berger writing in 1999 could have found a "book" dubious that was to be published in 2012? Sure, you could take the most esoteric book with most extraordinary claims and argue: We'll have to include those claims, because noone bothered to disprove them and so they cannot be disproved, all the while you ignore that these claims run counter to almost everything else that we know. But that's true with almost every WP:FRINGE. Since I didn't expect you to give in even to the most obvious evidence I took the issue to Reliable sources/Noticeboard--Assayer (talk) 20:44, 28 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Evaluation of sources is not "OR"; it's indeed expected and desired. Please see Identifying Reliable Sources & WP:OR. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:50, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
 * It is when we have nothing but you and your friend's personal opinion. Dapi89 (talk) 11:21, 1 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Note -- evaluation of sources is not OR. This has been clarified via a discussion at Wikipedia talk:No original research: Evaluation of sources as OR?". K.e.coffman (talk) 21:19, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Wrong. When you fail to provide sources and use opinion, I'm afraid it is OR. Dapi89 (talk) 17:14, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
 * The above editor's opinion in not in line with what WP:OR says. Please also see WikipediaTalk:No Original Research: "Current consensus". K.e.coffman (talk) 03:48, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes it is. "Evaluation" of sources does not mean offering personal opinions. Dapi89 (talk) 12:28, 26 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Dropping by after seeing the discussion at WT:NOR... To clarify the policy... On an article's talk page, it is acceptable to evaluate sources, and even to share our personal opinions about the source (that is one of the reasons why we have talk pages). What is NOT acceptable is to state those opinions in the article itself (for that we need sources).  That said, in any evaluation of a source, we do tend to give more weight to opinions that are based on what external experts have to say about the source in question.  If the external experts says a source is rubbish (or that it is superb) the opinions of the external experts should be given more weight than our own personal opinions.  However, we might not have any external expert opinions to point to... and so we must use our own best judgement.  Of course, that can lead to disagreement... and when two WP editors disagree over the evaluation of a source, it is time to call in other WP editors, and try to determine a WP:Consensus. Blueboar (talk) 13:49, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Overly detailed article
I just removed the verbatim inscription on the subject's memorial (including in German), and the next section I stumble on is "Absence from the Geschwader" with day by day accounting of the subject's leaves. The article appears to include indiscriminate amounts of information. I tagged the article accordingly. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:44, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
 * One opinion of this kind in 10 years since this article reached Good article status is irrelevant. You need to do and show more than just decide for yourself, what is, and what isn't over-kill. Why is it? It is all relevant. Dapi89 (talk) 12:14, 25 July 2016 (UTC)


 * What is the encyclopedic reason for including the inscription?

The left side bears the insignia.

This appears to be intricate detail and indiscriminate amount of information per WP:INFO. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:13, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
 * It is akin to a mention in dispatches. It is used as such in British articles. Dapi89 (talk) 17:42, 28 July 2016 (UTC)


 * This is the inscription from the memorial pyramid, no? K.e.coffman (talk) 04:20, 29 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Per BRD, please advise. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:41, 31 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Please advise here as well. Is the verbatim inscription from the subject's memorial necessary? K.e.coffman (talk) 01:37, 5 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Restored the tag as there has been no response in over 10 days. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:52, 17 August 2016 (UTC)


 * On this, I agree with K.e.coffman. Being detailed to that level is good only if there are controversies over the matter. How many wiki bio have inscriptions of their memorials written in their articles? I can see reasons in cases such as Empress Matilda when descriptions provide something unusual, or extraordinary recognition from their contemporary (in this case, that is her contemporaries saw the fact that she was daughter, wife and mother of three monarchs named Henry/Heinrich as significant and that these relationships having huge influence on the course of history). In the case of HJM, what is significant. I suggest the piece about the "Undefeated" epitaph to be kept, though. Deamonpen (talk) 02:51, 21 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Would you agree with the restoration of the "overly detailed" tag? K.e.coffman (talk) 22:50, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree. Deamonpen (talk) 02:48, 29 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Please see immediately above -- this is not just my opinion. K.e.coffman (talk) 16:08, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
 * It has been explained, perceptions over overly detailed are nearly always in the eye of the beholder. You need to be clear about what exactly is overly detailed. It is a harder claim to make in an article about an individual than it is in others. What is it that presently exists in this article that is irrelevant to the life and military career of Marseille? Dapi89 (talk) 18:33, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

For starters, this inscription is excessive: The left side bears the insignia.

I've never seen this in articles on other military figures of WWII. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:57, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
 * So what? That's not criteria for a complaint. Dapi89 (talk) 00:08, 4 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Including the inscription is indiscriminate. So is "absences from the unit". Does this answer the question? K.e.coffman (talk) 19:06, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
 * No.
 * In fact, I have since found that your original assertion is untrue. Images of pilot graves are uploaded to their articles, not always with the inscriptions - if they cannot be read with the naked eye, and that is the point.
 * That's ludicrous! Indiscriminate? I'd say its specific. What is indiscriminate about including absences and the grave inscription (it isn't where his buried but it is his main memorial sight), on his Wikipedia page? You can't expect to be taken seriously when you post things like this. Dapi89 (talk) 20:28, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Type of aircraft
Preserving here by providing this link. This represents excessive intricate detail of the exact models and factory numbers that Marseille flew. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:51, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Absences
Preserving here by providing this link. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:53, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Dates of rank
diff: excessive intricate detail for a jr commander. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:05, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Stations
Excessive intricate detail; suitable for a book-length bio, but not for an encyclopedia article: diff. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:48, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Unreliable sources tag
The article contains 35 citations to non RS Franz Kurowski -- pls see linked article. I tagged the article accordingly. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:06, 20 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Unacceptable. You're not ruining this article. If you have a problem with Kurowksi then a solution can easily be made. But slapping tags all over it and removing information without just cause (never mind your much sought after "consensus'"), is not acceptable. Dapi89 (talk) 12:06, 25 July 2016 (UTC)


 * I am concerned abut the revert; please see: When to remove maintenance tags. If Kurowski is reliable, please demonstrate so via reliable secondary sources. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:56, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I appreciate that. I hope you equally appreciate my concern at the changes.
 * I think that we have a similar agenda. If Kurowski is the cause of this editing conflict (or the main source) - there is no reason as to why it can't be resolved quickly. As a main contributor, I can say that all of the information given in the 25 citations that bare Kurowski's name, that none of it is controversial and can all be corroborated through other sources.
 * My solution is, to back up all the in-line citations from him via a second source (in some cases a third source). Or replace with another entirely. I think that would be fair. Dapi89 (talk) 11:01, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Kurowski
That does not quite work; Kurowski is still non RS. Moreover, Heaton that's been added is WP:QS; pls see Talk:2nd SS Panzer Division Das Reich. In the piece that's being quoted, the author clearly has a bias; it's a non-neutral source. Please see a sample from Heaton:
 * It does work. But even if you decide it doesn't, Kurowski can come out. I didn't say I'd finished here yet. And I can't find any information, whatsoever, that Colin Heaton is right wing or bias, or neo-Nazi. He is an academic of some respect. Your intuition doesn't count as criticism. Dapi89 (talk) 14:26, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
 * It does work. But even if you decide it doesn't, Kurowski can come out. I didn't say I'd finished here yet. And I can't find any information, whatsoever, that Colin Heaton is right wing or bias, or neo-Nazi. He is an academic of some respect. Your intuition doesn't count as criticism. Dapi89 (talk) 14:26, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

I now also have concerns about Wubbe, with over 30 citations. It's published by Verlag Siegfried Bublies -- de:Verlag Bublies, "a small, extreme-right publisher from Beltheim".

For a general discussion on such sources, please see User talk:Hawkeye7. I believe the Unreliable sources tag should be restored. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:44, 29 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Per BRD, pls advise. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:41, 31 July 2016 (UTC)


 * I don't...........yet.
 * You need to do more than this. Who says this is a neo-fascist publisher? There are no citations in the article given for it. I have looked but not found any on the internet.
 * Even so, I still feel you're failing to understand that even if I was persuaded by your argument, I would seek to save the article through other sources. Marseille is a vastly visited topic, and I could do without Wubbe anyway. In fact, I could dispense with German authors altogether. You would also need to show that this information is controversial and or false.
 * We need more on the author and his views and more information about this publication. Dapi89 (talk) 14:35, 3 August 2016 (UTC)


 * The publisher has been accused of several things, I haven't seen any specific evidence of these accusations. Certainly, if true, they cannot be seen in Wubbe's writing. I'll do some more looking. Dapi89 (talk) 14:52, 3 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Re: Bublies Verlag, the de.wiki article states: "Scientists like Samuel Salzborn (2000), Fabian Virchow (2006) and Clemens Heni (2010) situate the publisher in the far right. The author and commentator Gerhard Schäfer (1999) and the journalist Andreas Breathes (2004) describe the publisher as extreme right-wing". This is cited in De.wiki.


 * Meanwhile, I suggest the tag be restored. The concern is not just about Wubbe, but Heaton and Kurowski as well. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:37, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I've already said that Kurowski can be taken out (mostly - except where the controversy about claims is added). At the moment, it appears Wubbe has published only one book and there is no evidence questioning his character. And let me say categorically: there is no concern whatsoever about Colin Heaton. He is an academic and any personal opinions you may have about him are not relevant . Dapi89 (talk) 11:55, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Wubbe's book was published by extreme right-wing publisher. This is not a publisher known for fact checking or neutral point of view. Please see WP:QS.
 * On Heaton, I was able to find his personal website: http://www.lewisheatonbooks.com/ I don't see academic credentials there. Where is he an academic at? K.e.coffman (talk) 17:22, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

-- I am restoring the tags since there has been no response. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:50, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Is it actually that hard to find out info about Heaton? Colin Heaton has written extensively on military history and the Second World War. A veteran of both the U.S. Army and U.S. Marine Corps, he earned graduate degrees at Temple University and the University of Strathclyde Glasgow, Scotland. His work has included close liaison with veterans organizations throughout the U. S. and Europe. Currently a professor at American Military University, he is co-author of the Naval Institute Press book Nachtkrieg: The Evolution of Nocturnal Aerial Warfare, 1939-1945. http://www.usni.org/expert/colin-heaton Deamonpen (talk) 02:51, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Exactly, as I said, Heaton is a proven academic. No reliable information on this publisher promoting Neo-Nazi ideas, and there is no evidence Walter Wubbe is unreliable as an author.
 * Kurowski has to remain, as his name is indelibly linked to the claim controversy. Dapi89 (talk) 08:34, 10 September 2016 (UTC)


 * I would not describe Heaton as an academic. He teaches at an online, for-profit "American Military University" -- I doubt that would qualify under WP:PROF. If Kurowski has to stay, the the unreliable sources tag has to stay as well. In addition, no proof has been offered that Wubbe is RS -- is the work published with an academic publisher? What sources does he cite? Etc. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:25, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Your opinions of no interest to anyone.
 * It is absurd to ask us to prove the Wubbe is reliable: the onus is on you to prove he isn't. You're the one making the claims. You've been told on the Joachim Helbig article about trying using the reputation of the publisher against the author.
 * Kurowski can be used for personal information and he is connected to the controversy of the 15 September claims. He stays. That doesn't make the article unreliable. Dapi89 (talk) 07:55, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Re: Wubbe and sources. He uses archive material (Freiburg). Nothing is based in second-hand accounts. Dapi89 (talk) 08:11, 22 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Re: "It is absurd to ask us to prove the Wubbe is reliable: the onus is on you to prove he isn't" -- not so absurd. WP:RS includes the publisher into the consideration. Since this publisher has been called into question, the onus is on those who wish to include this potentially WP:QS source into the article. So far, we only have one editor's opinion that this source is reliable. What are the 3rd party sources that attest to the reliability?


 * WP:IRS states: "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." One editor's opinion is not sufficient, I'm afraid, given the problematic nature of the publisher. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:31, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

You've been told before: the focus is on the author's reputation and quality of research. Trying to infer reliability (or not) by attacking the publisher is at best tendentious. Dapi89 (talk) 00:04, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, and I have asked before -- who attests to the author's reputation and quality of research? K.e.coffman (talk) 00:20, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Not you. Find a good source that tears him apart for neo-Nazi bias and that will be a start won't it. Dapi89 (talk) 01:16, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Wubbe
On Wubbe, here's input from an editor familiar with this work: The book is 20% text and 80% pictures and copies of the original documents plus newspaper clippings. Source: User talk:Dapi89/Archive 1. I.e. it's about 80% primary material, including unreliable war-time propaganda, and 20% commentary, also potentially unreliable given the slant of the publisher. The book was published by Verlag Siegfried Bublies -- de:Verlag Bublies, "a small, extreme-right publisher from Beltheim".

It's essentially a primary source and is generally not suitable. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:59, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Material previously cited to Kurowski
This diff shows that Franz Kurowski cites were removed and Heaton / Lewis / Tate were inserted in their place, with the prose staying the same. This comes across as fast & loose handling of citations, as it's unlikely that the same quotes, for example, would be provided in these different sources. Unless Heaton / Lewis based their narrative on Kurowski. In this case, it speaks poorly for Heaton's reliability as Kurowski was a known fabulist and his bio works are best described as historical fiction. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:15, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Untitled
It doesn't look like this article lists the total number of combat missions that Marseille flew. This is an important statistic which is mentioned in the first paragraphs of most articles concerning famous WWII pilots. Is this an oversight, or is his total number of missions unknown? If so, then an estimate should be included. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.126.239.48 (talk) 15:52, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Good spot! According to Obermaier he flew 382 combat missions. MisterBee1966 (talk) 16:18, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Colin Heaton
According to the Naval Institute Press, Colin Heaton is a Professor, holding BA, MA beforehand see here. His biography meets the requirements for a reliable source. Dapi89 (talk) 08:39, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

June 2019 edit
Preserving here by providng this link; my rationale was: "reducing non-RS and excessive intricate detail / non-encyclopedic anecdotes / semi-fictional accounts; overlinking". --K.e.coffman (talk) 19:17, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
 * and your source for that claim is? Dapi89 (talk) 16:30, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Tags Redux
Tags are not badges of shame and should be resolved. If there is no consensus on the issues the tags raise then they should be removed. AIRcorn (talk) 01:49, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
 * This is actually a systemic issue with certain articles on highly-decorated German personnel of WW2. I wrote an op-ed about it for The Bugle; it will be published in the next few days: WikiProject Military history/News/April 2018/Review essay. Hope this helps. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:58, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
 * The response to Aircon is not relevant. One year on, do we have secondary sources that point to the sources used as unreliable?
 * What non-neutral language perspective has been adopted?
 * Two simple questions, that require two simple answers. Dapi89 (talk) 13:20, 27 October 2018 (UTC)


 * the simple answers never came. Dapi89: why you don't put Koffman in a wikipedia judgment about his destructive attitudes versus this article? Who is him to remove anything that he think is 'unreliable'? This user is very likely politically driven and this cannot be accepted in wikipedia. Regards. --62.11.3.98 (talk) 18:02, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Length of article
As of May 2017, the article is over 130,000 bytes; should be reduced at least 30% for readability.

Most likely, due to non RS sources, the article would end up being quite a bit shorter, as reliable sources on Marseille do not appear to exist to allow for such level of detail as currently present here. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:54, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Following this comment, you removed considerable amount of irrelevant content from the article. At present, I don't think there are any trouble with length or readability, so I think it would be appropriate to remove the template. Catrìona (talk) 17:53, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi this section seems a bit overly detailed. What are your thoughts on this? --K.e.coffman (talk) 04:56, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi I'm not entirely sure what section you're referring to; the banner refers to the entire article. The only section that looks like it could definitely stand to be reduced is the "Marseille and Nazism" section which reads as trying to paint him as an enemy of the Third Reich in a POV or ahistorical way. Catrìona (talk) 05:58, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 * sorry I missed linking the actual section! The section I had in mind is this one: Hans-Joachim_Marseille. Page length in bytes is currently at 118,666. I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts on this matter. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:18, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I think that section is perfectly in order. 1) Similar sections and tables appear in many similar articles. 2) The entire notability of a fighter pilot is destroying (or being credited with destroying) a lot of aircraft.
 * It would improve readability to collapse the table, but I think it does serve a valid purpose in the article. Catrìona (talk) 15:49, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * FWIW there were NOT problems with 'readability' of this article. Everything on Wikipedia should be reduced to the level of 2009, or there was no problem except those perceiped by user Koffman? Because i find this current version of this article very worsened compared to the pre 2017 versions. We not have any limit lenght today, unless someone wanted to find one. 62.11.3.98 (talk) 18:06, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

The butchering of this article must be stopped!
When once i read this article i was much satisfied by the details and the particulars given by the writers of it.

It was even put at 140,000 bytes some time ago. Then, it came someone called Koffman and started to edit it with the absurd motive that the article was excessive intricate detail. Then i would ask to hime: WHO ARE YOU TO ESTABLISH what is 'excessive detailed'? Are we still in 2005, when the 'advised' lenght of the article was not more than 32 kb??? well, NOT, it's not the case!

So we have lost a LOT of details about Marseille, and i was forced to search them in the cronology: Look what Koffman did some time ago: 17 September 2016‎ it started to edit this article, and recently it has continued to do so. Now, look to the edits made by him: only in 2016 it https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hans-Joachim_Marseille&type=revision&diff=780465460&oldid=780448135

Yes, this user pruned 'NPOV' 'OR' or 'excessive detailed' infos dropping the article from 137 to 117 kb.

And actually he has even managed to reduce it to 108 kb.

Now, a very huge amount of the article -about a third of it- was literally butchered and reduced to little more than 'bare bones' status!

Why the hell so much 'details' that made this article one of the best in the aviation wikis have been lost?

I ask to mr Koffman or other else: WHY EVEN THE AIRCRAFT FLOWN BY MARSEILLE ARE NOT AVAILABLE IN THE CURRENT ARTICLE? Why i must check in the 'sources' to find them when we had already so much 'details' (that Koffman did non like, for his own reasons).

Cutting to pieces this article should have been regarded as vandalism. Instead, the great wiki community has led free one single contributor to remove over 30 kb of precious infos for no gain and no reason (except the ones that koffman give us like he was the judge of wikiepdia).

I find this really absurd, arrogant and illogical. Basically, wikipedia community should regard the real reasons behind koffman actions and see if he actually did a positive contribution to wikipedia articles (this one, at least), or he made this from only his personal (political?) agenda, covering himself behind the wiki-rules.

For me, the 2016 versions of this article were simply great. And i will not check in the dozen sources quoted to find what Marseille did, said or flew and it was already present in the excellent article before 2016.

If wikipedia community exist still, this attitude destructive and politically driven must be noted and the article restored with much of the previous present informations. And not leave koffman edit and remove what he wants and delete everything he doesn't like.

If not, this will be definitively the proof that wikipedia is ruled only by arrogance, not by reason or rights. And i will continue to check this article in the history log and not the modern 'slimmed' form made by koffman. Regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.11.3.98 (talk) 17:52, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
 * There are guidelines to follow about inclusion or not, & in the main, I'd say User:K.e.coffman is correct. Including the Werknummer of every a/c Marseilles flew, & the name of his doctor, is needless trivia.  TREKphiler  any time you're ready, Uhura  20:46, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

"Valid GAR"
Compared to the GA nomination process, how can this be a valid Good Article "Reassessment"?:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Hans-Joachim_Marseille/GA1

There's no discussion, no comments, and no support given for the proposal.

Mnd5trm (talk) 12:52, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
 * This was an individual WP:GAR. Similar to WP:GAN, it's conducted by one editor. --K.e.coffman (talk) 16:34, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Marseille and Nazism, revisited
Extraordinary claims that Marseille opposed Nazism require extraordinary evidence, per WP:EXTRAORDINARY. In this case, the statement from MGFA contradicts popular history writings. --K.e.coffman (talk) 21:09, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Isn't extradorindary is it. It cannot be extraorindary for a decordated soldier not to be wedded to the ideology of his country's masters. Had he been SS, then perhaps. As I said in the edit summary; the academics remarks give credence to it. Also, can you stop leaving misleading edit summaries. It appears you are not arguing for undue weight. Dapi89 (talk) 13:17, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * MGFA's statement: Occasional attempts in the popular literature to suggest Marseille's unsoldierly bravado and honest character points to an ideological distance to National Socialism are misleading. --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:37, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I know, you have repeated it often enough. Dr Raffael Scheck doesn't produce popular literature. Also, it is difficult to comprehend that an unsoldierly personality and honest character can be found in the National Socialist ranks. Dapi89 (talk) 16:31, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

On September 1, 1942 ...
... he claimed 17 aircraft ? --2001:A61:2B86:9801:35FC:E4A8:CC27:2956 (talk) 07:18, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Correct. He claimed 17. Evidence suggests the reality was likely 9 destroyed, 3 or 4 damaged. German claims on this date stand up to scrutiny quite well using British records of lost aircraft and crew. Dapi89 (talk) 10:04, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
 * so he shot down more than 100 in the remaining month of his life ? --129.187.244.19 (talk) 06:18, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Contradictory: article says: He claimed his 37–40th victories on 8 February 1942 and 41–44th victories four days later which earned him the Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross that same month for 46 victories - ?? --129.187.244.19 (talk) 11:19, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

No. The article introduction has been shortened. Just read the article. FYI not a contradiction. At the time of the award he was credited with 46. There is a delay between nomination, approval and receipt. Dapi89 (talk) 16:23, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Nono. It's not a contradiction. We can read in the text: On 17 June 1942, Marseille claimed his 100th aerial victory. - What's up with you, dear expert ? --129.187.244.19 (talk) 08:09, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Start making sense, or else no one here can help you. Dapi89 (talk) 20:36, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
 * o.k., let's make sense: why was his claim reduced between June, 1942 and beginning of September 1942 ? From 100 to 17 ? --129.187.244.19 (talk) 08:02, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
 * the 100 reflects his aggregated WW2 count to date while the 17 refers to his claims on that specific day. Two different numbers for two different counts. MisterBee1966 (talk) 20:02, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
 * nearly unbelievable. I excuse, but it was not expressed quite fully understandable. I tried to correct that. --129.187.244.19 (talk) 06:00, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Feist 1993
Feist 1993 doesn't match a source. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:39, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Source disputes
WP:ONUS is on the person who wants to include the information to gain consensus that the source is reliable. I suggest taking it to RSN if the debate continues. buidhe 04:08, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
 * point is now redundant. Dapi89 (talk) 13:10, 1 December 2019 (UTC)