Talk:Heinrich Bär/Archive 1

Aerial Victories
Am I wrong, or was Marseille credited with 352, not 158? Trekphiler 03:08, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Faulty memory again; it was Hartmann. Trekphiler 03:41, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 04:03, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

through mention how good and beautiful and heroic it was shoot down plains and contribute and cause the death of humans, remains a disputed picture of reality--78.104.4.82 (talk) 13:02, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Twister
Can somebody translate Pritzel & include here & here? Trekphiler (talk) 06:28, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * done MisterBee1966 (talk) 17:40, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Contradiction?
This quote appears in the 'Eatern Front' section, para 2: "That same day [190542], Inspector of Fighters (General der Jagdflieger) Adolf Galland arrived to inspect Bär's I./JG 77" This sentence turns up in the next section ('Mediterranean'), also in para 2: "Galland was greeted by Major Joachim Munchberg who introduced Bär to Galland [on 010343]. Thus began a comradeship which outlasted World War II." Surely, if Galland inspected Bär's unit on the Eastern Front, the two would have met then? At best it is rather contradictory; at worst, I would say this FA is down-right confusing. I think a bit of a re-write is in order.

The word 'victory' seems over-used in this article. I know it is is about a Luftwaffe pilot, but other adjectives to describe how he became a high-scoring ace, could, I'm sure, be used. How about 'kill' and 'success' for starters?

What do others think?

RASAM (talk) 15:42, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Allegiance?
Is it correct to sum up Bär's 'allegiance' being to Nazi Germany (side bar) when he was a citizen of the non-Nazi West Germany for 12 years until his death? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robfwoods (talk • contribs) 07:49, 26 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I believe the use of "allegiance" is template or infobox-based and standardized for all military persons to reflect their "allegiance" during their military career. So, while Bär may have been a loyal citizen of West Germany, as you note, his previous military allegiance had been to the Nazi-state, for whom he fought during his active service. joepa T 20:36, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

II./JG 1
The article gives "as a fighter pilot in II./JG 1" but earlier a there is "appointed Squadron Leader of 12./JG 51". It seems that maybe it's not II but the Squadron number 11? Regards, Sun Creator(talk) 02:36, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Got it. It's Roman numerals so II is two. Regards, Sun Creator(talk) 16:56, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Inconsistency
So the "article of the day" is completely inconsistent with this,  particularly about the medals.Eregli bob (talk) 02:10, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Sources of this article reliable?
It is not possible to track the sources of the information included in this article. Most likely a major part of it is based on the book of Franz_Kurowski. It should be noted that Kurowski is a known right wing extremist. He has published hundreds of books about German soldiers, a search in the catalogue of the German national library shows 378 hits. Just given the sheer number of these books, it is most unlikely that they are based on reliable historical research. In addition, Kurowski, motivated by his political views, tries to create images of heroic and "clean" German soldiers, far away from the evil Nazi people who abused them. That pattern can be found in this Wikipedia article: "With Gollob a disciplinarian pro-Nazi and Bär being anti-authoritarian, there was mutual animosity between the two aces and an intense rivalry ensued." Is there any proof to this? --87.234.145.152 (talk) 07:11, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Similar statements can be found in Bergström, Christer & Mikhailov, Andrey (2000 & 2001) MisterBee1966 (talk) 17:30, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Just to re-iterate, how is Kurowski still cited in this article 8 years later and - more importantly - how did it pass WP:FAR without checking whether the citation were to WP:RS-worthy? —Brigade Piron (talk) 09:27, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

OR / unsourced editorialising
Re: this edit, please see a related discussion at Talk:Hans-Joachim_Marseille. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:45, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Neo-Nazi publication
I removed citations to a fringe source Heroes of the Wehrmacht: Immortal German Soldiers: diff. Please let me know if there are any concerns. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:55, 20 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Do you consider a neo-Nazi publication which you restored to the article (diff) to be a suitable source for a Featured Article? K.e.coffman (talk) 23:10, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) Most are not there any more. 2) They can be sourced through others 3) I'm happy to use them for dates of awards 4) Re: 220 or 221; they are part of the debate, like it or not. Dapi89 (talk) 13:20, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I removed this source again; pls see User talk:Hawkeye7/Archive 2016. I do not consider it appropriate (and I hope most other editors agree) as a source for an article that is supposed to represent Wikipedia's very best work. Please see diff. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:52, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

OR cited to fringe sources
I removed what appears to be OR or editorialising cited to two fringe sources: Kurowski and Schaulen ("...but 221 seems to be correct based on his log book and personal file").

Separately, the sourcing in the article does not appear to be up to FA standards, with, for example, over 20 citations to the known fabulist Franz Kurowski. Some of these are multiple citations which are unnecessary to begin with. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:41, 18 February 2017 (UTC)


 * please see above and discuss on the Talk page instead of reverting. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:32, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
 * It actually doesn't matter. They are part of the debate, whether controversial or not. It is tantamount to erasing the historiography on these topics because one has a problem with the author. Dapi89 (talk) 09:36, 19 February 2017 (UTC)


 * It matters as the articles are supposed to be built on WP:RS which Kurowksi and Schaulen are not. In addition, I removed the restoration of the excessive descriptions about the subject's nose being "long and straight" etc: diff. Please also see my capsule collection on this topic: His nose is long and straight for an explanation. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:49, 20 February 2017 (UTC)


 * I further suggest that Kurowski citations be removed from the article; his Luftwaffe Aces is closer to historical fiction than history. See: Kurowski basically tells the same story, filling many pages with anecdotal stuff that seems like fiction.; source: WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/Joachim_Helbig; same book is being discussed. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:14, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Using Kurowski to delete all other kinds of information in the article is not acceptable. You seem to think he is the only sources that exists on Bar. Most info can be sourced to others in any case. Dapi89 (talk) 18:25, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Simply removing the reference to the non RS source as the editor has done in this series of edits (diff is not how WP:V works. Please see WP:BURDEN. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:14, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Toliver & Constable is another WP:QS source. I'm sure that other sources can be unpacked in a similar fashion. Given the low quality of sources, the amount of intricate detail is undue. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:13, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Since this issue hasn't been resolved, I'm restoring the unreliable sources banner. I support K.e.coffman that the anecdotes from T&C may be unreliable or simply unimportant. Catrìona (talk) 20:07, 17 June 2018 (UTC)