Talk:Hermann Graf/Archive 1

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 04:04, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

non RS & not used for citations
I removed dubious links and non RS sources not used for citations with this edit. For more on these works, please see:


 * 2013: Recent deletions of unreliable sources and
 * Helden der Wehrmacht, also from 2013.

Please let me know if there are any concerns. K.e.coffman (talk) 10:19, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Tags
Much of the subject's war-time career is cited to:


 * Jochim, Berthold K (1998). Oberst Hermann Graf 200 Luftsiege in 13 Monaten Ein Jagdfliegerleben. Rastatt, Germany: VPM Verlagsunion Pabel Moewig. ISBN 3-8118-1455-9.

Berthold K. Jochim is a pen name of Franz Kurowski, a pulp writer and a known fabulist. He reserved his own name for "more serious work" and used his pseudonyms for largely semi-fictional accounts. Specific to the book in question, an editor, who is familiar with the source, noted: I own the 1998 version and I think it more or less a piece of s***. Quoted from: (This comment is a bit surprising as it comes from the GA nominator; perhaps they meant something else? Regardless, Kurowski is not a suitable source for a GA, or any bio article).

The other sources are likewise questionable; Obermaier & Schummann specifically come to mind. Given the WP:QS nature of the sources, the level of detail is undue. I've tagged the article accordingly. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:24, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
 * That is not how it works, you can't claim that the reliability of the sources affects the level of detail. If there are issues with the sources, we deal with that. Then when we have the sources sorted out, we look at the issue of detail. I'm removing the overly detailed tag, we know how far off the consensus you are on that issue. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:23, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Some edits created new section
@User:Ian Rose Hi, per your revert, is there some middle ground? This seems a little overly wordy to say he did flight training between x and y dates that would cover the the things you would expect a pilot to do? Cinderella157 (talk) 12:58, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

The following was also reverted:

I had deleted the second and second last sentences as these don't appear to me to add anything of value to the article (just padding IMHO). Mentioning the single victory is of little consequence. There was also a tag to clarify when he went on leave. From the preceding para, he started fighting against the Soviets in early August and moved forward in September. This para says he went on leave several weeks after the start of February. It is rather vague and the seven months doesn't necessarily add up (from the start of August). I don't have the sources to cross-check and hence the tag. Perhaps it would be better to say: "Sometime around March, after seven months of ceaseless combat operations he was withdrawn from the frontline and sent on leave to Germany." If this accurately represents what we do know? Regards Cinderella157 (talk) 07:53, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

In the section "War against the Soviet Union", at the last para from the sentence commencing: "By 19 May the Kerch campaign concluded", the dates and tally don't appear the gel - stating his 100th on 14 may but 89 on 19th? Cinderella157 (talk) 07:58, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

To anybody watching, I have been making a number of copy edits with the aim of tightening the prose and making the article more encyclopedic. User:Philby NZ has addressed some of the concerns with the prose in the Romanian period. Thankyou, as I was looking at that too. User:Ian Rose also edited with a summary of peacock term. Something else I am looking at. Just letting you know that these aren't meant to be a hack job and I am sensitive to the opinions of others. Regards Cinderella157 (talk) 08:07, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I think the edits made so far have been judicious. Every article benefits from a bit of revision now and then, and I think this one is being improved by this process. I am a bit concerned about this whole Jochim?Kurowski thing though (section above). This was the whole basis of the GAR, and there are serious questions about whether the assertion about them being the same person is even correct. I'd like to get to the bottom of it. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:26, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
 * @Peacemaker67, as am I. My edits and comments are intended to improve the article. By these, I am not saying it is a bad article and I thank you for your comment that these are a positive contribution. Cinderella157 (talk) 09:32, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks guys for the small vote of confidence. I'll keep up with the process, and likewise, if you feel my edits are removing valuable detail, please revert those bits Philby NZ (talk) 11:22, 13 July 2017 (UTC)


 * @Philby NZ, I gather you have a source that can help address some of the things I have raised (and I don't). If you could address these, it would be great. Cinderella157 (talk) 11:46, 13 July 2017 (UTC)


 * My only real concern with the article atm is the two matters I have flagged above; otherwise, I don't have much more to add. Regards Cinderella157 (talk) 09:53, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I would add to this, confirmation that he was handed over to the Soviets on 15 May 1945. I put a question in the edit summary when I changed it as the previous section said he surrendered to the US on 8 May. This is how I read the text before I made a copy edit to it. The original text was a little ambiguous so it should be confirmed. Cinderella157 (talk) 10:20, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your efforts on the article thus far, hopefully Philby NZ will be able to clarify any outstanding issues. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:25, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
 * @Cinderella157 Just a quick note- if you're able to compile a bundle of your (very valid) grammar & readability edits into one upload rather than a bundle of single points edits posted minutes apart, it will make it far easier for me when I go through and update a section since I'm working off an article-copy from last week and I don't want to do a section-upload inadvertently overlooking any improvements you may have put through in the interim, and I'm liable to lose track of the some of the number of single-character updates you have put thru. The danger of dual-editing simultaneously I guess. Thanks for your helpful input, cheers Philby NZ (talk) 03:43, 15 July 2017 (UTC)


 * @Philby NZ, I recognise you have a valid reason for your request. On the otherhand, I have worked this way because it is usually easier to revert edits.  Having said that, I am pretty much done. Regards Cinderella157 (talk) 03:54, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

@Philby NZ, let me know when you are done. I will go through things again. Regards Cinderella157 (talk) 10:08, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
 * thanks for asking, I'll be heading away this weekend and be away from the computer for ~3days so there's some edit space if you want it. I'll prob be working thru more of Bergstrom et al prepping for another upload Philby NZ (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:04, 20 July 2017 (UTC)


 * @Philby NZ, I will wait until you have a "finished product". Pls ping when you do. Cinderella157 (talk) 11:53, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
 * May take a few weeks - its a 300-page book to pick through with a fine toothcomb and I'm only halfway in, as and when I can in the evenings, and to Ian - I've added the citations for my next update. Thanks for your patience. Afterward I will also add in the citations I've found from a number of other books & sources I have (e.g. Weal's books) to further affirm the facts & details where possible Philby NZ (talk) 00:53, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Philby, are you able to cite the last sentences in the first two paras of the Stalingrad section or are you still checking on that? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:10, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Completed picking through Bergstrom et al
I have now finished going through the Bergstrom/Antipov/Sundin book, and have updated with information to support the issues people had with Jochim. This is a biography about a person, who's main claim to fame was as a military pilot. So most of the narrative is related to a military career, but as with many other biographies, the person was not 1-dimensional, and his football passion was a not insignificant component of his life and story. And I feel it is important to add context to the personal facts with the bigger picture of world events, rather than just leave them in isolation.

I have also used the Douglas Bader article as a comparison: it is about 10000 words and has 170+ references from 26 books in the bibliography, about a British ace. I have left this article at about 7000 words (excluding the table). I will look at adding further cross-references from other books. Given the problem some people have with given claims and facts I am trying to present as much evidence as possible from multiple sources.

However, I have done what I set out to do with the Bergstrom book. The authors have cited a great number of Western, German and Russian sources and (I presume) Vlad Antipov has got access to, and translated, invaluable official archives from Russia. So people can set at it and start critiquing and re-editing. If someone has a copy of the book and wants to re-interpret the information feel free. If there are disputes on the facts presented in this comprehensive book, please present your alternative evidence rather than just a unilateral deletion. Whether this improves the article or makes it eligible for Good-Article status again - there are many more experienced editors than I to decide that Philby NZ (talk) 04:08, 5 August 2017 (UTC)


 * @Philby NZ Hi, will look through it as I did before and hope that anything I do is of value. Cinderella157 (talk) 09:06, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

www.ww2.dk
Like feldgrau, this source isn't a reliable one, and should be replaced with another source if possible, or the information removed along with the citation. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:27, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
 * yep, I was just using them to make a small point that the origin of JG 50 is quite hazy. Further information is needed to reliably verify its derivation Philby NZ (talk) 05:28, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Homemade glider
The article says that "Before his 20th birthday, he provided a homemade glider to the new Engen Sailplane Club". Is there a sense of him making it himself, or did he purchase it and donate it? It is a bit unclear. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:28, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
 * quote from Bergstrom et al p12 "From 1930 onward, Herman Graf served in Engen's town hall, saving all his money he could for one purpose, to purchase a sailplane... Before his 20th birthday, Herman Graf could contribute a homemade sailplane to Engen's newly founded Sailplane Club" Sounds like he bought the components and made his own, sound right? Philby NZ (talk) 11:22, 10 August 2017 (UTC)


 * I asked myself the same question as Peacemaker. I concluded that because he "purchase[d] a sailplane", he bought it rather than made it? I note though, that Bergstrom (and this article) "appear" to be written by somebody for whom English is a second language (and German the first - no I haven't read the book :) ). Perhaps it is a matter of language lost in the translation. I read that he "bought", even if he likely did buy and build IMHO. Cinderella157 (talk) 12:16, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Military offices succession box needs citations
The succession box is missing a few citations. Some could probably be drawn from the text, but does anyone have access to the sources needed? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:46, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Generalleutnant
A common misconception is that this rank was equivalent to lieutenant general. In WWII, this was not the case. It was in fact equivalent to major general. It was not until after West Germany joined NATO that this anomaly was addressed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:39, 10 August 2017 (UTC) ✅ Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:47, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Father's Iron Cross Class?
Any info in the sources about whether the father's Iron Cross was 1st or 2nd class? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:45, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry no specifics, Bergstrom et al just says "Wilhelm Graf participated as an artillery soldier, and was awarded with the Iron Cross" Philby NZ (talk) 11:27, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:47, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Claim that Graf helped Jewish families escape to Switzerland
I think this is an WP:EXTRAORDINARY claim, and a high-quality source or at least one other reliable source are therefore needed. My view is that it should not be included unless an academic source or further corroborating sources can be located. I had a quick look via Google Books, and couldn't locate anything. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:28, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Fair enough - it is a fairly provocative statement (from the original article, but referenced from Bergstrom et al). One of those "too good to be true" statements and hence would need some comprehensive cross-reference to verify the claim which I doubt we will be able to find with any ease Philby NZ (talk) 01:27, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I've removed it for now, on the above basis. I'll also note that the agreement to stamp German Jews passports with a J was between the Swiss police and the Nazi's and happened in 1938, so the chronology doesn't really work.Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:44, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:48, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Pinging MisterBee1966
G'day. At this stage, I'm just going through and tightening things up, but I'd like you to look at the overcitation that is currently in place given you have the sources. I only have a copy of one of the Weal books, and Google Books only gives me so much. Things like Graf getting an award don't need five citations, and there are other examples. Could you take a look at the article from Stalingrad down and trim some of the more egregious overciting? Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:47, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Comments - Cinderella157

 * In early life: "Graf was assisted by Gruppenführer (Group Leader) Albert Keller of his local NSFK Glider Club National Socialist Flyers Corps, who later covered up the bureaucratic traces that Graf had left." I note an inconsistency with the linked page National Socialist Flyers Corps and the formation of same in 1937. It is an anachronism? If this is what the sources say, then a footnote might be necessary to clarify the anachronism. Also, the abbreviation is unnecessary, since it is not subsequently used. But no point in fixing until the first issue is resolved. Cinderella157 (talk) 09:46, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I don't know. Bergstrom et al doesn't provide dates for either Graf's doctoring of the records or for Keller's cover-up, which plausibly could have been any time from pre-war through to 1941 or 42 when Graf was becoming a national celebrity. It may have become important if people were checking in on his back-story of 'simple country lad made good' but that's just my conjecture. It does mention that Keller also served as a town hall counselor so if someone can find out what years that was during it could help confirm the details.
 * I do agree that the whole phrase "NSFK Glider Club National Socialist Flyers Corps" is clumsy & clunky and inherited from the original text. It should be reduced down to just "NSFK Glider Club" and linked accordingly. But then if the editors think the whole section is too controversial or adds nothing to the narrative it could be deleted Philby NZ (talk) 07:05, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Added a note just to be circumspect. Wiki says to use full name first with abbreviation in parenthesis. I think that this is more readable (going with your lead on this) and is covered by the note.  Any objections/comments anywhere? Cinderella157 (talk) 10:53, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Cinderella157 (talk) 10:55, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Was it the "Engen Sailplane Club" or the sailpane club at Engen? If the latter, it should be the "Engen sailplane club" but the original text had "Engen sailplane Club" - so I took a stab. Cinderella157 (talk) 10:01, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Quoting from Bergstrom et al (p12): "Before his twentieth birthday, Hermann Graf could contribute a home-made sailplane to Engen's newly founded Sailplane Club. Throughout hte summer and most of the fall of 1932, every Sunday saw Hermann Graf and the other young enthusiasts of Engen's Sailplane Club swing out into the air in their brittle sailplanes from the nearby mountain Ballenberg." Their consistent capitalization would suggest your former assumption is correct, as per your edit Philby NZ (talk) 07:05, 6 August 2017 (UTC)


 * "However, because the fighter force was in dire need for new officers, Unteroffizier (NCO) Graf, was instead transferred to the ...". Is it "instead" or "subsequently" (or perhap "however" or something else)? Cinderella157 (talk) 10:29, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I would go with "instead"; quoting again from Bergstrom et al (p18): "Hermann Graf felt that his character appealed to becoming a fighter pilot. But the officials did not agree/ Those that were selected to become fighter pilots were young, age 18 or 19, but Graf was almost 26... But Graf had made up his mind. He went through an officers candidate course in Neubiberg, and this helped him to reach the fighter aviation arm, which desperately needed new officers. How desperate is displayed by the fact that the B2 pilot Unteroffizier Hermann Graf was posted to 2.Staffel of I./JG 51 at Bad Aibling on 31 May 1939, before he had even manned any modern fighter aircraft." What do you think? Philby NZ (talk) 07:05, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Does it say he actually went for transport training? Have a look at my solution. Cinderella157 (talk) 11:04, 6 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Still think that the detail of his initial flight training can be parsed. He undertook a comprehensive basic training before being selected for training in transports between x and y dates. Even the locations are a bit superfluous unless they are out of the norm. Cinderella157 (talk) 10:57, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
 * True, and I agree. I trimmed some, but kept that detail from the original Good Article text. I thought to let the Editors decide what is warranted Philby NZ (talk) 07:05, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I removed it first off and was reverted, so this is the D part of BOLD. Any more comments pls Cinderella157 (talk) 11:07, 6 August 2017 (UTC)?


 * A question. As Major is of the same spelling and meaning (though different pronunciation) in De and En, does it need to be differentiated by italics and then have the un italiced version in parenthesis: Major (Major)? It reads like and excerpt from Catch-22 Cinderella157 (talk) 11:18, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
 * haha, and again I agree. Another sentence inherited from the original text. I'm not sure why we needed 'translation' for an obviously equivalent rank. Also, I'm aware I have likely done over-citation. Given the dispute people have raised on a number of the details, I thought it best to cite everything and let the Editors decide how much is needed and where. Thanks for the tidy-up, making for a better read. Philby NZ (talk) 07:05, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I doubt he bares any resemblance to Henry Fonda so I am being bold. I will keep going then. Pls keep an eye - just in case I am wearing boxing gloves and get something wrong. I understand why you have over cited. I will leave most at this point for the same reason. :) Cinderella157 (talk) 11:25, 6 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Could you confirm that Adolf Dickfeld was also presented the Knight's Cross with Oak Leaves at the same time and possibly what for? Cinderella157 (talk) 13:36, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
 * yes, his Wiki-article is right: he was awarded the Oakleaves on 19 May, he had reached 101 victories when he shot down 11 aircraft on 18 May Philby NZ (talk) 10:28, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Revised per talk.

✅ Cinderella157 (talk) 09:35, 8 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Let us know when you're done, and I'm sure a few of us will take a run through as well. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:08, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
 * @Peacemaker67, I have gone through (and then looked back at) sections, up to but not including "Defence of the Reich". I will not go back to these, except to keep an eye on things. I will work through the rest soon unless there are any questions that stop me. Are you up on all the MOS niceties and cheats ways of checking? I am a little concerned about dashes and hyphens, date range formatting and using "&". I have picked up on some things liked over-links, but I am doing this manually. AR usually watches over my shoulder and slaps my wrist when I get these things wrong :) My other comment would be about the high level of German language references. While I get referring to units by their German name etc, there are things like "his Gruppe" rather than "his group" or "his Geschwader" rather than "his wing". I find that these things make the article less readable, given the this is En Wiki. Is this a Milhist thing? Just an observation FWIIW. I am just copy-editing this article (not my area of expertise) and still learning about Wiki foibles. :) Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 11:51, 8 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Just for my $0.02, I think the German terminology enhances the wiki-article for the layman reader - the translations are well included to give their American equivalents, and help to possibly assist those readers who may want to learn more about this aspect of military history. And the same would go for wiki-articles on Russian militaria for example. When I read those, it helps me learn the terms, to help memorise and recall when I read other books/references on the Eastern Front air war Philby NZ (talk) 01:26, 9 August 2017 (UTC)


 * @Peacemaker67, just letting you know that I am done, save that there are only a couple of things I have raised that I have not addressed with an edit, even if most aren't ticked off. Cinderella157 (talk) 05:14, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Cinderella157 (talk) 12:40, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Toward Stalingrad
I managed to work out how to cite the note about his promotion to captain. Sorry for the couple of goes. The last para, I changed "tempered his joy" to "tempered his achievement" as more encyclopedic? I think WP doesn't like idioms either - was the "toast of the Luftwaffe"? If it is a quote, that might be OK but it would have to be edited to put in quote marks and cited. I have changed to "hero" as being the best alternative I could think of. "Elevated to hero status"? Any other suggestions? I found the first para re Gollob a bit ambiguous - hence that reordering. I also grouped material on his Diamonds togeather where it was split over two paras. Tempered a bit of the language to make it more encyclopedic(?) and broken down some of the longer sentences for readability. These are, altogeather, a bit extensive, so I hope they are an improvement. Also, I hope that I have retained links to the appropriate sources in doing all of this. A check would be in order pls. Cinderella157 (talk) 04:46, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
 * all good, I agree it reads better now. "Toast of the Luftwaffe" was my phrase - as a way of reflecting the extreme value and ambition the Luftwaffe ,and High Command, put on the individual reaching major milestones. As you will know, it was no coincidence that the Luftwaffe fighter aces always filled the earliest spots at the inauguration of a new level of Knights Cross. It was, and is and will be common propaganda practice to use an individual as an inspiration and hero to the populace. So yes, a manufactured 'hero' sounds right Philby NZ (talk) 11:46, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Changed to "Elevated to hero status by the Luftwaffe ..." Cinderella157 (talk) 12:02, 7 August 2017 (UTC)


 * @Peacemaker67, pls see, "he had received all four levels of the Knight's Cross – Germany’s highest military decoration". It is a matter of technicality but I just looked at the award's article. The Grand Cross was higher, though only presented to Goering and the Knight's Cross with Golden Oak Leaves, Swords and Diamonds was subsequently instituted and presented once? Another matter, suggest: "He became only the fifth member of the Wehrmacht to receive this award". Others were awarded so "only" is incorrect. Also, the note at the last sentence of the para reads: "According to Schumann in June 1942." I suggest a comma after "Schumann", since they (he?) didn't do this in 1942. There are a series of other notes that are similarly written and should be edited accordingly. I would do these but I don't want to create edit conflicts. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 10:47, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Go ahead and do it, I'm not going to do much with it today. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:27, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Edited "only" and the comas. Made a note but not happy with the referencing. Scherzer is probaly right for the award to Rudel but I tried to check the German archive for the date of institution and couldn't find it. Cinderella157 (talk) 07:21, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
 * PS I deleted the citations so any improvement would be welcome. Cinderella157 (talk) 09:42, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
 * All good. What I was trying to explain (confusingly!) was that, within 8 months, he had been bestowed all the Knight's Cross awards available to soldiers *at that time* Philby NZ (talk) 09:37, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Fighter pilot instructor—Jagdgruppe Ost
See following mark up:

The image is mixed in with the text and a citation appears directly following the image (Weal p 60) I'm not certain if the citation is for the image (in which case, it should be part of the caption) or whether it has been orphaned from the sentence immediately before the image? Tried looking at an earlier version but the Weal citation is a new addition - so no clue there. Can't work this one out by myself. Cinderella157 (talk) 05:40, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the confusion. I don't know how to add images to an article nor the correct coding of them, so I just had a bodge at adding the citation. I don't know where the image in the original Wikiarticle is from, but there is a corresponding version of the same aircraft (his commander's plane while at JGr Ost) in the Weal (1996) book, p60. There are other images of other aircraft he flew in the assorted literature, but that one citation relates directly to the plane depicted in the article. I'm not claiming the image is taken directly from the Weal book & breaching copyright, or if its from public domain - I don't know. Just providing external evidence verifying that its not something someone has just doodled on a graphics program, because it is quite unique in Luftwaffe aircraft colours :) Philby NZ (talk) 12:03, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I will put the citation in the caption then. Cinderella157 (talk) 12:27, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

✅ Cinderella157 (talk) 12:31, 7 August 2017 (UTC)


 * @User:Philby NZ, From de Havilland Mosquito citing: Caldwell, Donald L. and Richard Muller. The Luftwaffe Over Germany: Defense of the Reich . London: Greenhill MBI Publishing Company, 2007. ISBN 1-85367-712-4 at page 79. The following text is slightly modified from the original in the Mosquito article.




 * The previous text was messy but I think that adding the "political humiliation" adds a bit more depth to the current text. The Mosquito article had "political humiliation" in quote marks so It should come from Caldwell and Muller. Do the existing citations support this revised sentence? Philby, if the existing citations fit, would you mind making the edit per above, putting the citations in the right place pls. Hope that is as clear as mud. I won't do anything more to this section until I hear back. Regards Cinderella157 (talk) 08:34, 7 August 2017 (UTC)


 * I made this edit, grouping the existing citations in support. Hope this is appropriate. Cinderella157 (talk) 10:26, 8 August 2017 (UTC)


 * See: "the 4ta Escudrilla Azul (4th Blue Squadron)" I believe "4ta" is a typo and not Spanish for "4th" (having done a quick google search and made myself an instant expert). Have edited accordingly. Cinderella157 (talk) 10:48, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Actually it WAS spelt "4ta" in the Bergstrom book. I presume because it is the equivalent abbreviation to "4th" for Spanish rather than a typo. I don't speak Spanish so I can't confirm. I'll check at home what other books refer to the Azul squadrons as Philby NZ (talk) 00:41, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I just checked John Weal's Osprey book on JG 51 (with whom the Spanish squadrons were affiliated with) and Peacemaker is completely right of course, they were abbreviated as 3a, or 4a for example Philby NZ (talk) 06:51, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
 * See my best guess at what it should be - and I'm not saying I'm right by any means. See link Cinderella157 (talk) 01:58, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
 * My understanding is that the Spanish use 4.a, 4.er or 4.° depending whether the ordinal is masculine or feminine, and apparently there are some other rules. I think we just use the English ordinals. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:41, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Works for me.

✅ Cinderella157 (talk) 02:54, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Defense of the Reich

 * I had edited the first para to change "mechanic" to "mechanics" unless this should be "a mechanic"? Cinderella157 (talk) 09:00, 7 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Regarding the Mosquito kill. The table of victories gives this as June.  But this section reads that this happened after he got his first planes in July.  This needs to be resolved. Cinderella157 (talk) 09:05, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Clarification - although they got the first of the special high-altitude 109G5 versions in July, however, they would have carried over the standard 109G models until then
 * Moved mention of this so timing is consistent with narrative. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:05, 9 August 2017 (UTC)


 * "Graf claimed his first four-engine bomber (Viermot)." It is far from clear that Viermot was the German designation for a four-engine bomber (or is that just me?). It does not strictly translate to "four-motor" but is something like German (military) jargon - and closely related to double-Dutch. Viermot only appears twice more in the text - last para in the same section and 2nd para in the next section. It also appears in the name of a source in the bibliography. I suggest writing it out but perhaps a note being added too: "Viermot was a designation applied generally to four-engine bombers operated by the Allied air-forces." Any better solutions/comments. Cinderella157 (talk) 09:41, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I think it can be dispensed with. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:29, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
 * yes it was a colloquialism among the pilots, not an official appelation. I guess its akin to "dambuster" and "bouncing bomb" as a unofficial term in general usage among the military. Philby NZ (talk) 06:13, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Written out with a note added. Cinderella157 (talk) 13:11, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

✅ Cinderella157 (talk) 13:10, 8 August 2017 (UTC)


 * See: "The unit was officially renamed Jagdgeschwader 50 (50th Fighter Wing) on 15 August 1943." Does this mean that it was Ergänzungs-Jagdgruppe Ost (Fighter Training Group East) before then and that Ergänzungs-Jagdgruppe Ost (Fighter Training Group East) was the nucleus of his new unit? If so, this needs to be clarified. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:44, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
 * No, those were quite separate units he commanded. I can't find much information about the short-lived JG50. The 'Luftwaffe 1933-1945' website says it was originally
 * "Formed 21.7.43 in Wiesbaden-Erbenheim, as Jagdgruppe Süd der ObdL (a high-altitude fighter unit (anti-Mosquito)). On 15.8.43 became JG50"
 * Jagdgruppe Süd der ObdL should not be confused with the training unit "Ergänzungs-Jagdgruppe Süd" that had been renamed "Jagdgruppe Süd" on 25.11.42, and had different commanding officers (& then went onto become the advanced training unit EJG 1 in Nov'44). This unit was the corollary of Graf's former unit, the "Ergänzungs-Jagdgruppe Ost", except it trained pilots for the Mediterranean theatre This info is mirrored in the corresponding sections on the "feldgrau.com" website. It would appear that for a short while there may have been two units having "Jagdgruppe Süd" in their title which doesn't make much sense for such an officious group as the Luftwaffe administration. Which is why I danced around the issue a bit :) the only bit that looks more certain is that, when disbanded, JG50 got absorbed into the night-fighter unit that it was possibly sharing aircraft with, or at least, operating nearby. But someone else will need to confirm my conjecturing Philby NZ (talk) 01:14, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
 * See my edit re the naming issue. There is a note at this point. Can I suggest expanding it to include "formerly designated as Jagdgruppe Süd der ObdL" and the source? Notes are a good place to be circumspect. Regards Cinderella157 (talk) 02:18, 9 August 2017 (UTC)


 * See the note: "Weal says it was 16 aircraft, including claims from neighbouring training units, with 30 fighters." The with 30 fighters is ambiguous. Does this mean that there were a total of 30 fighters engaging the bombers? The linked article suggests about 30 fighters lost?
 * Sorry for the confusion. What Weal had to say was that 16 American bombers were claimed shot down when engaged by about 30 German fighters comprising JG 50 and its neighbouring friends. I would presume that when the call went out for all available fighters to defend that a number of the trainers (being veteran pilots themselves) would have jumped into their training aircraft and taken off to join up with JG50 "unofficially" Philby NZ (talk) 01:19, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
 * See revised note per this.

✅ Cinderella157 (talk) 02:36, 9 August 2017 (UTC)


 * See last para. I find that the mention of Graf's visit to the test facility disrupts the rest of the narrative a bit. Is there a date for his visit? Having a date would put this in context of the other things that were happening and establish continuity. Otherwise, it might be better to move this to its own paragraph since it is a separate "idea". Cinderella157 (talk) 02:44, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
 * unfortunately there is no specific date for this intriguing comment in Bergstrom et al. The nearest to a date they mention is that Ekdo 16 started regular test flights in summer 1943. I would presume that Graf went to Peenemunde to see test flights, not just a static display, to come away impressed and enthusiastic. Aside from that, though, I've found nothing Philby NZ (talk) 11:38, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
 * @User:Peacemaker67, I will let you decide what to do with this, so that I don't disrupt what you are doing. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 12:29, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Wing commander of JG 52

 * See: "Once the "poor relation" it was now the pre-eminent ...". I presume that this was because it had a relatively low scoring rate early in the war.  If so, this needs to be made clear.  I am editing on this assumption. Pls confirm.  I also assume that this is a quote, otherwise it would be idiomatic and unencyclopedic? Pls confirm. Cinderella157 (talk) 10:07, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
 * No, just my phrasing, yes I suppose it is idiomatic so please update as appropriate. Its referring back to the first paragraph of the Soviet Invasion section, when Goring berated JG 52 for its apparent lack of effort Philby NZ (talk) 05:51, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I have edited this and migrated citations regarding Goering's criticism. Cinderella157 (talk) 04:17, 9 August 2017 (UTC)


 * The sackings is a bit controversial to the extent that Graf's involvement is disputed. The Statement "(including Graf), agreed to approach Göring and demand major changes." is supported by three citations. Do they all report Graf's involvement? I think that the whole matter should be treated in a more circumspect manner. Steinhoff claims he was present and not Graf. Bergström et al claim that Graf was not sacked like the others because ... Other comments? Cinderella157 (talk) 04:30, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Prisoner of war

 * I have deleted the list of other prisoners released by the Soviets as I don't think this value adds to the article. Howerere, I put this up for discussion. Cinderella157 (talk) 13:23, 7 August 2017 (UTC)


 * See "especially following a 1950s book by fellow fighter ace and Soviet POW Hans "Assi" Hahn entitled "I Speak the Truth" (Ich spreche die Wahrheit)". What was said that was so damning? I think this loop needs to be closed. Cinderella157 (talk) 13:38, 7 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Siegfried Knappe wrote about Graf as an example of someone who was brave in combat but a coward as a prisoner; he said Graf "did everything the Russians asked him to do...because he was afraid they would never let him go home or would punish him in some other way...", and that "[Graf] lost his self-respect and the respect of his peers" [while at Krasnogorsk]).


 * Knappe, Siegfried. Soldat: Reflections of a German Soldier, 1936-1949. Bantam Doubleday Dell, 1992, p. 388-389.

Awards
For the degrees of the Knight's Cross, the meaning of 5th, 11th and 93rd is not apparent. This should probably go to the other end of the line and explicitly say "the 5th awarded" but I am not certain of the sourceing. Or perhaps "Diamonds (5th awarded)". This does not change the sourcing. Comments/suggestions. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:50, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
 * It means the 5th award made of that grade etc. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:27, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

✅ Cinderella157 (talk) 05:16, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I really don't think we need the German versions of the Knight's Cross and higher grades. They belong in the Knight's Cross articles themselves, and are repetitive and just impede the flow of the prose. I've removed them. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:45, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

1939-1940
I have changed "Feldwebel (staff sergeant)" to "Feldwebel (sergeant)" being BOLD. The equivalency is a difference between Commonwealth and US ranks. Feldwebel falls at NATO code OR-6. Not saying I am right on this one. The problem is compounded (it appears) because a USAF staf-sergeant is at OR-5. Perhaps it needs a note? Up for discussion. Cinderella157 (talk) 09:21, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Trying to equate to a current NATO rank is a false equivalence in my view. I suggest using a reliable source for US Army rank equivalents, such as George Stein's The Waffen SS, p. 295, which equates a Feldwebel with the WWII US Army Technical Sergeant, ie from 1942 onwards, platoon sergeant's were technical sergeants. For the record, the German Unterfeldwebel was equivalent to staff sergeant. But in this case, I think we don't need to get too "technical", and just refer to it as (sergeant).
 * Flies for me.

✅ Cinderella157 (talk) 05:17, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Wing commander of JG 1 and JG 11

 * See: "while operational it had claimed 45 Allied four-engined bombers". This is ambiguous but I have assumed it refers to JG 50 and edited accordingly. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:24, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Karaya-Staffel
A google search of this turns up on youtube with  a picture of the vinyl (or bakerlite I think at the time) attributed to Mimi Thoma. It is in German and dated at "Recording: Berlin, 19.11.1934" There is also a link to this site. I hate to be a fly in the ointment and don't really Know what to do with this. Certainly, I would think that the text might need to be more circumspect in this matter. As a PS, I doubt it might have got much air play if it were Russian in origin. Cinderella157 (talk) 05:01, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
 * The quote from Bergstrom et al on the name derivation is
 * "But Suess glowed with happiness. He had found an old Russian 78 record, God only knows where, and he kept playing it over and over again on his portable record player. Everyone soon learned to loathe the song. It wasn't really a Russian song, rather a tune from the Tartar world of culture. Of course no one understood a word of gibberish language which the unknown singer chanted in staccato. But that didn't trouble the merry Suess, who interpreted the hum-drum chorus as 'Karaya, Karaya'. He even improvised a home-made German rendering of the refrain: 'Karaya, Karaya, you are in Malaya!' Whwnever Suess wasn't close to his record player, he was found humming 'Karaya, Karaya, you are in Malaya' driving everyone absolutely crazy!"
 * Perhaps then, since he couldn't understand the actual lyrics, he improvved with something he had heard before as a young adult. Just my conjecture of course, but we all make up filk-songs from popular tunes. "Its a long way to the shop if you want a sausage roll" and the most annoying advertising jingles always manage to stick in your mind. :) Philby NZ (talk) 05:40, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I was not doubting your sourcing. I thought I would put it into google, expecting a Russian folk song to pop out and this is what I got instead. The record centre also credits the music and lyrics to J. Freymuth (unless my basic German is horribly wrong). As I said, I really don't know what to do with this. Cinderella157 (talk) 06:48, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I think we just go with the minimal information that the squadron was called that because of a song of that name that was played over and over by Süß. I've edited it to that effect, see what you think? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:56, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Works for me. Cinderella157 (talk) 08:02, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Variation of English
While there is a tag that this is nominally written in American English, I see a number of instances of British English (including labour). I have tried not to contribute to this mixing and apologise if I have. Should all instances be Americanised or is it now so Anglicised that the tag be changed and go that way? Cinderella157 (talk) 06:04, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
 * It should be c/e'd to conform with AmEng, as that was what was originally used. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:21, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Indeed so, sorry - my spellchecker/autocorrecter is set for New Zealand English, which follows British-English spelling norms. And of course it is standard policy that the article keeps language consistency and it started in AmEng Philby NZ (talk) 11:42, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

War against the Soviet Union
Citation needed for third para. My apology, in that my edit creating this as a separate para left it without a citation at its conclusion. Cinderella157 (talk) 04:49, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
 * So is it the same citation as the first sentence of the following para? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:04, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
 * See my edit So yes, the text was originally supported by , which is the citation for the first sentence of the next para. I could say that I trust it supports this one too but a check couldn't hurt if it can be done easily. Cinderella157 (talk) 05:53, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅ I've assumed good faith of the original editor and reinstated it on that basis. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:12, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Rm overcitation edits
@Peacemaker67, per your edits of subject (several) of a couple of hours ago. The rationale for the deletions is not clear to me, so so please pardon me for asking? Cinderella157 (talk) 13:17, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm applying WP:OVERCITE. Simple short sentences do not need four or five citations. They make it hard to read and break up the flow. I've just chosen one or two on the basis that they all cover the same territory. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:25, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm also trying to minimise the use of sources that might have questionable reliability. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:50, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Fair enough and I absolutely agree that they disrupt readability. Why I have tried to provide as many citations as possible was to allow more experienced editors, like yourself, to be able to select which ones to keep. I've also wanted to use it as a "proof" that certain statements are taken as more accepted facts, and should not be prone to argument. I'm also concerned that we don't end up going down the same path again if disputes are raised regarding a source and have to revisit this Philby NZ (talk) 10:21, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks, which sources do you have access to? I only have one of the Weal books (JG 52), so my ability to work out what can be culled is a bit limited. I've pinged MisterBee, but he's semi-retired and I think he might be away for a bit, so if we want to progress this GAR I think we'll have to do it ourselves. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:25, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Bundling with sfnm is the other option I would use. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:32, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I have all the Osprey books (& virtually all the Osprey Luftwaffe series), all the cited Bergstrom books, as well as his excellent books on the airwar at Stalingrad, Kursk & Bagration. I also have a number of the Luftwaffe Colours series & Spick's books. I don't have any of the German-language sources, including the Jochen Prien books, which are just the last word on the Luftwaffe. Misterbee has them, and can translate them for us if he comes back to us Philby NZ (talk) 11:06, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
 * In that case, can you do some trimming on the overcitation, or do you want some guidance (ie work through it section by section)? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:09, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I suggest it might be best to deal with the citations once any other issues (copy editing etc) are done. Will gladly help with sfnm then. Regards Cinderella157 (talk) 10:10, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, given that I am a strong supporter of the value of the on-line resources with their strength of research and references cited, which is a minority view in this forum, then I don't think I am the best judge on which citations to include or not :) Obviously those with a narrower focus can treat a given subject better. I'm sure I can't be the only editor with access to the cited sources to judge their respective merit. I just don't want to have to go through this exercise again if we select the wrong references to pin our flag to and someone starts disputing an article's reliability or not. Philby NZ (talk) 06:19, 20 August 2017 (UTC)