Talk:Kurt Welter/Archive 1

Question
Was he first to score 5 kills in Me-262? Trekphiler 03:24, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Acording to Hugh Morgan and John Weal, the first Jet kill could have been a Mosquito by Leutnant Alfred Schreiber on 26 July 1944. The second victory by Schreiber (reconnaissance Spitfire) remains unconfirmed. So the Morgan and Weal conclude that the first Jet kill in history was the confirmed destruction of a No 540 Sqn Mosquito PR XVI. On 15 August, Feldwebel Helmut Lennartz claimed a B-17G from 303rd BG. These two were the first confirmed Jet pilots claiming victories. The question about the first Jet ace (5 kills) remains unanswered. MisterBee1966 12:00, 28 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 04:07, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Tag & Assess 2008
Article reassessed and graded as start class. --dashiellx (talk) 11:11, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Math problem
This page says he got 29 in the 262; this page says 25. Which is it...? TREKphiler  hit me ♠  10:06, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

No mention in Fight Aces of the Luftwaffe?
Checking Appendix 3 in the 1996 edition of "Fighter Aces of the Luftwaffe," (Constable and Toliver) I find no mention of Kurt Welter in the list of Luftwaffe Jet Aces of WW2, of whom Heinz Bär ranks first with 16 victories (tied w/ Franz Schall). Where is the basis for the claim that Welter has 25 confirmed kills in the ME 262? While Constable and Toliver note that their appendix is not complete, at least it relies on officially confirmed kills.Joep01 (talk) 16:55, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

His death
It is very sad,such war hero dies so unfortunately.More details are needed on his death. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.232.48.200 (talk) 13:16, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

References to Knight's Cross
I have reverted this deletion because the sources differ on the details of the Knight's Cross (and its higher grades), see notes in the article. The citations at the end of a bullet list is not Citation overkill and does not clutter readability. In addition, two of the citations passed the GA-class review. Cheers MisterBee1966 (talk) 05:57, 7 January 2017 (UTC)


 * When I mentioned the Manstein discussion in the edit summary, I was referring to the portion of the discussion where "citation overkill" was brought up:
 * Specifically here: diff: Is there actually a dire need to have these citations in the article at all?, in re: this addition to the article. Seemen, Fellgiebel were subsequently removed from the article, due to "excessive citations": diff 1 & diff 2. This is a GA article.
 * The article List of Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross recipients (A) states that "For many years Fellgiebel's book was considered the main reference work on this topic, and it has now been superseded by Scherzer's work".
 * Specific to Seemen, this discussion from 2013 is relevant: 2013: Recent deletions of unreliable sources: Range and von Seemen come from the same place [as Fellgiebel & others in the Ordensgemeinschaft], but have been superseded by Fellgiebel's work and are thus dated.
 * So I don't believe I'm alone in not seeing the need for multiple citations in case of material that's unlikely to be challenged, especially if these sources are dated / non-independent of the topic and have been superseded by another source.
 * Given the above, how does the presence of Fellgiebel and Seemen enhance the article? K.e.coffman (talk) 09:12, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * If there is conflicting information both sources should be given. Sometimes a sentence is built from two difference sources. That's why some have two citations attached. It's not hard to understand. Dapi89 (talk)


 * Since made the revert, I'd like to hear from them him. K.e.coffman (talk) 10:00, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't think he has multiple personalities. He has already explained my point to you. Dapi89 (talk) 11:32, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The revert's edit summary included "please discuss", which is what I'm attempting to do. K.e.coffman (talk) 11:59, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Pls see this: Stop removing sources, this isn't overciting. Peacemaker67 already warned you (just a few days ago!) to stop doing this, and you still ignorant. You've been engaged in edit wars with multiple veteran editors, and you've got multiple edit warrings. I suggest to editors involved here to ignore him and revert his disruptive editing, and/or if he persists report him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.237.138.234 (talk) 12:59, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

I hold my previous arguments to be self-evident. Although I am repeating myself... Three sources, all three legitimate, with the tendency to differ in details of the award, which happens to be the case in this specific instance. The approach taken reflects the suggestions put forward in Conflicting sources. It specifically states "Do not remove the conflicting sources just because they contradict the current sources" and "Do not choose which one is "true" and discard the others as incorrect." Three citations in a bullet list does not impact readability. MisterBee1966 (talk) 14:16, 8 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure that I agree with this line of reasoning; Citation overkill states:
 * "For many subjects, some sources are official or otherwise authoritative, while others are only interpretative, summarizing, or opinionated. If the authoritative sources are not controversial, they should generally be preferred."
 * Seemen has been described as National Socialist in outlook, while both Fellgiebel and Seemen are dated. Separately, as is clear from the revert, there's no discrepancy between Seemen and Fellgiebel.


 * Please see a related discussion:
 * User talk:Hawkeye7/Archive 2016, where it was reiterated that such questionable sources should not be used where possible.
 * Why use dated, biased sources, while the more recent source is considered authoritative on the subject? K.e.coffman (talk) 18:52, 8 January 2017 (UTC)