Talk:Panzer Battles (book)

POV
I've removed a large POV section.

I've been reading military history for more than twenty years. I read this book and it struck no false chords; Mellenthins comments and his descriptions of the events and actions fitted in, IMO, with what is generally accepted as having been occurring.

Toby Douglass (talk) 20:36, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It seems this (and the article on Mellenthin in general) could still use some POV cleanup. I came to this page for more information on the book's contents, and instead find nothing but one-sided attacks against it. Criticism is fine, but the entire article is essentially little more than a series of negative critiques of the book while otherwise devoting about three sentences to the book's contents.
 * Additionally, the lead sentence in the "Criticism" section (which again is the bulk of the article) seems to take a rather insulting tone towards even readers of the book. Russ3Z (talk) 17:59, 24 February 2016 (UTC)


 * There was a discussion on this topic on Mellenthin's Talk page. The suggestions for the editor were " You are of course free to add copy based on assessment of his works from other reputable historians. That way a balanced picture can emerge" and "f you think that [the sources] incorrectly criticize Mellenthin's work, you need to find another source to counterbalance [them]." The editor did not follow through on this; you are welcome to do so.


 * Also, I removed a sentence that did not sound quite encyclopedic from the lead. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:28, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Analysis by David Glantz
The military historian David Glantz offers his analysis of the book:


 * American Perspectives on Eastern Front Operations in World War II

K.e.coffman (talk) 01:37, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Serious NPOV and Weight issues
This article has been turned into a coat rack for criticism of the book. This book was a seminal entry in postwar literature by a famous officer. With its extensive professional military and academic accolades, and frequent citing, this book has received over the past half century there needs to be a much more balanced assessment of its content and impact. At the very, very least, the more contemporary criticisms should be contextualized and trimmed. LargelyRecyclable (talk) 22:22, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I think that it does go a little OTT but adding more of the pre-revisionist view of the book will need context which inevitably will be controversial and bump into the Propaganda Model. Keith-264 (talk) 17:53, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I think talking about its substantial academic citation numbers and including some reviews on release. I think the Atlantic has one accessible online. Then professional context, it's frequently cited by Cold War era military professionals. I think capping it with some contemporary reviews, especially post-Soviet archival access, would be appropriate. Sources permitting, of course. I do firmly believe that some of the attacks on the book, and Mellenthin in general, need to be contextualized for weight and seriousness. It's mostly relatively obscure figures doing the criticizing, often on silly points, or it's vague criticism in passing. LargelyRecyclable (talk) 18:03, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

I've made substantial changes to the tone, format, content, and sourcing of the article. I feel like it's a good enough representation of the book to remove my tags and alleviate my most pressing concerns. LargelyRecyclable (talk) 17:01, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

As LargelyRecyclable is a dispute-only account I have reverted these changes. Nick-D (talk) 00:44, 24 September 2017 (UTC)