Talk:Wolfgang Lüth

Untitled
Donitz was never the Fueher, he was President. Although the term only means Leader I seem to recall from reading the article he noticeably didn't use it, so I'm changing it to the President gave a few words at his funeral. There, from the Donitz article "Significantly, Dönitz was not to become Führer. Instead, Dönitz became President (Reichspräsident), a post Hitler had abolished years earlier.". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.137.207.191 (talk) 16:21, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

War Patrols
Question - Was 15 war patrols a lot ? -Jim Sweeney (talk) 10:23, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Take a look here List of successful U-boat commanders. 15 is on the high end for German WW2 commanders. MisterBee1966 (talk) 12:17, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes I see --Jim Sweeney (talk) 15:04, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Officer ranks
Having copyedited this article, one thing I have come across is the laughable 'translations' of Kriegsmarine officer ranks. For example, Korvettankapitän becomes "Corvette Captain", Fregatttenkapitän is apparently a "Frigate Captain" and, my favorite: Kapitän zur See turns into "Captain at Sea"! Does this make a Kapitänleutänant a "Captain Leiutenant"?! This list is not complete. Having looked up some of the individual articles, it is quite obvious where the 'translations' have come from; but the Kriegsmarine article and my reference are more sensible, i.e. "Lieutenant Commander", "Commander", "Captain" and so on.

But before I change them all, I thought a bit of consensus might be a good thing.

RASAM (talk) 20:45, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * This was one of the first articles I had worked on here on the English Wiki. So what you call laughable was my best attempt as a non native English speaking person. Please feel free to correct my ignorance. MisterBee1966 (talk) 18:28, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Wolfgang Luth
Wolfgang Luth was a committed National Socialist and not to be revered. When he sank The Empire Lake in the Indian Ocean there were 5 survivors aboard a raft, he surfaced, one of his men enquired as to the name of the ship, where it was bound and what cargo it was carrying. He later wrote in his log 'Due to the high seas and the distance from land (180 miles), they will probably not survive'. He made no offer to tow the raft closer to the land, no offer of provisions, many U-Boat commanders did tow rafts to some measure of safety. I am sorry to see he has a memorial in Flensberg, I feel Germany should face up to he was. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.31.167.16 (talk) 16:30, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Unreliable sources tag
I tagged the article with Unreliable sources tag; it contains multiple citations to Franz Kurowski & Karl Alman (same author); these accounts are likely to be semi-fictional. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:32, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Recent edit
I restored the version of the article that was arrived at via a recent GAR; pls see Good article reassessment/Wolfgang Lüth/1. Here's the diff. Please let me know if there are any concerns.

I would also request that editors be mindful of avoiding personal attacks, such as in this edit summary
 * "complaints of intricate detail are ridiculous"

Thank you. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:38, 19 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Don't hide behind personal attacks whinging. Your reversal was based on the false assertion that there was an agreement to keep out the minor details I added back in. There blatantly wasn't. So your edits are ridiculous. You can have differing opinion and discuss things, but don't lie about it.
 * Thank you. Dapi89 (talk) 15:50, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
 * By the way, your article on Williamson relies on one real source; with tenuous opinions at best. Dapi89 (talk) 15:56, 19 October 2016 (UTC)


 * So these are indeed "minor details"? What do they add to the article? Separately, the edit restored the source by Gordon Williamson (writer) which was removed as part of the GAR. What is the reason for re-adding it?


 * Re: "tenuous opinions" -- this appears to be a criticism of S.P. MacKenzie, who is a practicing historian and the work being cited was published with an academic publisher. What is the problem with using this source? And are there reputable historians that praise Williamson's works? BTW, the editor is mistaken: this is not my article; nobody "owns" articles on Wikipedia. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:24, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
 * No, it's a criticism of you, and the way you (try to) use one source to denigrate another because you don't like it. More to the point, Williamson doesn't require an endorsement from anyone with a PhD. In fact, your source couldn't even show he was unreliable. And the three editors that bothered to comment on that re-assessment were all opposed to deleting him for that reason. In a nut-shell, you've abused the RS source policy and re-assessment protocols here to suit yourself. People are starting to notice (on the Joachim Helbig page).
 * As that article stands, it is yours. You've wiped out most of the original edits and now your single-sourced critique of him dominates the article.
 * I'm done here. Dapi89 (talk) 16:26, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Gentlemen, please stop edit warring. If there is an issue, discussion is the best way the resolve it. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:55, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

The editor states that the removal of Williamson is "opposed by reassessment discussion" and advises me to "start being honest": diff. Reviewing the GAR just above, I see the following comments (emphasis mine):


 * "Sturma quotes Grey Wolf by Williamson among five other sources (two by Clay Blair) in footnote 8 on page 3 of the introduction. This hardly makes Williamson an academic writer. The referenced work in this article is basically a compilation of biographic material (...), which might be considered a tertiary source at best. More importantly, Williamson's figure for Allied tonnage sunk by Lüth is taken from Bodo Herzog's book dating from 1970, which is off by 3225 GRT, and fails to mention a French sub sunk."
 * "From the article, I have the impression that some of the inferior sources (i.e. Alman, Berger, Kurowski, Range, Von Seemen, and also Williamson) are merely used to create the impression that there is a wider, academic discussion of Lüth, rather than a mere entry in a biographical index."

In fact citations to Williamson have been removed as part of the GAR. Could please clarify where they see the opposition to the removal of Williamson from all three reviewers? K.e.coffman (talk) 20:24, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Third opinion request
I'm submitting the above disagreement to WP:3O. The disagreement concerns this edit:
 * "It's not for you to decide. Opposed by re-assessment discussion. Start being honest."

The revert concerns two areas:


 * 1) Minor details of the subject's career
 * 2) Restoration to the article of the source Gordon Williamson (writer) which was removed as part of the GAR above (Talk:Wolfgang Lüth) and is currently not used for citations.

K.e.coffman (talk) 03:47, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Comment by Ian Rose
I've not commented on this dispute thus far, nor was I involved in the GAR, so I hope I can be objective here. I've looked over the GAR in light of the points mentioned above and: Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:15, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Re. "minor details", I don't see a discussion of that in the GAR, so while anyone is entitled to remove what they see as over-detailing (which I think is always in the eye of the beholder), they have to be prepared to see it reverted and then justify it in a subsequent discussion. Now, to step out of my position as disinterested observer of the GAR and offer my opinion on an example of "intricate detail" being removed, I have to admit I don't see why exact dates shouldn't be used if available and cited to a reliable source, or why advances in rank shouldn't be noted; I can't recall ever being accused of over-detailing when I've done that in Commonwealth pilot bios, many of which I've taken to FA.
 * Re. Williamson, it appears to me that pointed out reasons to retain him, and  recommended caution re. removing him.  recommended removing, and  mentioned possible alternatives to him (and others). Assuming I haven't misinterpreted anyone's position, that doesn't suggest to me consensus for removing. Again, moving from observation of the GAR to offer an opinion, I've never written or co-written a German military bio and I don't know Williamson; I can only speak from experience re. Osprey as I've used several of their books to write on Commonwealth pilots and generally found their authors to be careful and as objective as one can reasonably expect in the presentation of their subjects.

Clarify, please
The British forces occupied Flensburg on 5 May 1945; initially, nothing changed in the daily routine at the Mürwik Naval Academy.
 * Why had nothing changed? All the weapons should have been handed in at once. Valetude (talk) 00:06, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

November 2021 edit
Preserving here by providing this link: ; my rationale was: "Per the Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history/Archive_163 discussion, such lists are undue in skippers' bios". Additionally, the list of mid to jr promotions is not needed. --K.e.coffman (talk) 03:41, 27 November 2021 (UTC)