Talk:Hyacinth Graf Strachwitz/Archive 1

Archive 1

Generalmajor der Reserve

The German Arméd Forces had and have no Generals/Admirals "der Reserve". Generals/Admirals are always regular and professional "life long" serving officers.

The current version states that Strachwitz was "seriously wounded" in the Stalingrad Kessel and flown out- this would have been in Dec 1942. The next section states that he took command of a GD regiment in January 1943. How serious could that have been if he assumed a new command in a few weeks?

I am wondering if "seriously wounded" is the best translation. What does the original German text say? Rumiton (talk) 02:25, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

schwer verwundet MisterBee1966 (talk) 06:22, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Hard to get away from that; "seriously wounded" is the only translation that fits, but I agree it doesn't work with his quick return to command. There is some leeway, though. Maybe if we just change it to "wounded". We are sure of that, while "schwer" might be a matter of opinion. Rumiton (talk) 13:10, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

The Spartacists

The current wording in the lead implies that he fought on the side of the renegades, but I am thinking he would have been Freikorps or perhaps regular army still. Comments? Rumiton (talk) 14:59, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

He was with the Freikorps MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:19, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I will make that clearer. Rumiton (talk) 13:52, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

I see it was already clear in the main text. I should have looked more closely. :) Rumiton (talk) 14:05, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Versailles

The Weimar section states that he returned home in "early 1919" and then goes on to say how the family situation had been altered by the Treaty of Versailles. But the Treaty was not signed until 28 June 1919, and not ratified until 21 October 1919. It is probably just a matter of grammar. Can we clarify this? Rumiton (talk) 16:27, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Distillery

Is the distillery output in litres per year? Rumiton (talk) 12:16, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

30 advisors?

Who were these guys? Were they German ex-military people or someone else? Rumiton (talk) 14:13, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Maps

The use of Soviet maps notated, of course, in Cyrillic, is not helpful with articles on English WP, IMO. Sca (talk) 13:42, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Hyazinth

We have two spellings for this. Can we choose one? Rumiton (talk) 12:58, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Good question. Most sources except for Röll, who uses Hyacinth, all use Hyazinth. The "correct" at least if his grave stone is correct is Hyacinth. see picture of grave stone. I beleive Wiki policy would be to use the variable variant over the correct variant MisterBee1966 (talk) 15:29, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Strachwitz's entry in Genealogisches Handbuch des Adels, (which is considered quite a reliable source when it comes to german nobility) uses the spelling "Hyacinth" as well Jake V (talk) 20:46, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

To make it more interesting, the grave finder site also spells it Hyaczinth. Can we agree on Hyacinth? Rumiton (talk) 15:20, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

German WP uses Hyazinth, as do Estonian, Norwegian and Polish WPs. Sca (talk) 13:51, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

the rule is how is he known and reflected in English sources. Hyacinth is what was established over the yearsMisterBee1966 (talk) 16:22, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Röll

Is Röll a WP:RS source? What are their credentials? There are about 160 citations to Röll -- are there any English language sources available?

Separately, I've not been able to find Strachwitz's article on De.wiki. Can someone point me to it? K.e.coffman (talk) 06:58, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Regarding German wiki, try de:Hyazinth Graf Strachwitz. With respect to English language sources, try The Devil's General: The Life of Hyazinth Graf Strachwitz - the "Panzer Graf". With respect to Hans-Joachim Röll, I found him reliable, in collaboration with Rainer Busch and their work on submarine warfare, you might want to check work by Röll. You might want to ask user:ÄDA - DÄP, he/she has more insight on naval warfare. Cheers MisterBee1966 (talk) 12:57, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Article moved

Moved the article to "Hyazinth Graf Strachwitz" as this matches de.Wikipedia, pls see: Hyazinth Graf Strachwitz. Please let me know if there are any concerns. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:20, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

One Source tag

The article relies largely on one source for the article copy:

• Röll, Hans-Joachim (2011). Generalleutnant der Reserve Hyacinth Graf Strachwitz von Groß-Zauche und Camminetz: Vom Kavallerieoffizier zum Führer gepanzerter Verbände (in German). Würzburg, Germany: Flechsig. ISBN 978-3-8035-0015-1. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |trans_title= ignored (|trans-title= suggested) (help)

Judging by the book cover, this appears to be a laudatory, non-peer reviewed narrative along the lines authored by other similar writers, such as Franz Kurowski.

K.e.coffman (talk) 16:20, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

K.e.: It should be noted that this article did go through and pass GA and I also see it went through and passed "Class A" assessment. I don't object to the edits for concision which have been made, as I did some myself. I would very strongly recommend pinging the editors who were involved with the "Class A" review for this article before further substantial editing/removal. Kierzek (talk) 16:13, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Proposed article cleanup

Although a GA (as of 2014), it appears that this article could stand a copy edit to remove excessive detail, overlinking, piping, etc. I've done several edits to remove excessive intricate detail, such as

• a non-notable Reich sports badge,
• Strachwitz's self-designed physical therapy protocol and
• discussion of Germany's WWI strategy, on which Strachwitz had no impact.

Please see article history for other edit summaries and their rationale. My initial impression is that the article appears to have a readability problem due to too much information being presented.

Would there be any objections to proceeding further? K.e.coffman (talk) 16:57, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

As it appears that there are no objections, I will go ahead with the cleanup. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:59, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

@AustralianRupert: This is one of the articles in questions. I highlighted some of the concerns above; the rest are identified in the edit summaries, plus the over reliance on one source, which I mentioned in a separate topic below.

The situation with the article appears to be similar to the issues I have raised in the past with the MilHist community (please see the WWII content: GA & FA articles) in the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 134. I would be happy to revisit my concerns with the larger community. Please let me know what would be the appropriate forum. @WP:MILHIST coordinators: K.e.coffman (talk) 22:12, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Good Article Review or A-class reappraisal, would be the best forums, in my opinion. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 22:38, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

I am returning this article to its pre-existing condition (at which it was A-Class), and expect that the editors involved in the editing down of the article explain their actions in a A-Class re-assessment, instead of this death by a thousand cuts. The article was promoted by consensus, and changes of this scope and scale also require consensus. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:02, 11 June 2016 (UTC)