Talk:Manfred von Richthofen/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Reason for red paint??

WWI German fighter pilots liked decorating their aircraft, and were allowed to get away with a good deal of it - but one can't help suspecting it had nothing whatever to do with "identification in the air" (even if this was an incidental consequence) but was done for the same reason(s) aircrew of other times and nations have done the same thing, given half a chance. In any case, this can really only be speculation, and doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. Richthofen MAY have been the first airman to add personal decoration to government property in this way - but I don't know if this has ever been confirmed. One old source I own says Boelke painted his Halberstadt blue.

Different sources may well give different rationales for "aircrew decorations" but all such rationales remain pure speculation. Not Wiki editor speculation, but speculation nonetheless, unless we can cite (say) a letter by one of the young gentlemen concerned to the effect "the skipper got the ground crew to paint bits of our aircraft red so we can tell who's who in the air". --Soundofmusicals (talk) 22:24, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Wolfram

According to the Wop May article, and the PBS NOVA documentary on the Red Baron's death, he engaged May because May had attacked Wolfram... shouldn't this be in this article, and Wolfram's article? 76.66.193.119 (talk) 12:23, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

A number of sources say so, but this doesn't really make it any more than speculation. In any case it is more relevant to (and notable in the context of) the other articles than this one. In particular it is completely irrelevant to the controversy about who shot the Baron down. Having said all this - if you can find a neat way of slipping the info in without spoiling the flow of this article (given that at this point it gets a bit intricate, and we want people to be able to follow it) no real reason why it SHOULDN'T go in! --Soundofmusicals (talk) 23:08, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Usage of references

References are intended for the purpose of verification of statements made within the article. They are not meant for the purpose of defining words that happen to crop up in the passage of the article, this is either done with wikilinking to a relevant article on said word, or a formal note (such a note system has already been installed in this article, by prior edits by myself I might add, this article has a history for confusing the two/not bothering to make the destinction). There is an exception to this principle, where the word being defined is the matter of the article's discussion E.G. Definitions of the word Concorde/Concord on the Concorde article; however the word 'kapput' is neither exceedingly important or necessary to go to such strenous lengths within an article on a German World War One air ace. A note will be fine most likely, it certainly shouldn't belong in references as it can be seen as (falsely) providing verification to the sentence in question, when they make no note or reference of the instance or the Baron at all they shouldn't be placed in such a manner. The correct formatting of information is important, to be clear to others and to avoid unintentional deception.

In my own opinion, the note that has been added after my last edit is sufficient, we can either add a link over to the wiki dictionary or leave it as it is, minus the dictionary non-refs inside the reference list. Kyteto (talk) 22:55, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Go back to read the extensive debate over von Richthofen's last words and why the meaning was in conjecture. The use of numerous definitions was meant to clarify the issue. FWiWBzuk (talk) 23:26, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

That doesn't mean that that we should be overriding the proper usage of references. Technically, all we need to do is record that he said the word, as the sentence in the article makes zero interpretation upon the meaning of the word, there's nothing to defend or justify here. He said the word, and that is all that the article is stating, thus a definition-hunt for some odd reason seems out of place, it certainly should belong in the verification-of-statement realm, but is mentionable under notes, as that is the intended purpose of notes, to highlight single instances of topical interest, controversy, and making the sub-text behind a troublesome issue clear, as well as generally adding illuminating info and clarification. Things have their places, verification and elaboration are two completely seperate subjects, and should/are listed seperately, lest one be confused for the other. I appreciate the controversy around the word's meaning, but that seems a debate more fitting for this article over at http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/kaputt than here, that is wholley on the topic of defining the word while here its a mainly irrelivant debate as whatever it means, he said it and the meaning changes nothing the face of that. Leave the defining to the project for defining words, I like your note and it seems to cap off the issue well, just link it over to the Wikidictionary if you feel it really needs to be made clear, and that should settle most people who have a stake in making that final word clear. Kyteto (talk) 23:42, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

"In all the kerfuffle over the exact intent of his last words as quoted in this article, the various editors that weighed in, each referred to a different definition. Nonetheless, the only witness to his death, did note that expression. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 23:50, 10 August 2010 (UTC).

Point was (coming to this a little belatedly) that giving this rather ambiguous colloquial expression a particular meaning in this instance can only be speculation (we're not even that sure he said it, much less exactly what he meant if he did) - much better to leave it up to what the reader might think - BUT in these circumstances a footnote to possible meanings very appropriate. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 07:56, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Next Step?

I think the article is good. Have you guys thought of putting it for GA or FA? I think it has a better chance for GA. Spongie555 (talk) 04:08, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

"Battle/Combat" flier

"Combat Flier" is at least as good a translation as "Battle flier". The two are pretty much synonymous anyway. The trouble is that "Red Battle-Flyer" is what von R's German nickname has been universally translated into English as - since 1918, if not before. Making up another translation, especially one that is no more (or less) accurate, is "Original Research". If you really want to use a less quaint-sounding version, then the most recent English edition of "Der rote Kampfflieger" is, I believe, called "The Red Fighter Pilot" - which while a freer translation sounds more like English. But even this is not appropriate where you changed the text of this article. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 15:00, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Buie's Recognition?

This arcticle states that "Buie, who died in 1964, has never been officially recognised in any other way", but the arcticle for Snowy Evans states that both he and Buie were "recommended for the Meritorious Service Medal". Are we not considering that to count as any "official recognition" or is one of the articles incorrect? LewisWasGenius (talk) 18:26, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes - we are "not considering that to count as any "official recognition"" - which is surely fair enough. The only actual "official" recognition was in fact the RAF's crediting of the air victory to Brown - which almost all historians now consider mistaken at best, if not a deliberate propaganda ploy - certainly no official recognition was given to any Australian ground gunner. Lots of servicemen during WWI (and other conflicts) have received decorations (or have been recommended for decorations - not quite the same thing) with no connection whatever to the death of the Red Baron - this is probably yet another instance of this. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 10:18, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Incidentally - the decoration in question is NOT one that would be awarded (nor, except in error, recommended) for an action like "shooting at the Red Baron". It is awarded to service people, usually NCOs, for meritorious service OTHER than in a combat role (for instance it is often awarded to nurses). I suspect that the source cited for the Snowy Evans article is suss. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 10:26, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

In that case maybe something should be done about the other article. LewisWasGenius (talk) 15:58, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Go for your life! My watchlist is already far too long - looking to shorten it, not take on new articles. But just quietly, how "notable" is a person who is only known for NOT having shot down the Red Baron? --Soundofmusicals (talk) 16:51, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I changed it say only that Buie and Evans were recommended for the metal 2 days after Richthofen was shot down. LewisWasGenius (talk) 14:14, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

This article seems to contradict itself

This article seems to contradict itself. On the one hand, we read:

"It was almost certainly during this final stage in his pursuit of May that Richthofen was hit by a single .303 bullet, which caused such severe damage to his heart and lungs that it must have produced a very speedy death."

On the other hand,

"Experts now generally agree that Richthofen was killed by someone on the ground."

Which is it? Could someone knowledgeable please fix this? M cuffa (talk) 19:51, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Richthofen was in the air when he was killed, of course - one has to strain the context of the last sentence really hard to get an ambiguity, but taken in isolation it could JUST mean that he was killed on the ground. Will modify. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 20:49, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Confusing italics

"Manfred Albrecht Freiherr von Richthofen" -- why the italics? Is this something customary in German? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.229.61.134 (talk) 00:14, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Good question. See above; I've removed "Freiherr" from his name altogether, and explained what it means. Groogle (talk) 04:03, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Autobiography

Is the legitimacy of his autobiography in question?

This name was used as the title of Richthofen's 1917 "autobiography".

If whether this really is an autobiography is questioned, it would be nice to have an indication of the reason there. If not, it shouldn't be in quotes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MoCellMan (talk • contribs) 00:14, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Several quite legitimate reasons for the quotes here - the main one is that this little book was very much censored and edited, and that some passages were evidently NOT written by R. (or any other aviator) - this is made clear later in the text, and specifying it here would be clumsy and unnecessary. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 20:18, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Is every Red Baron victim notable?

I note that the name of every one of Richthofen's victims is piped. Is someone going to write an article on every one of the Red Baron's victims? If so, what makes them notable? Their victimhood?

It seems to me that a cross-check for notability should be made. If there is no valid objection to this, I will perform it, and remove piping to non-notable victims. Georgejdorner (talk) 14:30, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Nicely put, George -- that sounds like a very good idea. By the way, there's also no need for all the text in the table to be in bold... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:33, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Agree with both of you - incidentally I has me doubts as to whether this table belongs here at all. I haven't rushed to revert or move it - but I think that even if this article was a book - then the list of victories would be in an appendix rather than part of the main text. Listing every individual victory in this context is just a little over the top in what remains a fairly succinct article. What about giving it its own page??? George, if you agree would you consider doing this - starting a new page called "A list of the victims of the Red Baron" (or words to that effect??). Obviously it wuld be clerly linked to this article. Also there IS some doubt about one or two of the victories (it would be highly suspicious if there were not!) I didn't notice any mention of these - it really wouldn't hurt to double check with one or two older references to ensure this list really is 100% kosher. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 20:34, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Soundofmusicals. A separate list page would be well suited for the purpose. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 20:37, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not totally averse to the idea of a separate article for his claims but on the other hand you could make it a collapsible list within the article if you think it takes up too much room. On the other-other hand, there's at least one precedent of a long list of claims in a WWI ace article being accepted at FAC, namely George's and my effort with Stan Dallas... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:58, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

The case is rather different with Stan Dallas, in that the table of victories in that article sorts out controversy about how many victories were either claimed or confirmed by/for Dallas. There is, and has not been for many years, any real (as opposed to manufactured) controversy over von Richthofen's confirmed victories, which are much better documented than those of any Allied ace. The Dallas list is also much shorter, of course, and in any case would hardly qualify for the independent notability needed for a separate article. Since there seems to be no real oposition to this move - I will make it some time in the next few days, unless George beats me to it. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 07:59, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

As I said, I'm not opposed to breaking the list of the Baron's victims out from this article, however in terms of length the Dallas and Baron lists are very similar as they stand -- the latter has more entries of course, but the detail in the Dallas entries is greater... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:27, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) Look fellas, I've done it!! - Also cut brackets on people insufficiently notable to get their own articles (viz. most of the victims). I am not sure how to cut that bolding - anyone else know how it is done?? --Soundofmusicals (talk) 04:39, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Did it for one row as a demo -- need to get rid of those exclamation marks to the left of each cell and replace with pipes. 'Fraid I don't have the time to take care of the rest but at least you know how it's done... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:05, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

We live and learn! Copied text to a text editor - replaced "!" with "|" - restored desired "!" characters manually - repasted article back. Total time taken about 1 minute!! Once you know what you are doing... Thanks for that anyway --Soundofmusicals (talk) 06:12, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

---

Wow! Instant consensus! I find it so inspiring, I performed a cleanup edit on the victory table, including a cross-check for notability with http://www.theaerodrome.com/aces/germany/richthofen2.php.

Georgejdorner (talk) 15:12, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

---

IMHO, the list still needs work, especially with the wikilinks, some locations redlinked, some aircraft types linked, some not? Bzuk (talk) 15:24, 30 December 2010 (UTC).

By all means give it a further buzzy cleanup, Old Bean. I only touched the non-notable victims myself. I think the original author got most, if not all, of the aircraft types linked (once - the first time they are mentioned). Does the page need things like categories etc.?? --Soundofmusicals (talk) 20:35, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

FTA - actually you were right about the unlinked aircraft types - have fixed this (I think).--Soundofmusicals (talk) 21:06, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

---

great! seems i missed the whole discussion :-) --Mezod (talk) 18:00, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Manfred Albrecht Freiherr von Richthofen

Due to a recent revision of the article, the following discussion is repeated here: Along with the establishment of the Weimar Republic (Weimar constitution, article 109(2)[1] Adelsbezeichnungen gelten nur als Teil des Namens und dürfen nicht mehr verliehen werden. - Noble titles form part of the name only; noble titles may not be granted any more.[2] ) hereditary titles became part of the surname so his full legal name was Manfred Albrecht Freiherr von Richthofen thenafter. Article 109 remains the only article of the Weimar Constitition still valid in Germany. - Because Albrecht as second christian name was missing, I did change the shown name to 'Manfred Albrecht Freiherr von Richthofen'. --Oldnag85 (talk) 16:54, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Since he died before the Weimar Republic existed, I can't see how it is relevant to the name that he was known by in life. Grant | Talk 22:00, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Good argument, but though he died before that date, due to his inherited nobility his full written name is as mentioned above. You would have called him Baron because of his title. In direct speech there was no Freiherr - Freiherr would have been pronounced Baron, due to custom. --Oldnag85 (talk) 22:17, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Is there a relevant WP policy which states that we should use present day legal names in biographies, rather that the historically accurate name? Grant | Talk 22:27, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't no about WP policy about that. If he was of real nobility, what I asume, his full name is as mentioned above even before WW1. That was and is German law. And local law doesn't care about WP policy. If you don't believe it, read it up, I did so! --Oldnag85 (talk) 22:35, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

It's not clear what "local" law has to do with this article. This is a global WP article, and German law has nothing to do with it. Groogle (talk) 04:03, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

---

The relevant WP policy for honorifics as part of personal names can be found at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Honorifics#Honorific_prefixes

Though his birth name was indeed "Manfred Albrecht Freiherr von Richthofen" and he is commonly referred to as nobility in his nickname "The Red Baron", there is a strong argument to be made that "Manfred von Richthofen" is the proper listing because he is overwhelmingly referred to by that particular name, even though the title "Freiherr" far precedes the Weimar Republic.

As can be seen, I hold no brief for either position. And given past reactions, I am going to duck and cover.

Georgejdorner (talk) 21:48, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, during his life his name was Manfred von Richthofen, and his title was Freiherr. I've updated the page with a reference to the constitution and that some people think that "Freiherr" should be part of his name. Groogle (talk) 04:03, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Not agreed at all; what we are now doing is seeking out editors who have an interest in this article and elicit responses as to the determination of family, familiar and official names. What will decide matters is the consensus of all editors who have participated in a discourse on the subject. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 04:10, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Normally, I'd be with Bzuk on this one. (I'm a terrible stickler for correct titling.) In this case, however, the overwhelming majority of readers/visitors have no damn clue what Freiherr means, & a very strong majority don't even recognize the "von". :( (Truth to tell, I wouldn't even search it as Manfred, Freiherr, myself. :( ) Let us not complicate the issue. Lead the article with the full, correct name, & leave the pagename alone. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 04:42, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I have "no horse in the race" and am willing to abide by a consensus, whatever it is, I just thought that a major change to the article needs further discussion, although there is something to be said for being BOLD. FWiW, I will defer entirely to the experte in the group. Bzuk (talk) 04:54, 31 December 2010 (UTC).

This has little or nothing to do with German name conventions, either Imperial or Republican - this is an English language encyclopedia, and English convention in a case like this is essentially what the current text (very correctly) follows. A similar article on a British ace called "Sir Henry George Muckworth" for instance - would have the full name for a heading - and in the first sentence of the lead - but throughout the article we would refer to him either as "Sir Henry", or "Muckworth". We'd be most unlikely to use "Sir Henry Muckworth", much less "Sir Henry George Muckworth" anywhere in the text but right at the top. I have nothing against the odd "von" here and there, but in the main "The Baron" ought here to be called either that, or simply "Richthofen". As he is. I'd leave the heading and the first (full) mention of his name just as they are, too. In short, I concur completely with Bzuk's last revert of the edit that inserted all those uncalled for "vons"! --Soundofmusicals (talk) 06:44, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Side note: According to German law academic titles such as doctor (German abbreviation is Dr. jur. for a PhD in law, or Dr. Ing. for a PhD in engineering, etc.) are also part of the name and must be listed in the passport or Id card and are part of the official name. My personal preference regarding names is that the name of the Wiki article should reflect the name the person is most commonly referred to. In this instance I think Manfred von Richthofen is a good choice. Nevertheless the body of the article should present the full name plus a redirect should be created with the official name also pointing to the article. MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:35, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

If this were a German article then it would probably be more appropriate to use Richtofen's full, legal title; however, as Trekphiler has pointed out, most English speaking people only know him as Manfred von Richthofen: for example the Official History of Australia in the War of 1914 - 1918: Vol V The AIF in France 1918 (C E W Bean) has an Appendix No. 4 "The Death of Richthofen" [which (I believe) was one of the first sources to question the official account of Richthofen being killed by Brown] in which he is called Baron Manfred von Richthofen. Adding all of his names and titles simply confuses things for most readers - there is only one M v Richthofen listed in Wikipedia, so there is no possibility that M v Richthofen can be mistaken for someone else. His full name and titles are given in the first sentence of the article, which should be sufficient. As it is the article is still rated as a C - surely the priority should be to concentrate on improving the article to reach maybe GA status rather than wrangling over the title? BTW Happy New Year to ALL seeing as l'il ol' Noo Zeeland is way ahead of most of you! (it is actually 23:50 here... Minorhistorian (talk) 10:44, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Weimar Constitution is irrelevant for two reasons: 1) MvR never lived under Weimar law and 2) this is the English wiki. I agree with Trekphiler and Soundofmusicals here. Leave things as they are; anything else is unnecessary complications (though I do wish that 'von' was more recognised...). ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 16:27, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

• Leave title as is;
• All names, including "Freiherr" in first sentence of lead, as is;
• Keep "von" whenever Richthofen preceded by Manfred as in "Manfred von Richthofen";
• No "von" when no first name before Richthofen, i.e. only "Richthofen".

--Frania W. (talk) 22:53, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

---

Comment: I have previously written bios of German aces who won the Military Order of Max Joseph; such an award confers knighthood on the recipient, with the title of "Freiherr". I have used the honorific in the article title, and in the body of the article after award of the medal, on the grounds that the award is a distinction earned by valor. I figured the denotation of the award was along the same lines as VC after a name and/or "Sir" before the recipient's name.

A quick WP search reveals over 2,000 article titles containing the term "Freiherr". Georgejdorner (talk) 16:24, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Interesting, George, but as I'm sure you're aware not stricly relevant - as R.'s title was strictly hereditary. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 23:54, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Re-reading my above comment reminds me that I forgot to mention award of the Max Joseph as the nearest case to the present–but not strictly a parallel situation, as a Max Joseph Freiherr was a non-hereditary knighthood. Trust SOM to catch my error, and twit me with it in such courteous terms.

Georgejdorner (talk) 03:04, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

---

I would like to reiterate my position of two years ago above and agree with Frania, Trekphiler and Soundofmusicals.

There are particular genres of WP articles where policy dictates use of a modern/popular name, rather than historically accurate names, e.g. some naval vessels. However, neologisms like "HMAS AE2" (rather than historically accurate Australian submarine AE2) make me gnash my teeth and I prefer to see such things avoided.

Unless there is a strict WP policy regarding pre-Weimar aristocratic names that stipulates another form of the name, I think we should stick with Manfred von Richthofen.

Happy new year, Grant | Talk 09:56, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Benbow shoot-down of Richthofen on 6 March

According to Lt. E. Benbow's entry in Franks, Bailey & Guest's 'Aces High' biog (page 73), Benbow certainly claimed a Albatros on 6 March 1917, yet Richthofen biographers ( inc. Peter Kilduff, David Baker) both state he was forced down on the 9th of March 1917. Accordingly I've added a citation required tab in the article. Could someone confirm one way or the other, and suitably edit the text? Thanks Harryurz (talk) 14:20, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Kill / Victory

When talking about an ace fighter pilot's "score" or "bag" - the number of "kills" or "victories" ARE the same thing. To insist that it isn't a "kill" unless the opposing airman dies misses the point entirely. It may be seem a little odd, but that's the usage when we're discussing this subject. Even the opposing aircraft may not be totally lost to the enemy - it may well be salvageable or even repairable. Still a victory, or a "kill" if you like, if the opposing aircraft crashes or makes a forced landing as a result of the action. (Or is captured, of course.)

Yes, I prefer the term "victory", for a number of reasons - but there is nothing wrong with the occasional use of the work "kill", if only for variation - because when you're talking about aviation history the two terms are absolutely synonymous - whatever the dictionary says. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 01:14, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

---

No, the fact of human death in a combat being a kill is my entire point of objection. Lanoe Hawker was definitely Richthofen's kill; Edwin Benbow's win over Richthofen left the Red Baron unscathed and was not a kill. Copying sloppy usage from aviation historians making their livings "preaching to the choir" of their audience of aviation buffs does not translate into encyclopedic style. It is as clumsy and sloppy as the description I just wrote. It also confuses the ordinary reader with no background in military aviation, and presents a distorted view of the realities of aerial combat in that era.

I too struggle with the old dilemma of, What other synonym can I use for "victory"? However, I turn to my thesasurus and my dictionary instead of an aviation book written for an "in" audience; after all, the dictionary and the thesaurus are the foundation stones of encylopedic style, while the aviation text is a source.

Georgejdorner (talk) 03:05, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Pleeeeease arguing for the sake of a minor PC point is in a word, "non-productive". The terminology is accepted as a military term; find consensus for your changes and if you don't have it, move along... Sorry for being blunt, but there is little time for a debating society; let's go write an encyclopedia. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 03:30, 14 May 2011 (UTC).

---

I do not consider this an argument. I do consider it a discussion of usage with a fellow contributor for whom I have much respect.

Georgejdorner (talk) 14:47, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

---

Acting in a Wp:Bold manner is fine but once the submissions are challenged, use of a talk "string" is necessitated in order to proceed further with a revision. Seek consensus if needed. See: WP:BRD. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:58, 14 May 2011 (UTC).

---

I have not reverted the inaccuracies I once corrected because I am not interested in an edit war. And I have been the "talker" so far in this situation.

While I sympathize with the problem of finding suitable synonyms, inaccuracy does not trump ingenuity, and chucking aside dictionary and thesaurus in the process does not justify using obscure slang in an encyclopedia article.

Georgejdorner (talk) 14:23, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

---

Nope, that's not the issue; the terms are well understood, and generally accepted as military aviation parlance. So far, the information is not considered "inaccurate" according to the numerous aviation historians who use the terminology of "kills" and victories" interchangeably. If you suggest other terms that are better, most editors would be in agreement. Here's your assignment: find an authoritative source for the use of "win" or "triumphs" as an accurate depiction of the result of an aerial combat. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 20:28, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

---

Nope, the terms are not well understood by an ordinary member of reading public. "Kill" means "to render dead" and the average reader will assume all "kills" are mortal. As I pointed out above.

I have already found and suggested better sources of synonyms, in thesaurus and dictionary. The dictionary, as noted above, does not define "kill" as a victory, aerial or otherwise. The synonyms I have used from the thesaurus are the ones you mock. I use "win" or "triumph" to describe the result of non-fatal combats. All of which I pointed out above.

I agree that "kill" and "victory" are often sloppily interchanged in aviation history books; as I pointed out above, they are pitched to a specific audience of history buffs and not to the general public. The fact that those books are imprecise is no reason to import inaccuracies into Wikipedia. Now, your assignment: name me one encyclopedia in general use that uses "kill" as a synonym for "victory". While you are at it, find a thesaurus and a dictionary that does the same. If you can, I will join you in consensus.

Georgejdorner (talk) 23:23, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

You said Nope, the terms are not well understood by an ordinary member of reading public. "Kill" means "to render dead" and the average reader will assume all "kills" are mortal. As I pointed out above.

Sorry George, but I just don't believe this is the case. Our "ordinary" or "average" reader here is the same sort of person who has few or no problems with "kill" as a synonym for "victory" in aviation books and magazines, websites etc.. We may occasionally have a reader who is NOT typical or average, who has never read a book on the subject in his/her life, and who is genuinely confused by this terminology - frankly, this type of user is going to be just as confused with a good many other words, at least initially, until he/she gets the hang of the way words are used when we're talking about aviation subjects.

"Win" and "Triumph" may very well be in the thesaurus under "Victory" but they just don't go here - the context is all wrong. Thesauri (and dictionaries for that matter) need to be used with intelligence and sensitivity for the vagaries of the English language. Because a word is in a thesaurus doesn't mean it will necessarilly fit every context - and even weighty multi-volume dictionaries cannot hope to cover every possible meaning of every word. The precise meaning of a word, as used by someone in a "real" context (as opposed to a dictionary definition) depends very much on what that context is.

Having said all this - I repeat that I greatly prefer "victory" or "air victory" to "kill" myself - it's a much nicer word, obviously. But actually it is not a lot more self-evident exactly what we are talking about - at least to someone who has never read an aviation book/magazine article/website before. A victory is a favourable result to a battle or (by extension) to any other kind of struggle (say, a football match). This doesn't fit the sense we are giving the word here a lot better than "kill". In fact, the word "victory" in this context has quite a lot of ramifications - a short definition would be something like - "Destroying an enemy aircraft" - but then even the Germans also counted aircraft captured (regardless of the degree of damage, or even if they were not damaged at all) - while the British, at least, counted aircraft that crashed (or crash landed) - even if it could not be confirmed that they were actually "destroyed". How do we define "destroyed" anyway? Is it necessary (or even always possible) to confirm the degree to which a "shot-down" aircraft might be repairable or salvagable? The point I am making here is simply that "victory" is nearly as problematic as "kill"!! In fact - does your dictionary define "victory" as meaning "shoot down an enemy aircraft"? I rather suspect not.

Purely as a matter of style, I think it is probably fair to say that we probably should NOT use "kill" to mean an "air victory" except for occasional variation. It is perhaps sad that we don't have a suitable alternative - but we just DON'T - and there is no way we are going to be able to find one in a dictionary or thesaurus either!! --Soundofmusicals (talk) 00:47, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Completely agree with the above treatise, and not to deflate the issue, but this is a non-starter unless you have consensus for an essentially arbitrary and singular campaign to rewrite military terminology. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 05:51, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

---

I am not the one arbitrarily redefining the word "kill"; you two are. I know tremendous amounts of military slang that I could throw into articles, but it's unencyclopedic and confusing to the lay reader–just as insisting anyone shot down is killed is confusing to the lay reader.

Imprecision and inaccuracy are very much starters for correction of an encyclopedia article.

You cannot kill an inanimate object such as an airplane; it's already dead. And my dictionary defines victory as "a specific military engagement ending in triumph".

Georgejdorner (talk) 14:40, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

George - I wish you'd actually read my posts - or is it my fault for writing at too great a length? English Idiom (like that of every other language I know anything about - with the possible exception of Esperanto) is quite often not very logical. We are nonetheless users of the English language (as it is actually used by our contemporaries) rather than people attempting to redefine or "improve" it. If you really have no idea that the use of "triumph" in this sense would be a most confusing liguistic innovation then there is very little more to be said. When you can find a dictionary that lists a primary meaning of "victory" as the "act of an airman in shooting down an enemy aircraft" (or words even vaguely to that effect) - then I will agree that the word "kill" is applied less logically than "victory" in describing, well, the shooting down of an enemy aircraft. "Kill" has a great many meanings that have no connection with living things. To take just one example - a soccer player "kills" a ball by taking all momentum off it and bringing it to a halt before kicking it, rather than deflecting it. If your dictionary is a good one it will list at least some of these secondary meanings. Incidentally, in Tok pisin "Kill" means to strike at or wound. To say "kill" in the English sense you have to say "killim i dai pinis". Totally irrelevant - but I thought you might be interested. Tasol - mi laik killim dispela toktok longlong i ken dai stret - yumi no laik bagarapim TOKINGLIS wikipedia olsem. (But I would prefer to kill this ridiculous argument on the spot - we don't want to spoil an ENGLISH wikipedia with this sort of thing). --Soundofmusicals (talk) 01:46, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

---

"Use the right word, not its second cousin." –Mark Twain–

Georgejdorner (talk) 15:23, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

A good place to start, follow Samuel's advice... FWiW, "Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please." Bzuk (talk) 15:54, 18 May 2011 (UTC).

Contradictory entry

This entry says that, "Controversy and contradictory hypotheses continue to surround the identity of the person who fired the shot that actually killed Richthofen." Then goes on to say, "but it is now generally agreed". This seems to say both that there is a controversy, fine, but also that one side is correct. It would be much clearer to state that credit went to X and then add that there is some disagreement.

Anonymous Newbie — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.40.218.20 (talk) 05:26, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Coordinate error

{{geodata-check}}

The following coordinate fixes are needed for I have seen most other sources say MvR crashed on the south side of the Bray-Corbie road, but the coordinates given here are on the north side of the road. A few years back there were a NOVA PBS documentary and a Discovery Channel show about the Red Baron's death. I'm not sure which showed the crash site. Eyewitnesses had said the triplane crash-landed by a small hill, and a researcher looking at aerial photographs of the area saw a shadow in the field caused by such a hill. He entered the coordinates into a handheld GPS device and went there. It turns out he met the mayor of a local village, whose father had also been mayor, who walked with him to the field and confirmed that was the crash site. It was six meters different from what the researcher had estimated. —209.237.81.202 (talk) 07:46, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

The existing coords were not intended to point directly to the crash site, but only to the general area of the combat. I've added a new set of coords that point to about where the plane came to rest. These are based on, as you say, most sources saying that it was south of the road, but more particularly being just south of the French roadside marker — establishing photo, sign photo (clicking on the image will enlarge it so it can be read), Google street view showing sign location — saying that the crash occurred there. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:13, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

RFC, RNAS, RAF

A good faith but mistaken editor changed Brown's unit to 209 RFC - in fact there was never any such unit. On April 1st (2 weeks and six days before Richthofen's death) the RFC and the RNAS had been amalgamated as the RAF. Brown's unit had been No. 9 RNAS - and had just become No. 209 RAF. Just a note to explain this for the benefit of anyone else who thinks they know better. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 08:31, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

What to call the "Who fired the fatal shot?" section

"Who fired the fatal shot?" - which stood for many months - was eventually rejected as over dramatic - "killer" implies that Richthoven was murdered, which is grotesque - since he died in wartime combat - while in the act of trying to kill an Allied airman (as it was his duty to do - war is not a game of cricket - but that cuts both ways, doesn't it). What was wrong with "Who killed Richthofen?" anyway? Would "Controversy about the person responsible for Richthofen's death" be better? Frankly, I think not. Please bring your arguments here rather than continuing the gathering edit war, please. In the meantime I have left an obviously less than satisfactory heading in place. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 22:47, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Killers is too dramatic, and implies that the "killers" have been identified. Controversy is much better, perhaps "Controversy regarding his death" is a good compromise. It was a controversy from day one, (One of my mother's uncles witnessed it), and it continues to this day.--Dmol (talk) 23:00, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

"Killer" is not even close to describing the contents of the section, besides being utterly inappropriate. Wouldn't the whole section read better as the: Main Heading: "Death" with sub-headings: "Final flight" (mission), "Burial", "Controversies" (encompassing the theories and conflicting research) in that descending order. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 07:09, 27 November 2011 (UTC).

Return to duty after head wound

There seems to be a clash between sources about exactly when R. returned to duty after being wounded in combat on 2/7/17 - we had October (which clashed with victories he was credited with in August and September) - Burrows has 25 July which seems a very quick recovery, but may reflect returning to his unit as commander on that date but remaining grounded for a few weeks (??). I have done my best to straighten this out consistently, while resisting the temptation to speculate (for instance about the long gap in R's victories over the autumn and winter of 1917/18? - it WAS a very bad winter, but was R. still less than 100%?). Has someone owning a more detailed and reliable biography than Burrows any further clues? --Soundofmusicals (talk) 02:52, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I've untangled this a bit from Burrows - the sequence seems to have been:

• 2/7 - shot down and severely wounded
• 25/7 - returned to JG1 (against doctor's orders)
• 6/9 - virtually forced to take convalescent leave
• 23/10 - returned to full duties

So the "October" date for his return to duties is now reconciled with the four victories in August/September. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 05:44, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Actually - further untangling - the dates for victories 62 and 63 cannot be in September, as he was then on extended convalescent leave - since the "ur" source gives these victories as being in November I have changed the "victory table" page to match. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 14:08, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Membership of Richthofen in "German/Irish" society?????

This is incredibly unlikely - it is not mentioned in any of the biographies referenced here. Surely someone would have considered this remarkable enough to mention before if it were factual. As I said in my edit summary - something like this REALLY needs a source. Are you sure it's not one of the other Richthofens you're thinking of (they were a large and very prominent family and many members had notable careers in various fields). If it IS the case - give us "chapter and verse" so we can look it up. That's how compilation of an encyclopedia works. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 13:34, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

The Red Comet

I've noticed that there is a popular anime parody of the Red Baron known as Char Aznable. I feel that a Char would be a tribute to Manfred von Richthofen because the two have been known for being the highest rated ace pilots of an axis force. The Red Baron's fighter plane, or in Char's case his mobile suits, are painted red. Third of all their nick names are alike, Char's nickname is the "Red Comet". If anything this character makes a large anime tribute to Richthofen and needs a necessary spot on the tributes section of this article — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.59.224.203 (talk) 04:14, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Strictly fanboy cruft. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 05:12, 10 May 2012 (UTC).

Isn't there an article called The Red Baron in popular culture or something? That (if anywhere) would be where stuff like this should go. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 07:03, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Sound, is that you?! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 11:52, 10 May 2012 (UTC).

Hi Bazooka. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 03:22, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Popular Entertainment

It would be awesome to include the "Royal Guardsmen's" song, "Snoopy Vs. The Red Baron" in a new section that covers popular entertainment such as movies, songs, plays, and reenactments of Richthofen's air combat. Damotclese (talk) 15:55, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

The article you want is this one! --Soundofmusicals (talk) 02:18, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Victories during Feb-Mar 1917 - on Halberstadt or Albatros - and if so what model of Albatros?

There seems to be a bit of a clash between this article and the "list of vitories" article. Has someone with our primary source here ("Under the guns of...") which I don't own got the time and/or inclination to get this straight? The Halberstadt was such an old clunker by this time that I has me doubts he wasn't flying the Albatross D.II a lot of the time. Could it be we just don't know? -Soundofmusicals (talk) 08:09, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

At the time of Richthofen's death the front was in a highly fluid state

This paragraph in the Death/Theories-about-last-combat section does not really seem relevant. That is, the preceding paragraph mentions that wind directions and distractions in the cockpit may have caused him to fly into [enemy] ground fire, but this paragraph['s] attempt to summarize all of 1918 seems to have little to do with von Richthofen. Fotoguzzi (talk) 01:27, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

If the point of the paragraph is to say that because of the fluid situation von Richthofen might not have known where the front was, then that might be worth stating. As it stands, the paragraph seems much more broad than any other part of the article. Fotoguzzi (talk) 06:53, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

To be fair - the paragraph actually reads:

At the time of Richthofen's death the front was in a highly fluid state, following the initial success of the German offensive of March–April 1918. This was part of Germany's last opportunity to win the war. In the face of Allied air superiority, the German air service was having difficulty acquiring vital reconnaissance information, and could do little to prevent Allied squadrons from completing effective reconnaissance and close support of their armies.

The main point of the paragraph is not the fluid state of the front as such (although the implication you mention is there, of course) - but the fact that the Spring Offensive was stalling after its initial success, among other reasons because the British retained air superiority. As a courageous and patriotic German, holding a senior position (in effect he was performing the duties of a lieutenant-colonel, although he was nominally only a captain) Richthofen must have been very concerned that the war was slipping out of Germany's hands (as indeed it was). It would of be undue speculation in an encyclopedia to spell out too specifically just what might or might not have been going through R's mind just before he died (in fact this paragraph has been edited in the past to fix a tendency in this direction) - but it is worth mentioning the facts so that a thoughtful reader can decide if he believes this might have been, at least to some extent, behind R's uncharacteristic lack of caution.

You may well be able to put together a clearer, better written way of pointing out the way that the general war situation at the moment of R's death may have impinged on his uncharacteristic behaviour at the time (certainly NOT "summarising all of 1918"). If you want to try this (and why not?) - remember we will run into problems unless we can produce very specific references for anything that might otherwise look like speculation. In fact even the facts as we have them here might be able to do with a cite or two. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 07:38, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Flying Circus

The text had JG1 acquiring the name "Richthofen Circus" four months before it was formed! Since the article for JG1 itself mentions both names in the same breath we might as well do the same here. Had a look at the "source" - it was a very poor website ("Rittmeister Manfred Albrecht Freiherr von Richthofen.") with stacks of errors. The mistake might stem from a careless reading of someone noting the official designation of JG1 as JG1 Richthofen after his death (in April 1918), but that's not what the source said. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 00:48, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Which kind of English usage for this article?

What follows started on my talk page - what do others think?? --Soundofmusicals (talk) 09:56, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Hello, my tuneful friend,

I noted your latest edit summary on Manfred von Richthofen. In hopes of finally finding a basis for affixing a {British-English} or {American-English} tag on the Talk page, I followed edit History back to the article's founder. As you recall, WP policy is that if a Brit began it, it should follow British usage; if an American, then American usage. (And please recall from previous chats, I hold no brief for either usage.)

The result was one unforeseen by the policy makers. A Brazilian began this article, not a Brit nor a Yank. Back to square one. So I suppose the only solution for the usage confusion in this article is a consensus on one way or another.

Georgejdorner (talk) 15:39, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

I really think they should pick one or the other and keep Wiki to that. I would prefer "standard" English - but look, I could live with (good) Yank usage, if they can agree what it is, be consistent, and steer clear of illiterate barbarisms. At least you'd know where you were. Consistency is after all the name of the game.

The policy of not changing the usage of an article - and leaving it in the usage of the author does have a certain logic to it, but it's essentially a rule of convenience and (I think) it should only apply for subjects that don't have a a strong cultural, historical or geographical context. The object is (I think) probably just to avoid people switching articles from one to the other, or changing the odd word. In fact I would be happy to have it relaced with a blanket rule that all such articles be in standard English (or, if you like, U.S. usage) - see above.

The "ties" rule, if we must have it, is clear as to U.S. and British subjects, although even here we are in a bind - should Scottish subjects be in Scots, for instance - there is a perfectly good rationale for this - but the result would be that almost nobody, even most Scottish people, would be able to read these articles. On the whole, I favour the use of U.S. usage for all clearly "American" subjects (in the widest sense) including Canadian, Mexican, Brazillian etc etc. Similarly - "European English" should apply for European subjects. Including this one. Personally I don't like the ties rule at all - but if we're going to have it - let's stick with it.

That's my vote anyway FWIIW. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 09:45, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

If this article was created new it would be written in British English. MilborneOne (talk) 12:54, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree. British English should be used for anything European, as that is the most common form of English spoken in Europe.--Dmol (talk) 13:34, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

FWIIW it is currently compatable with British English - according to my spell checker. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 21:00, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

---

Actually, if this article had begun with an American editor, the consensus rules now in effect would mandate American usage. This is the reality, no matter what the three of you wish, think, or postulate. I have pointed this out previously, but you folks are still in denial.

Georgejdorner (talk) 17:21, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Richthofen's middle name

Hello, all, This article plumps for "Albrecht". Fokker Dr.I Aces by Norman Franks states "Siegfried" on page 10. Is the latter correct, or an error?

Georgejdorner (talk) 17:32, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

I fear a slip of the Norman Frankine pen (or even thine, oh mighty and knowledgable one). "Siegfreid" is LOTHAR von Richthofrn's middle name, not Manfred's. (And yes, I did check...) --Soundofmusicals (talk) 19:15, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

---

Aha. Just so. I wondered. Just noticed that in passing.

Georgejdorner (talk) 14:45, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

---

Werner Voss connection

Hello, all,

I am amazed this article barely mentions Voss. Richthofen visited the Voss family while on leave, and had a standing invitation to use the Voss family hunting lodge. There is a possibility that one of the two Voss female cousins was his secret sweetheart. Lest someone think I am blowing smoke towards a certain orifice, I refer the diligent researcher to September Evening by Barry Diggens, which has extensive coverage of their friendship.

Georgejdorner (talk) 20:08, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Collective nouns

A singular noun referring to many individuals may indeed often take a singular verb. The plural verb is usually at least equally correct however. A regiment IS posted, since all the men go in one block, at a single stroke of some general officer's pen - "the regiment are posted" paints a picture of unmilitary chaos, as if each man moved at his own volition. On the other hand to write "the regiment is dismounted" is not exactly a grammatical error, but is is a crude and inadequate way of conveying the meaning, since each man is individually separated from his horse, his comrade in battle. Luckily, English allows us to say "the regiment are dismounted" which conveys the meaning far more feelingly. This subtle flexibility is one of the glories of the English language and lightly throwing it away impoverishes us all. Sorry to wax all poetical, but otherwise my re-revertion at this point might seem to be trivial edit warring. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 17:28, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

reverted back to singular, : a "single stroke of an officer's pen" issued the order to remover the horses. IdreamofJeanie (talk) 18:58, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Oh well... In the land of the blind the sighted are handicapped, I suppose. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 19:37, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

"Leading" British aces

Whether Mannock or Bishop, or perhaps even one of several other of the top British aces was THE leading British ace is problematic. In fact Bishop was credited with the highest total - but his total has been widely disputed. Better we describe any one of these as "one of the leading aces" rather than single one out in a definite manner, especially in this context, where it is not that important anyway. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 22:03, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Translation into English of “Der Rote Kampfflieger”

Maybe it's just me, but translating the German Der Rote Kampfflieger into English as “The Red Fighter Pilot” strikes me as rather clumsy. I would like to suggest the more direct translation, “The Red Warflyer”, which seems to me to carry forth more of the spirit of the original. This translation could be placed in the article as-is, or optionally with the descriptor “literally”, as in “(literally, ‘The Red Warflyer’)”. ~ Thoughts? — Jaydiem (talk) 16:50, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

The "Red Battle Flyer" was actually used as the title for an English edition of the autobiographical sketch prepared by Richthofen in 1917. It is not very idiomatic English, and sounds more than a little quaint to us, but that it is how the phrase was rendered into English in 1918. It is (word for word) what the German actually says. "Warflyer" may be a little less bombastic, but it is also (as English) forced and stilted, and is not a better translation in any real sense. Also, "we" just made it up, and "we're" not supposed to making stuff up here. The "Red Fighter Pilot" is in some ways a better translation - it is certainly more natural and "modern", and really conveys the meaning at least as well. It has also been used as the title of a modern English version of the little book in question.

BUT - what exactly was wrong with the original text? The "Red Battle Flyer" was how people translated the German phrase in 1918. At that period "fighter" was not really a recognised English language term for a class of military aircraft. What we would call single seat fighters were called "scouts" (or "fighting scouts") or ("pursuit ships" in American). A "fighting aeroplane" had two seats, and referred to a general purpose aircraft that was capable of "looking after itself" in the air. "Fighter pilot" is not a term that would have been comprehensible to anyone in 1917. So putting the original, literal English translation first - and then including the "better" modern (but anachronistic) translation next covers all bases nicely, surely? --Soundofmusicals (talk) 04:28, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Freiherr (literally "Free Lord"), a title of nobility

He was actually NOT called a "Baron" in German - although that would be a rough English equivalent. "Free" sounds strange to us as a rank of nobility (a "freed man" is to us one step up from a slave) but in medieval Europe a "free and noble Lord" was "free" of feudal vassalage, and therefore might be well up in the social pecking order. Anyway - "free lord" is what the German actually says, quaint as it may seem. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 04:54, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

So Freiherr are non-mediatized feudal lords who are only subject to the ultimate sovereign (such like Reichsritteren), or are sovereign in and of themselves (like a king or emperor) -- 65.94.171.206 (talk) 07:24, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

That's the theory behind it, anyway. Feudalism died a very slow and lingering death in Europe. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 01:13, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 13:19, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

---

Manfred von Richthofen → ? – Three relevant people are bearing this first and last name:

1. Karl Ernst Manfred von Richthofen (= Manfred von Richthofen (general)) (1855-1939), German general
2. Manfred Albrecht von Richthofen (1892-1918), aka "the Red Baron", German military aviator, great nephew of (1) (this page)
3. Manfred von Richthofen (1934-2014), German athlete and sports administrator, nephew of (2) (ref:)Manfred von Richthofen gestorben, sportschau.de, May 2, 2014

, so this person should be moved to his full name and this page here made a disambiguation page. Well known or not (and (3) is actually known in Germany), (1) is not actually named "Manfred von Richthofen", only 3 is. -- Seelefant (talk) 15:38, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose the Red Baron is by far the best known by this name and most likely to be the target of the search term, the only lesser known candidate with an article is already dealt with by a note at the top of the page. MilborneOne (talk) 15:30, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose – The Red Baron Manfred von Richthofen is WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Hamish59 (talk) 15:57, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. Per above comments.--Dmol (talk) 16:50, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose using this for anyone else since he is clearly the primary topic. However his common name is The Red Baron or Red Baron, so either he remains here, or he moves to his nickname, however he will still retain this current title as a redirect even if his article is moved. Further, the Red Baron is known as "Manfred von Richthofen", which can be easily attested in the references already in the article, or a simple google search. -- 65.94.171.206 (talk) 05:03, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose moving this at all - "Red Baron" refers here, as it should, but it wasn't actually what he was called at the time anyway. And I think we give the fact that there are other Richthofens, and even Manfred Richthofens, quite enough weight in an English language encyclopedia. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 01:45, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose for all the reasons above. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:12, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. Clearly the primary topic. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:03, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Snoopy

Don't get me wrong - I loved Peanuts - but we've got articles for the comic strip itself, as well as a separate article for references to Richthofen in the popular media - so we don't really need anything else in THIS article - to which the WWI exploits of Snoopy and his "Dog House" Sopwith Camel are really VERY peripheral! --Soundofmusicals (talk) 02:56, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Victories

The following text:

For decades after World War I, some authors questioned whether Richthofen achieved 80 victories, insisting that his record was exaggerated for propaganda purposes. Some claimed that he took credit for aircraft downed by his squadron or wing.

In fact, Richthofen's victories are better documented than those of most aces. A full list of the aircraft the Red Baron was credited with shooting down was published as early as 1958[60]—with documented RFC/RAF squadron details, aircraft serial numbers, and the identities of Allied airmen killed or captured—73 of the 80 are listed as matching recorded British losses. A study conducted by British historian Norman Franks with two colleagues, published in Under the Guns of the Red Baron in 1998, reached the same conclusion about the high degree of accuracy of Richthofen's claimed victories. There were also unconfirmed victories that would put his actual total as high as 100 or more.[61]

Had been replaced by a well-meaning editor withe the following:

For decades after World War I, some authors questioned whether Richthofen achieved 80 victories, insisting that his record was exaggerated for propaganda purposes. Some claimed that he took credit for aircraft downed by his squadron or wing. His first kill of Lieutenant Tom Rees is well documented.[60][61]

A full list of the aircraft the Red Baron was credited with shooting down was published as early as 1958[62]—with documented RFC/RAF squadron details, aircraft serial numbers, and the identities of Allied airmen killed or captured—73 of the 80 are listed as matching recorded British losses. A study conducted by British historian Norman Franks with two colleagues, published in Under the Guns of the Red Baron in 1998, reached the same conclusion about the high degree of accuracy of Richthofen's claimed victories. There were also unconfirmed victories that would put his actual total as high as 100 or more.[63]

Basically the statement that Richthofen's 80 kills are well documented is replaced by one that his FIRST kill is well documented. Only a few aces (on either side) have such a well documented tally. (McCudden's might be one, without going into details about the reasons for this). But what, in this context is so special about Richthofen's FIRST kill. The point is that the great majority of his kills relate to "real" documented losses - and practically all of few exceptions to British aircraft that were really attacked, generally heavily damaged, but (unknown to R) got back to base in more or less one piece. We absolutely do not need any further detail about any individual victory at this point - especially as we have a whole article on the subject!

So what's wrong with the sentence - Richthofen's victories are better documented than those of most aces.? This is of course the simple unvarnished truth - and in fact something very like it simply has to be said - or the section gives the impression that the opposite is the case, and Richthofen was a blowhard. Since there are many and varied reasons why a particular ace's victories may or may not be especially well documented however, we might feel that the reference to "other aces" is a little unkind. The point can be made without it.

The text as I have left it now reads:

For decades after World War I, some authors questioned whether Richthofen achieved 80 victories, insisting that his record was exaggerated for propaganda purposes. Some claimed that he took credit for aircraft downed by his squadron or wing.

In fact, Richthofen's victories are unusually well documented. A full list of the aircraft the Red Baron was credited with shooting down was published as early as 1958[60]—with documented RFC/RAF squadron details, aircraft serial numbers, and the identities of Allied airmen killed or captured—73 of the 80 are listed as matching recorded British losses. A study conducted by British historian Norman Franks with two colleagues, published in Under the Guns of the Red Baron in 1998, reached the same conclusion about the high degree of accuracy of Richthofen's claimed victories. There were also unconfirmed victories that would put his actual total as high as 100 or more.[61]

I have included all three versions IN FULL - because this is a case where context is very importand, and I don't want discussion (if there is to be any) to centre too much on the sentences concerned, but on the overall meaning and effect of the two paragraphs concerned. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 06:36, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Number of Victories

A draft of a new article for Tom Rees (British soldier) has been submitted and a continuing review is in the process. It should soon be approved and will then fill in the new red link of Tom Rees in this section.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 12:21, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

I have made Tom Rees (British soldier) a new article. Feel free to improve the article further.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 11:02, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

This article (the Tom Rees one) is really very well done - most impressed (although I have edited it slightly, and I think it should be moved (renamed). We simply don't call airmen "soldiers" in English. Recognise however that Rees is NOT so notable in the context of THIS article that we need to shoehorn him in at all costs. (see following) --Soundofmusicals (talk) 07:19, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Excellent page

Just saw Hell's Angels at the Museum of Modern Art, the Howard Hughes-directed 1930 film masterpiece in which a fictionalized Richtofen has a key scene. I just wanted to leave a note complimenting the contributors to this article. Very comprehensive and informative. Eighty confirmed kills. I'm glad I wasn't a WW1 flyer and had to see that red plane zooming up behind me. Thanks, everyone! Jump Forward Immediately (talk) 14:18, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

"The most widely known fighter pilot of all time"

This is pretty objective - not to mention uncontroversial. It also sums up the situation everywhere, not just in Germany. The following text is NOT an improvement - at least for an encyclopedia article.

He is still regarded today as the "ace of aces" and a national hero of Germany.

This is NPOV, and furthermore specific to Germany (and therefore incomplete - remember the lead is a summary). Von R. has always been at least as famous in English speaking countries - he is certainly NOT the German "ace of aces" since many WW II Luftwaffe pilots were credited with much higher score than he was. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 20:11, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Richthofen's last landing

Since the vandalisation of Von R.'s Dr.I was so comprehensive, and started immediately after the "landing" we will never know just how heavily the triplane was damaged before (or during) its last landing. He was not wearing his seat belt at the time (pilots in WWI automatically hit the quick release button before a crash, as it was universally believed that you had a better chance if you were "thrown clear", there is some argument that his guns were jammed and he had his belt undone anyway to attend to this. On the other hand R. was quite badly injured in the crash - the one photograph of his face taken after the crash shows the classic symptom of "camel face" (as it was called in the RFC/RAF) - he has broken his nose and (we are told) his jaw on his gun butts. This injury was common in types such as the Sopwith Camel and the Fokker Triplane, that placed the butts close to the pilot's face - but was typical NOT of a "safe" landing (with ot without a safety belt) - but of one where the aircraft at least "nosed over" at the end of its landing run. Richthofen's legs were also badly injured - in fact several eye-witnesses considered they had been hit by multiple bullets (of course this was not so). The point is that the injuries to R. legs are even less typical of a controlled, "safe" landing. The original text is, in view of the evidence and what the sources say, not inaccurate or speculative - and doesn't need changing to indicate a most unlikely event (R. collecting serious injuries in a "safe" landing). --Soundofmusicals (talk) 20:31, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Undamaged Fokker?

Using drawings of MVR's actual planes; replica seems to make more sense in honors. Also removing "crash" and "badly"; MVR's Fokker didn't crash, it landed.

In "Burial" section I see: Richthofen crash site near Vaux-sur-Somme. So was crashed his Fokker or not? Current text does not make sense.

In fact, from what is known, there was no "damage" or "scratch" and the plane was taken apart by souvenir hunters. I have fixed this and altered the text to reflect the facts.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.23.73.189 (talk) 18:19, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but no - your edits do not improve the text - please READ my remarks above - while it is quite true that the total disintegration of the triplane was due to the collection of "souvenirs", so much so that the degree of damage caused by the "landing" must forever be unknown, to jump on this to assert that the original landing was "safe" and the aircraft "undamaged" flies in the face of the evidence of the extensive injuries to R.'s face and legs - which would NOT have happened in a safe landing. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 21:05, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

I must admit; I have also questioned the reliability of the popular depiction of Richthofen's final moments. The story appears to have based from the film "Von Richthofen and Brown"; at the end of the film, the German ace succeeds on bringing his plane safely intact to the ground, but it looks "too heroic" to me considereing Manfred´s fatal wounds. I know that soldiers tore the triplane apart, but in photographs of that event taking place, the Fokker appears to have serious damage on its wings. I don´t think people would be responsible for that. The damage on the wings seemed to me more the result of a colision than people having "tore" the wings apart. I mean, isn´t it a bit ironical that, knowing how many bullets a machine gun can fire, it was just one of them which hit Manfred? I find it so hard to believe that, so badly wounded as he was, he managed to bring his aircraft to a safe landing. In fact, I remember having seen some books (such as "The Day the Red Baron Died" by D.M.Titler) stating as well that his plane crashed crashed, and not that he made it in one piece. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.23.73.189 (talk) 21:17, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Von Richthofen and Brown is grossly inaccurate (as history) - to be fair it doesn't really claim to be history. In reconstructing what probably happened we have to look at the evidence - in this case R's body. He WAS hit by a single bullet - this quite often happened - a machine gun fires many bullets but they do not always hit a target (especially a moving one) in the same place, or even very close to each other. The problem with the idea of a "safe" landing lies in R's OTHER injuries, which were extensive and quite severe. He had bad "camel face" as British fliers called it (i.e. his face was smashed to a pulp on his gun butts). This didn't happen in "safe" landings. His legs were also badly broken - in fact the (non-medical) eye witnesses though they were wounded with bullets. Again, more likely to have been caused in what we can describe, at best, as a "crash landing" rather than a "safe" landing. There are several excellent books, articles etc in the bibliography at the end of the article - you can probably find some of these, if not on the web then in your local library (plug for my profession). Much better than a rather silly movie, or an idea of what is "popularly supposed". --Soundofmusicals (talk) 21:35, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Drawings of MVR's actual planes; removing replica to "Honors"

Regardless. I am still thinking it is more accurate to using drawings of MVR's actual planes; the replica seems to have a more senseful place in honors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.23.73.189 (talk) 21:27, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

The replica is actually not a very authentic one - the white cowling in particular. All photos of R's "last" triplane (probably the only "all-red" triplane he flew - it seems to have been customised for him at the factory) show a dark coloured (presumably red) cowling rather than the white one shown here. The replica also apparently uses a radial rather than a rotary engine, and the cowling front is different. There are a few other flaws if you look hard. Anyway, I have deleted it all together. If we want a picture of a triplane here I hope we can find a better one?

I am also very much in two minds about the artwork of the D.V and Dr.I - especially the Albatros. The finish (with the hastily applied red "wash" partly obliterating the national markings) is appropriate to R's first D.III, we have photographs of it painted in this manner - but I have never seen a photo of a D.V painted like this. The D.V R was shot down in (in July 1917) does not have obliterated national markings, nor does it seem to be in "all-red" livery at all. If R had an all-red D.V it seems unlikely that the over-painting of the black cross markings would have been seen as something to be repeated. With all respect to our artist, I think he may be mistakenly extrapolating the finish of the D.III onto the later D.V here. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 03:19, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Re. your last "Richthofen edits"! I didn't revert these!! But I can see why it happened. "Kaput" is a highly colloquial word in German and can mean all manner of things depending on the context - we had quite a long discussion before we decided that we wouldn't translate it. The pictures which you moved back I put where they are for a good reason, which I explained in my edit summary. People view Wikipedia on different hardware, in various screen sizes, and at various font sizes! For example I am very elderly myself, and have the writing on my computer quite big so I can read it without squinting. At some resolutions pictures on the right and left of the screen can pinch the intervening column of text, so we avoid putting them too close together - even if this displaces them from the "ideal" place to illustrate the text. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 04:39, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Richthofen's Relatives!!

Some people seem to want to insert the matter of other, quite separate articles such as Richthofen (the article about other members of his family) and Red Baron (disambiguation) into this one. NOT really appropriate - especially as the articles concerned are linked to this one already. (Especially) in the hatnote.

More in hope than any serious expectation of acceptance, I have attempted to point out to one of these people, on their talk page, that encyclopedia articles need to remain strictly relevant to their subject, and that peripherally relevant matters are usually best confined to separate (linked) articles. Otherwise this one in particular would probably grow forever! --Soundofmusicals (talk) 15:04, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Agree no need to detail what is background information when they are described elsewhere, is that not why we have links. MilborneOne (talk) 18:56, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

This one needs to be semi-protected at least!!

A total of 28 edits since the last constructive change!!!! Everything this month practically has been either contemptuous vandalism or know-it-all ignorance - while a gallant band of defenders (human and bot) keep the sewage at bay they surely have other, more useful things to do!!! --Soundofmusicals (talk) 02:30, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Over-illustration

Lots of pictures out there - and almost all of them public domain!! Let's go for it chaps, eh? Well NO actually. This is an encyclopedia article, not a picture book. We most certainly don't need more portrait style photographs of our hero in this context for instance, especially when (as has been explained on this talk page more than once) they are placed in such a manner that they crowd the display in some text sizes, and on some devices. Not saying that there's no room at all for one or two extra illustrations, but their location, size, positioning, and context (not to mention the question of whether they literally or virtually duplicate what we already have) need to be very carefully considered if the article is to be genuinely improved. Try adding one picture at a time, perhaps, and discussing on this page where it should go? --Soundofmusicals (talk) 22:05, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

"Planned" Popkin memorial

Interesting and relevant in the Popkin article - although if it doesn't go ahead in the end the fact that it was once planned becomes a little less notable even there. Only notable in this article, I feel, if it does go ahead - and then it's really on the marginal side. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 00:50, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Etymology of name

Can someone edit and add the etymology of his last name? I see a lot of edits have been made that people are angry about so I won't even try. But I sought the etymology of his last name everywhere and finally found it here http://www.briggsenterprises.com/bluemax/

(The name Richthofen means "court of judgement" and was bestowed by the Holy Roman Emperor Leopold I.)

I have since confirmed from German speaking friends that this is the etymology / meaning of the name. Anyone who wants to know the meaning of his last name would find this very informative and important to be added here.

Thank you Armorbeast (talk) 14:03, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

The name (as opposed to the person) has its own article (true!) - just click on Richthofen. As well as being "informative and important" we need to add information to a page that's actually about the same subject. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 07:54, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Explanation of changes to thoughtful and good faith edits.

1. The illustration showing the Baron's guns being examined was moved to a place where it seemed better matched with the immediate text.

It was, actually, but in the process it "scissored" the text into an intervening column. In some text sizes, degrees of definition, and on some devices this creates a column that is untidily narrow and hard to read. One can sometimes get away with it if one or both pictures are very narrow, but in this case it certainly happens (I have checked). The placement of the photographs with text is often a bit of a compromise, in this case it was already pretty optimal.

2. Interesting facts about the F.E.2 crew who shot down the Baron.

Pilot and gunner were probably both credited with the victory (that's the way the did it in the "British" services) and since it was the gunner who presumably did the actual shooting we should mention both of them. But in this case they should both be mentioned by full name, and it needs to be made clear who was which - I don't own the reference used or I'd clean this one up myself.

3. "As is often falsely stated" is a bit "unparliamentary" - almost like calling other writers liars. AND we have already told the dear readers all about the Benbow incident anyway, AND he was yet to be shot down once more (during combat, too).

All in all - the passage in question is not very well phrased, and duplicates what we have already said anyway - and I have been so bold as to cut it out whole.

--Soundofmusicals (talk) 00:07, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Find a Grave and son of Gunner Ernest Twycross

I have just added the date the link to Richthofen's memorial on Find a Grave as well as extracts from the letter by Twycross' son that Richthofen was trying to say something to Twycross. I know that anonymous edits are regarded as more likely to be malicious - this is not always fair but it's the result of long experience.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.96.223.76 (talk) 16:33, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

So organise yourself a bit and get an account! And recognise that it's not only "malicious" edits (or ones that their posters regard as "funny") that need to go and get reverted - but also ones that don't really fit in the article, or are even entered into the wrong article. Also of course - remember that this is an encyclopedia - and take great care that all your edits actually make sense, and go with what's already there!! Find a source when you can, naturally, but it is much better to enter something unsourced that to invent a source (as has been done by people who should have known better). When in doubt, bring things up on the talk page first. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 09:51, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Remove/rework "the most widely known fighter pilot of all time"

One of the opening sentence- "He remains perhaps the most widely known fighter pilot of all time,"- is particularly clumsy. I'm (currently) going to change it to "one of the most famous aviators in history," for now, to remove the absurd, the redundant, and the flimsy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.13.43.162 (talk) 17:18, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

The purpose of an edit to an article is to improve the article concerned, and so (indirectly) the encyclopedia - not to make the editor feel important. So does this improve the article? These "first few sentences" of an article are generally known as the "lead". Many users of an encyclopedia never read past the lead (for all kinds of reason) - so it needs to be a succinct, factual summary of what follows. We don't want "waffle" - text that doesn't really say anything, or says what it does say in the maximum number of words - not anywhere in an encyclopedia actually - but most especially not in the lead. We can best avoid waffle by being blunt, specific and to the point. People don't "receive fatal injuries" (not in a lead, anyway) they are killed. We don't describe people who fly as "aviators" when there are much more specific terms, like "fighter pilot" that cover the case so much better. As a rule we avoid superlatives like "the best-known" because they are generally hyperbole and can almost always be contested - but when something or someone really IS the biggest, longest, best-known or whatever, it is plain silly not to just say so. Is it "absurd" to say our subject is a "fighter pilot" rather than an "aviator"? Is it perhaps "flimsy" to remark that something or someone is "the best known" when they are the ONLY example of whatever they are anyone but a real enthusiast could name at all - and for the matter the first one that most enthusiasts would name? Is it perhaps "redundant", in a lead paragraph that is supposed to summarise an encyclopedia article, to omit the single most important fact in the article? Now feeling important is a lovely feeling, but it is even nicer when you know you really have done something important, like really improved something that really needed improvement. Why not try to do that next time?--Soundofmusicals (talk) 20:19, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Since there has been no serious attempt to thrash out a sensible consensus on this one, or in fact any sensible or relevant argument (from an editor in good standing as opposed to a much-banned troll) I have returned to something close to the previous wording, which is no only a good deal less clumsy but more factual that the "compromise" proposed by a "well-meaning administrative hand". --Soundofmusicals (talk) 02:28, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Precise mathematics with approximate numbers

The theory that Richthofen was simply lost at the time he was shot down - at least well to the West of where he thought he was - is explained by a set of purely hypothetical numbers to represent relative wind velocities, and their effects on the ground speed of a (by modern standards) very slow aeroplane. Exact calculations based on these numbers are not going to be any more exact than the original data (nor do they need to be, to make the quite valid general point). In this context quibbles about the precise difference in ground speed between what Richthofen would have been used to and what he was experiencing just before he was shot down (we originally put this at 60% - another editor "corrected" this to two thirds (i.e. 67%!) are so meaningless I have reworded the whole passage to remove the notion of "precise maths" from what remains a speculation anyway (a plausible speculation given in a reliable source I hasten to add, or it wouldn't be here at all). --Soundofmusicals (talk) 11:38, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

"Controversies in the lead"

The mention of "controversies" in the lead is quite deliberately rather vague. The fact is that "our hero" is a person who still attracts a great deal of interest, not all of it sensible, or even rational. In fact various people, either informed or otherwise, have at times become very passionate about particular views that differ to some extent from the historical consensus (what we necessarily stick with here. Restricting ourselves to the best known controversies won't quite do here, as people may well say, "yes, but what about...?" - on the other hand the majority of Richthofen "controversies" are to be honest very trivial if not rather silly, and don't merit a specific mention, especially at this point (i.e. in the lead section). By all means, if anyone can word this paragraph better, at least run it past us, but this is one case where being plain and specific (normally admirable aims) would produce in the last analysis a mini-article which is just not required. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 02:58, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

What is a quick death

The other day, I removed the comment that his wound "must have caused a quick death." This phrase made no sense to me when we continue to say that this guy managed to land his plane, hold on until ground troops reached him and then let out his final breath or possibly final words. As I continued reading, I encountered the controversy section. This section lead me to understand that there is a disagreement over when he was shot and by whom (and, thus, how long he lived) If the bullet must have caused a quick death, then there would be no controversy. I think it is better to leave the speculation of whether his death was seconds or minutes after being hit to the controversy section, rather than trying to make a definitive claim in the death section that seems to be contracted within the section, itself. --Bertrc (talk) 18:28, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

As there has been no other comment, I am removing the "must have caused a quick death." In the poorly named "Controversies" section, we discuss that proponents of him being shot from the ground posit that he must have died a quick death and could not, therefore, have been shot during the dogfight. That seems sufficient and appropriate. It doesn't seem properly wikipedia to take a side of the controversies within our factual section. --Bertrc (talk) 23:36, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

A "quick" death does not have to absolutely instantaneous. In fact the human body often takes a few seconds to completely "turn off", even when technically it is no longer viable (the damage to R's lungs and heart, for instance, would not have permitted him to take another breath: consciousness and the ability to voluntarily DO anything must have been fast fading, and gone altogether in a matter of seconds). I really think you are manufacturing a difficulty here when none actually exists. So why not cut it as redundant? It IS an important thing to repeat here, unfortunately, while there are people who insist that at the time of his death he had continued to (expertly) pursue May for two whole minutes - and others who are convinced he not only made a "perfect" landing - but "leapt from the cockpit" to shake the hands of his captors, or, alternatively, "was dragged by animalistic colonial troops and hacked to death" (both of these statements have appeared in published accounts of the incident, believe it or not). If anything, I would delete the statements about his "last words" altogether - several Australian soldiers are recorded as "being first at the scene" and hearing a "few muffled words in German". It is always a different soldier, unfortunately - and the words also seem to differ, although "Kaputt" is generally one of them. Since our best sources, otherwise very carefully researched, contain a version of the "dying words" episode I have been diffident about chopping it out. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 04:34, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Actually - I've been thinking about what we know he did do in the time frame between being hit and dying (this is more detail than we need in the article, but it may make the "quick death" more plausible). Firstly, he turned the ignition off - standard "automatic" action before a crash to minimise the risk of fire. We know that from the damage to the engine of his triplane - it was evidently not running when it hit the ground (a "running" rotary engine revolved and the cylinder heads would have been damaged - as it is they are intact). He also released his safety belt (hence the injuries he received in the crash) - this was also a reflex action for a 1918 airman just before a crash - they had a common horror of being trapped in burning wreckage that out-weighed any worries about about other injuries, in fact they believed that the best they could hope for in a crash was to be "thrown clear" - some even jumped just before the impact. Aeroplanes had safety belts at this time to prevent pilots falling out in the air, not to reduce their injuries in crashes or rough landings. There is a theory he had undone the belt earlier because he was having problems with his guns, but I have never fully bought that one. Finally, he seems to have at least pushed his control stick forward (or perhaps fallen on it?) to correct the sharp "nose-up" attitude that would have made it stall (the Dr.I was very unstable), and may also have corrected the rudder and aileron controls, in time for it to crash without major damage. Although if it had been in any sense a "good" landing his body would not have been so badly injured. Wounded as he was, that is a fair bit for him to have done before the lights went out for good - and I am doubtful about the veracity of the diggers (brave countrymen of mine that they were) who severally and distinctly managed to have been the first to check on the baron and to hear his last words. At the best they can't ALL have been right. Just the sort of embellishment you might expect someone to have made in recounting the incident in fact, when you think about it. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 05:39, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Soundofmusicals . . . It sounds like you are making my argument for me. How could he have done all that in a few seconds? (turn off the ignition, undo his seatbelt, pull up the nose of his plane)? In the "Who fired the fatal shot" section, we have what you seem attached to -- that his wounds, as forensically described, should have killed him very quickly -- I'm attached to making the article a bit more consistent -- either he must have died very quickly (and, by implication, could not possibly have obtained the wound during the dogfight) or or there is a question of how long he lived, which allowed him to land his plane and be reached by ground troops before he died; we shouldn't have both. Much better, now. --Bertrc (talk) 21:14, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Controversy or Disagreement

Is a disagreement over who shot him really a controversy? Can we rename the section to "Disagreement over who killed him" or "Debate over Credit for his death"? I had expected the Controversy section to be arguments over memorials honoring him or some such due to him having an anti-semitic declarations or what have you. -- Bertrc (talk) 19:03, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

"Controversies" are simply arguments or disagreements - controversies can be on all manner of subjects - there is nothing whatever in the word itself to imply a particular background or connotation. In fact the word is so very vague that it is not really an ideal one for the section, especially as there HAVE been other controversies in the "Red Baron story" (most notably, perhaps, the number of aircraft he actually shot down) and this section is very specifically about who killed him. In fact the original title for this section was "Who fired the fatal shot?". (I am not joking, that's what it was, for some years!) Several editors felt that this was a bit too bombastic, or blood thirsty and/or uncyclopedic, and it was changed to "Controversy over Richthofen's death". I would be quite happy for it to be changed back to something a bit more specific, but (given we probably DO need a heading at this point) in context it is pretty clear just what we are talking about. Again, there are enough real problems here (and elsewhere) without making any up. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 04:57, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Given the content of the section, does anybody mind if I change it back to "Who fired the fatal shot"? That is the only topic in the section and clearly describes it. From the table of contents, I would know exactly what is there and, given the confusing bit in the factual section above, just knowing there is a question about who fired the fatal shot would have helped me. Much better heading. --Bertrc (talk) 21:18, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

"Undamaged"

A strange obsession that R's triplane was "undamaged" after his last landing has surfaced again among otherwise fairly sensible edits. This is simply very silly - although the greater part of the damage which left the machine a total wreck was done by the famous "souvenir hunters" it must have been at least superficially damaged by a very heavy landing that left Richthofen's body with quite severe injuries to his face and legs. We don't have a photograph of the triplane at the vital moment, sadly. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 23:18, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

This one is still alive - practically every source (reliable or otherwise) that mentions the "pre-souveniring rush" state of the triplane at all, reports that the undercarriage was broken and the fuel tank "burst" or "smashed". The fact that they are obviously all drawing water from the same well doesn't mean the original source is tainted. And the above still applies anyway. People just have to accept that Von Richthofen and Brown isn't a reliable historical source. I have redone the note, not that this will help I don't suppose. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 14:49, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Repeated reinstatement of rejected alternative text

PLEASE will editors determined to make changes (consequential or otherwise) to text that has remained stable for some time please bear in mind that the lead section is a summary of the article as a whole, not an alternative article. We keep the lead succinct and to the point. "Suffered a fatal wound", or some such circumlocution may well be appropriate in the main body of the article, but not in the lead - which a sort of precis or extract of what follows. The fact is that our hero was shot down and killed - the idea that he survived for more than a second or so is very highly speculative, and is based on "eye-witness testimony" that is at best suspect and contradictory. The place to discuss or make allowance for this sort of thing is in the appropriate place in the body of the article. AT THE VERY LEAST, if anyone feels constrained to re-introduce text that has been reverted (sometimes several times, and by several editors) could they please raise the question of their "improvements" on this talk page. Otherwise they start to give the impression of just being disruptive for the sake of it - surely a form of vandalism. For the rest of us - I apologise, on my own behalf as well as that of the other responsible editors who are endeavouring to keep this one "clean", for missing some very poor stuff in the process of removing worse. It is always a shame when an article is closed to casual editing, but this looks like happening here. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 03:34, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Nomenclature

Should we be using Jasta, jasta, jastas, jasta, Jasta, Jastas, or the regular English term, "fighter squadron"? Is elegant variation suddenly a good thing? It's no big deal but if this article was ever to be peer-reviewed it would need to be rewritten in a less juvenile manner. --John (talk) 21:21, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Nobody would argue that the English language Wikipedia should not give preference to English terms. The reason why foreign terms are in general deprecated (and quite rightly so!) is that they can be unnecessarily cryptic, or otherwise cause misunderstanding or confusion. But in this case the unit names which actually account for most of the mentions of the German word you are objecting to would not be translated in any other context. Provided at the first mention of (say) Jasta 11 - we explain that this is the designation of a "German fighter squadron", then when we want to refer to this unit (or others similarly designated) later in the article, we hardly need to repeat an English version of the designation every time. Nor is "fighter squadron" a complete or totally precise translation anyway. A Jasta typically had an establishment of 6 to 12 fighters - as opposed to the regular 18 to 21 of a British (fighter) squadron - in some ways it is more closely equivalent to an RFC or RNAS flight than a squadron. A Jagdgeschwader (often loosely translated as equivalent to an RFC fighter "wing") was in practice usually only a little larger than a British squadron, and is in fact sometimes even referred to as a "squadron" in English texts. The duties undertaken by the Jastas also differed from those of those of any British squadron - they were "pure" fighters and did little or none of the close support and other "ground attack" work that was a large part of any British fighter squadron's duties at the time. All in all, the German term is a far more accurate description of the unit we are describing than any simple English equivalent - another reason why it is used, not only here, but in all our WWI aviation articles, and, indeed, in all our sources.

There's actually nothing wrong with a little honest elegant variation - within reason it is an essential part of good (as opposed to boring, redundant and repetitious) writing. All it means in this context is the willingness to use a pronoun or an occasional synonym (this can obviously be overdone!) to avoid the monotonous clanging of the same word over and over and over. The abuses referred to in the Wiki article are another matter altogether - in fact this is an article that probably DOES need a good re-write. It is very much based on Fowler (and lesser writers derivative of him) and while he is a uniquely valuable source he is also very dated indeed. (I'm allowed to say things like that, being very dated myself!)

Finally (and I have gone on much longer here than I originally intended, please forgive an old gentleman's prolixity) you have recently made a good many detail changes to this article, most of which were valuable in tightening the prose (and, which, incidentally, have been allowed to stand!). I am rather at a loss to explain however, if it IS really the case that the article is written in a "juvenile" fashion, that you have not taken advantage of the opportunity to render it more "adult". --Soundofmusicals (talk) 01:55, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the considered response. I will reply properly later. --John (talk) 16:39, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

In the meantime, an editor has pointed out that we haven't been using German capitalization conventions for these words - and, incidenally - that "Jastas" is extremely bad German anyway... Do we need an MOS ruling on the use of foreign terms that will cover this sort of question? --Soundofmusicals (talk) 03:14, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

List of planes

The following honest attempt at a constructive addition has been moved here for the moment - there are obvious inaccuracies both factual and spelling, and the setting out needs changing, even if we want this information here, rather than in another sub-article. Not to mention, as always, we need a reliable source: --Soundofmusicals (talk) 21:54, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Richtofen Flew these planes in order.

Albertros D.II Albertros D.III Albertros D.VA (All Red) Halberstadt D.II Fokker DR.1

Richtofen flew at least 4 DR.1 Triplanes in differnt times during 1917-1918 here's the serial #'s on the one's he flew.

102/17 127/17 156/17 477/17 (All Red Triplane and his main one) 425/17 (All Red Triplane With White Rudder)

• MVR died in 425/17 not 477/17
• 156/17 Survived the war was put in a museum in Germany but sadly was destroyed in the museam by allied bombers during WWII in 1943

Having another look at this, it is much worse than it looked at first glance - the relevant informtion here is eith marginally relevant, or already well covered anyway. (Or wrong, anyway)--Soundofmusicals (talk) 03:16, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

MOS for "foreign" words

(see also "Nomenclature" section above) Simply, there doesn't seem to be one! We probably need to have consistent rules here for what to do with capitalisation, plurals etc. for non-English terms - to simply assume we follow the relevant foreign rules is not in itself either self evident, or for that matter simple - as "foreign rules" are every bit as likely to be inconsistent and ambiguous as English ones. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 19:45, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

BRD on "jastas"

Sorry for making something so little so big, but trying to avoid doing this just led to an edit war. So I'm starting this discussion, per WP:BRD.

This article uses many German words that aren't commonly understood in English, such as "Luftstreitkräfte". It also uses many German words that may be more readily recognizable by English readers, such as "kaputt". According to MOS:FOREIGN and MOS:ITALICS, there are two specific classifications, foreign words and loanwords. These guides state that foreign words (and foreign language direct quotes) use italics, and loanwords do not. That's pretty clear.

However, the guides do not give strict rules about how we are to distinguish between foreign and loanwords. There will always be some words that are in transition.

Here, we have case involving the word "jastas".

In German, "Jasta" is short for "Jagdstaffel" -- "fighter squadron". Like all German nouns, "Jagdstaffel" is always capitalized; its plural is "Jagdstaffeln". I don't know of any plural use of "Jasta"; if there was one, it would be "Jastan". But so what? That's all German, and this is English WP. Our MOS doesn't even have rules about German language (just as it doesn't say anything about several hundred other foreign languages that occasionally pop up in EN WP, except a bit about Latin).

"Jasta" may have reached the point of enough use in English that it's pretty much English, despite its previous German origin, like "kindergarten". If it is English, then it shouldn't be capitalized, and shouldn't be in italics, and its plural should be "jastas".

So it comes down to this: is "jasta" is English or German? We can certainly find English sources that use it either way. It may have been more common back when WWI was fresher in peoples minds, and may have fallen below the limit since then. I don't know.

I also don't care. (I'd be most in favor of using straight English, switching to "squadron", and avoiding this whole silly debate. MOS actually says we're supposed to use foreign words "sparingly". Is it really helpful to sprinkle so many German words, even ones that might be understood by most readers, in the article on EN WP? But I guess that would be a separate discussion.)

So let's just decide if it's German or an English loanword, and follow MOS, and make it either "Jasta" or "jasta" -- capitalized with italics, or not. Note that "jastas" can't be German; we'd have to use "Jagdstaffeln".

--A D Monroe III (talk) 23:12, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Not that simple. "Fighter Squadron" is just not a terribly good translation of "Jagdstaffel". For an explanation, read the "Nomenclature" section at the top of the page, where this came up a while ago in a different context. Much more precise to use the German term (or its abbreviation) here. This especially applies when the word is part of a proper noun (say, the name of a particular unit, e.g. Jasta 11).

Now assuming we are going to use the German word, should we follow German style when it comes to capitalisation and italics - or English? Again, by no means as simple as you imply. If we follow German style then this will differ from the English language style of the bulk of our text and at best look untidy. If we follow normal English style consistently then the infelicities of our German style will also look untidy, at least for readers familiar with German conventions. I suggest that the current hybrid style should at least be our starting point - and that if we want to change this we need to raise a firm rule in the MOS, in order to establish consistency. For what it's worth - "jastas" is plainly neither English nor German - but what we should use instead may depend on the context, and what form of style is finally chosen. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 10:44, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Erroneous TV documentary attribution

The "Death" section currently claims:

"Many sources, including a 1998 article by Geoffrey Miller, a physician and historian of military medicine, and a 2003 U.S. Public Broadcasting Service documentary, have suggested that Sergeant Cedric Popkin was the person most likely to have killed Richthofen."

The PBS programme is cited to the Nova edition Who killed the Red Baron? first broadcast on 7 October 2003. This programme, however, was originally shown as part of the British Channel 4 Secret History series on 22 December 2002 as Dogfight - The Mystery of the Red Baron. The PBS website correctly attributes the programme as "A 3BM Television Production for NOVA/WGBH and Channel 4" directed by Peter Nicholson, which correlates with the BFI record for the Secret History programme. I am therefore changing the page text accordingly. Nick Cooper (talk) 12:35, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Position of Freiherr in full name

Since we're talking about a pre-Weimar name, shouldn't this title of nobility be placed in front of and separate from the full name in the lead (also considering that Von Richthofen is a name, rather than a territorial designation)? I.e. "Freiherr Manfred Albrecht von Richthofen" instead of "Manfred Albrecht Freiherr von Richthofen". The German wiki also does it like that. - HyperGaruda (talk) 11:34, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Have you seen the name presented in this style anywhere else? A Wikipedia page, even in German, doesn't count of course (we don't do referential incest). Point is we would normally use the usual style for a name. Your version may be arguably better - but we don't do this kind of argument either, it's WP:OR. On the other hand if you can get a good reference to support styling the name this way, the current version is not set in stone! --Soundofmusicals (talk) 07:04, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Baron?

"Freiherr" was a German Imperial title of nobility - it actually doesn't have a particularly close equivalence in British titles. If he had been a British nobleman Richthofen would have been the heir to his father's title (roughly, that of a Baronet or Viscount) and have been referred to as "Lord Richthofen" - his brothers might have used a courtesy title such as "the Honourable Lothar Richthofen". All of which is of not very much importance, and certainly not to be gone into in great detail and undue length - but in "simplifying" what we already have here we can't (at least in an encyclopedia) introduce inaccuracies. "Baron" is also used in English as a rough synonym for "nobleman" - which is the real point of equivalence here, perhaps. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 22:40, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

"Other nicknames"

This sentence/paragraph has long given me pause - I have finally been so bold as to delete it altogether.

Richthofen's other nicknames include "Le Diable Rouge" ("Red Devil") or "Le petit Rouge" ("Little Red") in French, and the "Red Knight" in English.

The only contemporary source I can find for any of them is Der Rote Kampfflieger - which even if it is primarily "by" Richthofen is full of additions and asides from his ghost writer, who was (quite correctly, from his point of view) more concerned with propaganda value than truth. The French had very little to do with Richthofen, and all his air victories were against the British (although one otherwise unaccounted for kill may be a Belgian SPAD). I can find no evidence, contemporary or otherwise that French pilots ever gave him a nickname at all. In "DRK" the "Petit Rouge" is what Richthofen (or his "Ghost writer") claims a British victim called Richthofen's aeroplane, not its pilot. References to Richthofen in letters and other writings of British airmen seem to be confined to "the Red Baron" (often with an expletive between the article and the noun) or his name (often misspelled) - although I have seen the "Red Devil" (in English, not French).

All in all - not for an authoritative encyclopedia article. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 00:24, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

"One of the most famous"?

Everyone, but everyone has heard of Richthofen - if not by his proper name then by his most famous nickname. OK that's probably a bit of a hyperbole, but his fame IS of a totally different order to any other fighter pilot. Many of the people who could name Richthofen, or at least heave heard of the "Red Baron" could not name any other fighter pilot, and otherwise know nothing about the subjects of aviation, the first world war, or the history of air combat. The passion that controversy about his career (especially its conclusion) arouses is also unique. This article gets more "hits" than all other articles about fighter pilots combined (check if you don't believe me!!). "One of the most famous" is plain silly, in fact the "perhaps" is nearly as bad. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 01:13, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Spelling

Richthofen's name is one of those that gets misspelled with considerable frequency - especially by people whose native language is not German. Omitting the second "h" - or replacing the "f" with a "v" - are just two of a good number of variants (some of which are very fanciful indeed). It has in fact always been thus - allied airmen during the First World War were among the worst offenders.

Some names are just like that - having one myself I know all about it!

This nonsense is just for the benefit of an editor who, in correcting a couple of misspelled mentions of our hero's name (well picked, by the way) claimed that it had something to do with "works of fiction". Nothing of the kind, of course. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 01:27, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Genuinely new constructive edit! (First for a very long time)

Not only constructive, but cited! I am just a little concerned that it may be copied too literally from the source (will see if I can check this later) - it contained a sentence about "this time" that apparently referred to a previous occasion that was not mentioned (which I deleted) - and seemed to be well out of sequence - referring to the period when Lothar entered the Flying service - after Manfred's Eastern Front service as an observer, and before he went to Jasta 2 (I have attempted to get this right). I remain just a tiny bit apprehensive about notability/relevance, but on consideration think it just passes. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 07:52, 22 January 2017 (UTC)