Talk:Manfred von Richthofen/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Personal life and alleged romance

I just finished reading one of Peter Kilduff's book and he mentions a story that the Baron's mother mentioned many years after the war that her son had a romance with a woman. This detail is in contrast to the often believed story that the Baron did not ever purse romance in his life. I also think that having "author" in "piloting career" is out of sequence and suggest a new paragraph entitled "personal life". I will also be bringing up sources about Richthofen's change of heart about the war. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.146.96.240 (talk) 22:58, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Anyone can look at the information but I wouldn't mind if anyone reverts my changes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.146.96.240 (talk) 23:15, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Passages from sources (especially somewhat discursive biographies like Kilduff) need to be carefully checked before they are added. First, to check that what you want to add isn't already covered in different words - or isn't barely relevant detail in the context of an encyclopedia article. THEN it needs to be expressed in your own words. Exact quotes from sources need to be presented as quotes - not inserted directly into the article as if you wrote them yourself. Finally any new information you add needs to be cited, of course (you did this ok). Some writers (again Kilduff is a good example) have a lot of "information" that is really just speculation. What R. (or anyone else) actually did or said is usually reasonably clear - what they thought about it is another matter altogether. It is fine for the author of a biography to speculate about his subject's "inner life" - his thoughts, dreams, changes of heart etc. by drawing from his letters, reported conversations, writings and so on. In an article like this one we are better off, as a rule, just stating the bare facts and quoting the exact words and letting the reader draw his own conclusions. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 12:58, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

After all that I reverted to the wrong version so that "done" instead of "fine" slipped back in! Well picked, and well corrected. -Soundofmusicals (talk) 20:25, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

The following source about the Baron's change of heart about how he felt about the war was in his autobiography. According to Kilduff, it expresses a sombre mood not evident in earlier writings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.146.96.240 (talk) 21:10, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Author and Hero

This was the original section heading - not sure when, by whom, or why it was changed. I think it works better like this, and is less likely to cause confusion. R's "book" was written under orders, and heavily edited - basically to foster the "official" hero worship. Hence these two paragraphs go together pretty seamlessly really. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 12:35, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

I am placing it in the "Author and Hero" section. I am aware it may not be of any use but I've have no objection if anyone reverts the changes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.146.96.240 (talk) 21:17, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

"Fighter Squadron No. 2"

There was no such unit in the German fliegertruppen - it is quite improper for us to invent one. Translating nouns and phrases from foreign languages into English equivalents - even when these are not precise, may well be legitimate, even necessary. Proper nouns such as unit names, however, should be left as is. An English unit name even gives a superficial impression of a British or American unit! There is a blue link for benefit of a reader who may well not be aware of what a "Jasta" was, or perhaps we might add an explanation of the German in brackets. (Will do this now - just to see how it looks.) --Soundofmusicals (talk) 01:24, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Done. Only for the first mention of the term, of course. By the way - a better English equivalent for German "Gruppe" is "Group" - also United States Air Force unit rquivalent! Although as this article is British English "wing" can stand here. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 01:53, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Manfred von Richthofen. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20001121100500/http://www.aiipowmia.com/histories/histformation.html to http://www.aiipowmia.com/histories/histformation.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:02, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Interesting postcard photo of members of Jasta 11

Someone added this to the article. With some regret I have taken it out again. If it were to be decided to reinstate it we would need to change the caption - throughout the aviation articles in Wikipedia we use the German terms Jasta/Jagdstaffel for "fighter squadron" and Jagdgeschwader/JG for "fighter wing". Among other reasons the terms are not entirely synonymous . It would also need to go to the appropriate place in the article - where we already have a rather better illustration of the subject. No need at all (IMHO) for both pictures. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 22:25, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

First Flight was a "Crash", but no Parachutes, no Mention of Injury, etc...?

"Initially, he appeared to be a below-average pilot. He struggled to control his aircraft, and he crashed during his first flight at the controls.[15]"

This is really interesting and yet leaves you hanging. AFAIK they had no parachutes in WW1, and so how does a pilot "crash"? What kind of crash? Any injuries? Etc... I looked at the Source and it says " McAllister 1982, p. 54.". I assume this is a book somewhere. Is it online? I'd like to read that source and see if there's any way to add more detail to this event.Tym Whittier (talk) 17:56, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Look up "McAllister 1982, p. 54." in the bibliography at the bottom. For the record, I think it is McAllister, Hayden, ed. Flying Stories. London: Octopus Books, 1982. ISBN 0706417348. Probably not available on the net in a readable form - but you may find a copy in a library, or even on Amazon, or (dare he suggest) a bookshop. As for an explanation of how a pilot ever crashed before he had a parachute - often very painfully of course! All kidding aside, you're looking at another age - where "minor" crashes, from which pilots as often as not escaped without serious injury, were very common indeed - especially while learning to fly, which seems to have been the case here. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 08:21, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Regarding surviving a an early aircraft crash, look up the story of Douglas Bader, who is undoubtedly the world's most famous survivor of a crash while training for service between the Wars. As a trainee, he was performing unauthorised stunts over the airfield where he was based when he flew into the ground and flipped his aircraft. He lost both legs, but went on to serve with distinction during WWII, and was even shot down and captured by the Germans, but still managed several unsuccessful escapes. You have to remember that aircraft in those days flew much slower than modern ones do, which greatly increases the chance of survival. Also, airmen were trained in some rudimentary techniques for surviving a crash if they still had some control over the aircraft. But there weren't many people who walked away unscathed from a crash, and most WWI-era airmen carried a revolver for the simple reason that if they were shot down in flames, they could commit suicide with it rather than be burned to death on the way down. It was only during WWII that pilots and crew were issued with parachutes, and in the case of bomber crew, even having a parachute issued to you was no guarantee of survival. Most crewmen had a parachute which needed to be attached to a harness while they crawled through narrow turret doors before they could reach a hatch and jump out. Crawling anywhere in an aircraft spinning out of control was all but impossible anyway, and that's why the percentage of bomber crew who survived being shot down was substantially smaller.

Cadar (talk) 09:30, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Interesting remark - although just for the record Bader was a serving squadron pilot when he had his famous crash, not a trainee. Interestingly, and more relevant to this article, R. himself was wearing one when he was shot down - the Germans had just started issuing them. They were most unreliable and frequently let their users down, but any chance was better than none. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 22:35, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Meaning of "kaputt"

There is a note (g) suggesting that the definition of "kaputt" is often in contention. One of the sources given to support this refers to the English term "kaput", one lists it as a very distinct synonyme for "gestorben" ("deceased") and the third actually gives the translation "broken". As a native German speaker I can say that "broken" is the only reasonable translation for "kaputt", so I think the note should be removed. Yhdwww (talk) 14:21, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Minor detail, of course, why it's in a note, so as not to interrupt the main flow of the text. Actually the note was inserted after several editors added (various) translations, and a mild controversy blew up as to what R. meant. It was pointed out that even the German word, spoken colloquially in this context, could take on several meanings, including both the ones you mention. Incidentally - none of the "last words" reports by various Australian soldiers are particularly reliable (if only because only one of them, at most, could really have been the first to reach him!) and as R. was most probably already unconscious, if not actually dead, there may very well have been no "last words" to record. Hence the relevance of "kaput" as British/Australian military slang. On balance, I'd keep the note, but I don't think a fuller explanation is really justified. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 01:54, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

There isn't, actually, any contention as to the meaning of "kaputt". Not in the real world, anyway. See Langenscheidt's Compact German-English Dictionary (a German publication). "adj. F ~sein 1. be broken, be bust, be torn, be out of order , (heart etc:) be ruined, be bad, (nerves:) be shattered, (fig. marriage etc.:) be broken; 'mein Auto ist ~', my car has broken down (or has had it). 2. (person:) a) be ruined, finished, b) be worn out, be all in: ~er Typ, complete wreck." If the Australians heard the dying man say, "Ich bin kaputt," or "Bin kaputt," or just, "Kaputt," it meant, "I've had it," just as British and Empire servicemen would often say. Khamba Tendal (talk) 19:30, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Wounded in combat

I have moved the peripheral matter about Donald Cunnell to a note. This keeps the information while permitting the main text to read more smoothly. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 18:52, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

"Rittmeister Manfred Albrecht Freiherr von Richthofen"

"Rittmeister" is/was a junior military rank in the German army - equivalent to the rank of "Captain" ). It is certainly not a "birth name", nor an inherited rank. "Freiherr", as explained in the article, was a rank in the hierachy of the German aristocracy, although it was not strictly a hereditary title as such. Point is that the two are completely different things - confusing them to the extent that recent well meant edits do is not on. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 21:37, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Just imagine if every article about a military officer dwelt at length with his final rank - Richthofen's is in fact notable only in that it was so junior in relation to his actual position - which is now (appropriately) the only place it is mentioned. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 17:09, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Tributes section - Air Force Exercise Red Flag

The article states that the Air Force's exercise Red Flag "the counterpart to" TOPGUN. This is incorrect. TOPGUN is a closer analogy to the Air Force's Weapons School. Air Wing Fallon is a US Navy exercise that is somewhat like Red Flag. 2600:8806:200:794:5D3B:37FA:9699:EECD (talk) 21:01, 1 August 2020 (UTC)S.D.

Requested move 25 July 2020

The following is a closed 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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. DrKay (talk) 15:40, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

---

Manfred von Richthofen → Red Baron – Per WP:COMMONNAME - Google: 5,930,000 results for "Red Baron", 657,000 results for "Manfred von Richthofen", 126,000 results for "Baron von Richthofen" sam1370 (talk · contribs) 02:15, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose on the basis of misleading and badly-interpreted WP:HITS which can include results to unrelated topics, such as pizza. Nothing new presented since the last RM. -- Netoholic @ 03:00, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
  • I reckon he's also primary topic for the "Red Baron" as well.--Ortizesp (talk) 19:35, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
• Strong oppose this is a WP:NICKNAME which is not the "name most frequently used in independent reliable sources", so the article should be at the man's name. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:33, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
• Strong oppose per previous comments. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:44, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per Netoholic's comments. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 12:18, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support per WP:COMMONNAME. Based on the Google Ngrams, this does appear to be the name most frequently used in reliable English-language sources. So WP:NICKNAME cited above by an opposer actually supports this move. There are plenty of examples where we use a nickname, stage name, or pen name for the article title instead of a person's actual name, and I see no reason why this article should be any different. And since "Red Baron" already redirects here, it's already considered to be the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:25, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

But WP:COMMONNAME actually states "the article title is usually the name of the person, or of the place, or of whatever else the topic of the article is". Suggest any exception to this needs to be justified, not the other way around! --Soundofmusicals (talk) 10:44, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

• Strong support, obvious WP:COMMONNAME, and he's clear WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for the name..--Ortizesp (talk) 19:35, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
• Strong support, as mentioned above, WP:COMMONNAME. Simply put, most people know him at the Red Baron and not his birth name. Spilia4 (talk) 23:44, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
• Strong oppose Argumnents in favour are all covered by the fact that "Red Baron" redirects here (as it has for years). Making this the primary heading for this page would be pathetc and puerile. This is a general, "popular" encyclopedia - but not a kindergarten text!

Actually no. The main policy argument in favor of this move is that "Red Baron" is the article subject's most common name, which is what we use to determine what an article title should be on Wikipedia. The redirect does nothing to negate that argument for the move. Rreagan007 (talk) 03:20, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

"Actually" yes. Typing in "Red baron" on the search line will already "find" this article - other (surely less likely) uses of the term can be found by clicking on the disambiguation line already in the hatnote. This is actually a very handy technique - especially if one has forgotten how to spell "Richthofen". On the other hand the title of an article about a real (or fictional) person can surely only be the "usual" name of that person - not a nickname. Just imagine if a person's nickname became the "normal" article heading for an article about a person. The original "Red Baron" nickname originated in 1917-18 among his opponents in the Royal Flying Corps (incidentally generally with a leading adjective, such as "Bloody Red Baron" (or something ruder) - the German equivalent was Der Rote Kampfflieger, which just means "the red fighter pilot"). But in "letters home from the front" he was also very widely known by his proper surname (often misspelled). The current "dominant" use of the nickname largely derives from the Snoopy character in Peanuts. True. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 10:35, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose. Just a nickname. Anyone who knows anything about him knows him as Manfred von Richthofen. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:16, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
• Question. Are there other examples of articles on people where we use a nickname and not a real name? It's one thing to have an article titled Jimmy Carter and not James Carter, but I believe there is no precedent for this. Calidum 21:27, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
  • @Calidum: Pocahontas, Caligula, Plato, Billy the Kid, Baby Face Nelson, Buffalo Bill. You can find plenty more at List of pseudonyms. Rreagan007 (talk) 21:21, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
    • @Rreagan007:In each of the above cases, however, there are special reasons for using a nickname that do not apply here, "which it were tedious to rehearse", especially in this context. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 22:42, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
      • In general, the special reason that some article don't use the subject's true name is that sources predominantly use these names instead of their true names, and we go by sources. That's simply not the case for this subject. --A D Monroe III^(talk) 04:19, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per Netoholic's reasoning. Red Baron is just a nickname, and is already covered by the fact that "Red Baron" redirects here. Ejgreen77 (talk) 10:42, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. It's only his nickname, not a common name. --Dmol (talk) 10:57, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. We go by sources to determine common name, not google. Sources will usually mention his nickname, but overwhelmingly use his real name. It would be unencyclopedic to use "Red Barron" throughout the article, and the article title should match the article. We have the nickname redirect here, and mention it in the lede. It's already well-handled. --A D Monroe III^(talk) 04:16, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Add footnotes for the RFC squadrons links.

I suggest adding footnotes for the squadrons that Richthofen combated on 6 March 1917, when his aircraft was shot through the fuel tank, and on 6 July the same year, when he sustained his serious head wound:

the links to No. 40 Squadron RFC and No. 20 Squadron RFC, respectively, redirects to the corresponding RAF squadrons, because they later switched names: the Royal Flying Corps (RFC) was replaced with the Royal Air Force (RAF) on 1 April 1918, when it merged with the Royal Naval Air Service: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Royal_Flying_Corps_squadrons zwaa 12:44, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Hatnote on family

@Soundofmusicals: Why are you so eager to have a hatnote pointing to Richthofen, not conforming to the rules, not usual, and not needed? --KnightMove (talk) 21:20, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Start with "not usual" - it is of course far from common, much less usual, for the members of a single family (even an extended one) to have so many members "notable" enough to warrant Wikipedia articles of their own. For this reason also "rules" may well need to be bent, as the case is so exceptional. Why is the hatnote needed? The main subject is by far the most famous fighter ace of all time - in fact to the average person probably not just the first, but the only such person they could name off-hand. A very high proportion of searches for "Richthofen" are looking for this person - which makes a hatnote to ensure that searches for other people with the same surname are accesible. A furhter hatnote to refer to Manfred von Richthofen (disambiguation) page might well be worthwhile, in addition. If you're "so eager", why not add one? --Soundofmusicals (talk) 23:44, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

You have brought forward a valid argument that Richthofen should be a redirect to the fighter ace. Then a hatnote would be in place (the redirect version). In this case, the family article then would be moved to Richthofen family. You can suggest such a solution at Talk:Richthofen, where you have been active for years now anyway. I wouldn't oppose that.

Still, as long as Richthofen is the family article, no reader will need the hatnote as is. The hatnote in Theodore Roosevelt also points to namesakes only, not the Roosevelt family. "in fact to the average person probably not just the first, but the only such person they could name off-hand." - then a hatnote to the family is even less necessary. --KnightMove (talk) 20:24, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Nothing worse than looking up someone and only being able to get a more famous relative. One of the main purpose of hatnotes in Wiki, in fact. Nothing wrong with the current hatnote/redirect set up. "Red Baron' and "Manfred von Richthofen" bring up this article - with a concise hatnote referring to other notable Richthofens, who, incidentally, all happen to be members of the extended (in some cases very much extended) family of "our" Manfred. There are only one or two notable exact namesakes (in the sense of people having exactly the same name) - one of whom is a Brazillian person regrettably murdered by his own daughter. This person is not notable enough to have a Wiki article of his own - being murdered by a close family member is, alas, not something conferring "notability" in its own right. In fact "his" article is a redirect to his murderer! Nor does the act of murdering one's own father confer automatic encyclopedic notability - the article on the murderess is, one can surmise, only due to a press scandal at the time that linked the crime (not encyclopedically notable in itself, surely) and the name (possibly spurious anyway). In all, no justification for messing up a good disambiguation setup for. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 01:20, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

As arguments are exchanged, I list this on Wikipedia:Third opinion. --KnightMove (talk) 20:33, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi, I'm responding to the third opinion request. Based on what I'm reading here, and the issues as I understand them come down to making the information more accessible and to prevent misunderstandings, so I would suggest changing the first hatnote to be Richthofen_(disambiguation) where all possible options are listed. The Theodore Roosevelt page is a good example to follow. Leave the second hatnote for Red Baron as is. Hesperian Nguyen (talk) 15:00, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Attribution

Text and references copied from Manfred von Richtofen and Tom Rees (airman), See former article's history for a list of contributors. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 18:30, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

"kaputt"

This article talks about the common story that Richthofen was reported to have been pulled alive from the aircraft saying "Kaput", but some historians have considered this to be a much disputed legend; it seems unlikely that Richthofen was still alive due to the nature of his wound, let alone speak, as during the crash, (and this is shown in death photographs) he slammed his face on his gun butts, breaking his nose and some of his teeth. The stories given by Ernest Twycross and Ted Smout that Richthofen was alive and saying "kaputt", were spoken years after the war (I have yet to find any contemporary accounts by them that were made by when their memories would have been fresh) In addition, the article states that George Ridgway claimed Richthofen was alive. Contrary to this claim, Ridgway said Richthofen was already dead when soldiers reached his plane (a claim he maintained when interviewed for this documentary; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0G6NzCgaum4); this even corroborates contemporary accounts of that day which state that the Baron was already dead when the plane was reached and not that he was still alive. Historians have encountered a number of examples where they had testimony or accounts by eyewitnesses from 1918 as well as from years or decades later. It became apparent that the testimony and writings from 1918 were superior. These were obtained when the event was still fresh in their memories, and as a result were clearer, usually more detailed, and consistent with what other people wrote or recalled at the time (even Brown or May describe Richthofen's plane as crashing rather than the myth that he landed it in one piece). As some eyewitnesses' account were so specific that they found the pilot already dead when they reached the triplane, we shouldn't place value on second-hand information based upon an interview with an eyewitness (in this case, Twycross to his son) which had occurred over five decades after the Baron's death.213.107.64.77 (talk) 08:10, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Needs Explaining

"(in spite of obvious drawbacks from the point of view of intelligence)"

I do not find this very obvious. Does intelligence mean information gathering, such as spying or plane location, or does it mean making sense, drawbacks of which would be a way of saying they were not being very sensible. Please reword to make clear.

[above post unsigned]

"Intelligence" in a military article like this "very obviously" means military intelligence - i.e. working out what the enemy is up to while at the same time hiding what one is up to oneself. Reconnaissance and espionage are examples of actively seeking information about the enemy - while not making it too obvious that you have just moved a crack fighter squadron (or any elite military unit) to a new location is a "very obvious" example of not giving away such information to the enemy. Hope this "response" is sufficiently "clear". --Soundofmusicals (talk) 02:29, 26 June 2021 (UTC)