Talk:Helmut Lent/Archive 1

Archive 1

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 04:04, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

So, how was it done?

It would be nice to have a sentence or two explaining how Lent was able to see his targets at night, the link to night fighter doesn't tell us much. I was inclined to stuff "...in his radar-adapted Messerschmitt Bf 110..." into the article somewhere but that would be guessing, so I'll leave the explaining to those who have studied Lent and night fighting more closely. --CliffC (talk) 01:20, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Numbers adding up

110 total victories, minus 103 night time leaves 7 daytime victories, but the lede also states that he received his Knights Cross of the Iron Cross after 8 daytime victories? --Narson ~ Talk • 00:34, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I just read the lede on the main page and noticed the same thing. Glad I'm not the only one. Timbouctou (talk) 01:19, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

: I concur with both of you; this glaring discrepancy jumped right out at me, and I haven't even read the rest of the article yet.     Magnet For Knowledge (talk) 20:59, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Shot down or ran out of fuel over Fornebu?

Helmut Lent had to make an emergency landing at Fornebu airport during the German invasion of Norway in 1940. But was it because of battle damage or because he ran out of fuel? The article says both things. This should be clarified. Manxruler (talk) 21:52, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

German Language Text

This article is larded with German language text which is 100% usless to 99.9% of the readers of this E-n-g-l-i-s-h ENGLISH version of Wikipedia.

I have tried to delete this useless lard, and someone keeps everting reverted my edits.

I guess if the bigshots who have votes that count toward Wikipedia content and editing policy insist on larding English artricles with non-English text then someone like me cannot do anything about it.

After all, those are the same voting members whose editorial judgement impells them try to make sure that each day's featured articles include one on sports, preferably University of Michigan sports, so I guess I am expecting too much for them to agree to cut any lard anywhere. —Preceding unsigned comment added by NCDane (talk • contribs) 18:15, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I think the reason it's there is because it's the German equivalent of terms that are already translated, so it adds something for the .1% of readers who can understand it. Brutannica (talk) 19:30, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I think the German text is entirely appropriate, is in line with good academic practice, and should stay in. I think that far more than 0.1% of en readers will have some German, but in fact I think it is potentially useful to far more people than that. Thanks and best wishes DBaK (talk) 22:44, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Nazi Party

Was Helmut Lent a member of the Nazi Party? —Preceding unsigned comment added by RED DAVE (talk • contribs) 00:35, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Indeed he was. WackyWace ^{talk to me, people} 11:21, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I love the fact that some genius at Wikipedia decided to feature an article about a Nazi on the 66th anniversary of D-Day. For shame! Erikeltic ^(Talk) 21:46, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

What makes you say he was a member of the Nazi party? Please provide a source for this statement! I don't recall that in any of the books and references of this article was he ever mentioned as a member of the Nazi party. MisterBee1966 (talk) 13:48, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry about that, I must have misread the question as was he a Nazi, rather than a member of the Nazi party. Apologies, WackyWace ^{talk to me, people} 18:21, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

He fought for Nazi Germany, he was a Nazi Germany war hero and as such his fame was abused by the officials but I would strongly argue against whether or not he was a Nazi. The officials even denied him and his family to have a priest present at his funeral. MisterBee1966 (talk) 05:25, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

First of all, one needs to define „Nazi.“ In Germany, “Nazi” was an abbreviation for “member of the "Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei” (aka, the nazi party.) Later, after Hitler took power, “Nazis” stood for the Hitler regime, as in “the Nazis started the war.” Today, a “Nazi” is an unteachable who still thinks what Hitler did was the greatest thing on earth.

Were you a Nazi if you were a member of the NSDAP, aka the Nazi party? During the Hitler regime, it was “highly recommended” to become a party member if you wanted to get anywhere. Not being a member was poison to your career and created suspicions. In 1945, there were 7.5 million members. Nevertheless, many of the high ranking officers of the Reichswehr were not members. Originally, the army was apolitical, it served the country. That was one of the reasons why Hitler distrusted the army and created his own private army, the SS.

My father and my mother were members. My father was an apolitical civil servant and always did as he was told. He believed in nothing except rules and regulations. My mother believed in Hitler. After the war, she was outraged, felt betrayed and into her old age picketed against neo-nazi parties in Germany. Were they “Nazis?”

I guess we’ll never know whether Lent was a fervent Nazi, a member because he had to, or no member at all. In those times, if you did not believe in Hitler, you kept it to yourself if you didn’t want to end up hanging from a butcher’s hook on a piano wire.

There is an association in Gemany that made it their mission to research the past of all whose names were given to Bundeswehr (German Army) barracks. There’s the “Lent-Kaserne” in Rothenburg. And despite intensive digging, the association could only find that Göring had said in his eulogy for Lent: “Our Lent was an enthusiastic soldier, a hard and tough fighter, a shining hero. He was not just a soldier, not just a fighter, he was also a passionate supporter of our National Socialist world view, and in this regard, he was an educator and role model for his men. He knew of the great powers that originate from this movement.” http://www.asfrab.de/fundgrube/kasernennamen-der-bundeswehr.html . If Lent would have been a party member, I guess Göring would have said “we also lose a passionate member of our great party.” That a priest wasn’t admitted to the funeral doesn’t count. The Nazis weren’t fond of priests. Lent was dead, he was unable to request a priest. Anyway, unless we have a source that says "Lent was member # 1234567 of the NSDAP" we won't know whether he was a member. Even if he was a member, we won't know whether he was a "Nazi" as we understand the term. --BsBsBs (talk) 10:56, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

non RS & not used for citations

I removed dubious links and non RS sources not used for citations with this edit. For more on the source, please see:

• Helden der Wehrmacht.

Please let me know if there are any concerns. K.e.coffman (talk) 10:19, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Wehrmachtbericht

Would like to raise several issues relating to the use of and references to the Wehrmachtbericht (discussing this on the Talk page vs making changes or tagging the page, since this is a featured article):

• On 1 July 1941, he took command of 4./NJG 1, stationed in the Netherlands at Fliegerhorst (airfield) Leeuwarden, 161 kilometres (100 mi) north of Arnheim, on the Friesland coast, where he remained until his death. From this position in the so-called German Bight, the squadron patrolled the North Sea coast, and could intercept Allied night-time bombing missions, what the Luftwaffe called terror attacks, based out of England.

References

Suggest using a better sources, vs citing to the Werhmachtbericht collection itself, which is unreliable wartime propaganda. "What the Luftwaffe called terror attacks" should also be cited to a better source.

• This achievement earned Lent a reference in the Wehrmachtbericht (his first of six in total), an information bulletin issued by the headquarters of the Wehrmacht. To be singled out individually in the Wehrmachtbericht was an honour and was entered in the Orders and Decorations' section of one's Service Record Book.

References

This citation seems dubious as I was not able to find that this was an "honour" as I was looking into sources for the main Wehrmachtbericht article. By sources I mean "reputable historians" (per WP:MILMOS#SOURCES). Also suggest revising "Information bulletin issued by the headquarters of the Wehrmacht" to reflect the propaganda nature of the broadcast.

Also ping FA reviewers: Kumioko, TomStar81, Sturmvogel 66, SandyGeorgia, Ealdgyth, Jappalang, for full disclosure. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:14, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

I wonder where the Nazi propaganda angle is in telling the reader about where Lent was based. "What the Luftwaffe called terror attacks" is a NPOV statement. The Luftwaffe, or more to the point, Goebbels, did call them terror attacks. I think it makes it clear they were not, just that the Germans called them so.

There is nothing wrong with peter Hinchliffe's work. If this is going to be another opinion-based attack on a source you should warn us by saying so. There is no doubt it was. It was an equivalent to a Mentioned in dispatches.

Are you suggesting changing the wording of a sentence that is not in the source because you feel it should be there? It is already in the Wehrmachtbericht article. I've no objection to adding the word as long as you add a citation. Dapi89 (talk) 09:38, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Werhmachtbericht vs Mentioned in despatches

Could editor Dapi provide a source that discussed Werhmachtbericht as an equivalent to being Mentioned in dispatches? K.e.coffman (talk) 09:58, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, see The Propaganda Warriors: The "Wehrmacht" and the Consolidation of the German Home Front. Constantly describes OKW reports as dispatches. Dapi89 (talk) 11:42, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Could you please provide a Google books preview for the description as an equivalent to being Mentioned in dispatches? K.e.coffman (talk) 11:49, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

The source frequently refers to "OKW reports" as "dispatches". The book is available on google books partially, and you can search there yourself. The only occasion I can see in the book so far is on a page not available to google books viewers (that I can see). On page 251 "Wehrmachtbericht news dispatch" has the two sets of words together. This is the only explicit link I can see yet. I will look through journal sources, as they are more readily available. A "Dispatch", in the military sense, is a report. It is not a neutral one. And I don't see mentioning a British pilot "in dispatches" as none propaganda and a German pilot in the Wehrmachtbericht as just propaganda. Wehrmachtbericht reports on pilots were exactly the same as MID. Dapi89 (talk) 14:39, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

The claim was that the Wehrmachtbericht is "an equivalent to a Mentioned in dispatches" which has a very specific meaning, while "dispatch", "news dispatch" or "communiqué" are not.

So the editor is unable to present a source that discusses Wehrmachtbericht as an "equivalent" to being mentioned in Dispatches? K.e.coffman (talk) 17:55, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

It is. And since I'm not trying to add it to the article, I don't why you're asking me to find a source for it. In any case, the book mentioned is used Wehrmachtbericht article. It says "Wehrmachtbericht news dispatch". In plain English.

They have the same meaning! MID and the WB have/had exactly the same function when it issued communiques, reports or dispatches. And they have/had exactly the same meaning! I'm sensing a lack of understanding. Perhaps you should just look up the definition of each. Dapi89 (talk) 20:28, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Mentioned in despatches has a very specific meaning, that's why the article exists. Re It is (...) They have the same meaning! -- Source, please? K.e.coffman (talk) 21:27, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Try the Oxford dictionary. Dapi89 (talk) 21:38, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

This looks like WP:OR to me: the Wehrmachtbericht is described by sources as "news dispatcht" + specific names are included ("mentioned") in them = Mentioned in despatches. Am I reading this right?

Likewise, the Mentioned in despatches article does not contain references to the Wehrmachtbericht transcripts, so it appears to be entirely one editor's opinion that the Wehrmachtbericht was "equivalent to being mentioned in despatches".

I looked into this matter before, and I could not locate sources that discuss Wehrmachtbericht as a military commendation; please see Talk:Wehrmachtbericht, topic "Military commendation?". Do such sources exist? K.e.coffman (talk) 22:19, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Helmut Lent's father Johannes

“Following publication of an obituary notice in the German national press, proceedings were started by the Gestapo against his widow Lena, his father Pastor Johannes Lent, and the editor of the newspaper concerned because, although acknowledging Helmut’s Christian beliefs, the notice made no reference to the Führer and was therefore deemed to be ‘anti-Nazi”. His family were saved from being sent to a concentration camp as they were able to prove that the obituary had been written in advance by Helmut himself especially omitting any reference to the Führer or the Nazi state. But the family’s trouble were far from over: the village of Pyrehne was in the direct path of the Russian advance on Berlin and when the Red Army arrived the church was blown up to make way for an advance airfield. The villagers were used as slave labour, houses were looted and women raped. On 16th February 1945, Pastor Lent was shot by a drunken Russian soldier in the doorway of his own house and his wife and daughter Ursula turned out on the street. … no trace remains of the family’s home or church.” (taken from: Iain Gordon, The Night Hunter's Prey, Pen & Sword Books: Barnsley (UK) 2016, p. 220)--2003:D1:93D2:D128:9066:F249:7984:CDDD (talk) 11:45, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Alt text

I removed the detailed description; similar articles do not go into this level of detail: diff. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:59, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Claims table

A claims table has been recently added to the article w/o discussion. It's cited to a collection of primary materials and does not meet the criteria of summary style, as it presents excessive intricate details in a Featured Article. Feedback? K.e.coffman (talk) 22:32, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

A good number of FAs on fighter aces have claims tables, so there is nothing prima facie wrong with this addition as long as it's supported by reliable sources. As to the contention that it's cited to a collection of primary materials, well, all those I inspected appear to have editors, which is not quite the same as the WP author going direct to the combat reports. If the grand total of claims is not in question then I don't see a particular issue with using these sources to flesh out the details of each claim. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:40, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

@Ian Rose: Could you point out to me which FA articles have a claims table? I checked Werner Mölders and it does not have a claims table. Many thanks. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:43, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

There's Albert Ball, Roderic Dallas, Paterson Hughes, John F. Bolt and George Andrew Davis Jr. to my knowledge. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:20, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Recent edits

Mostly encompasses excessive intricate detail; pls see individual edit summaries for rationales. Preserving here by providing this link. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:11, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Intricate detail

The article does not follow summary style & contains excessive amounts of intricate detail: sample. I've tagged the article accordingly. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:39, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

The tag is inappropriate for the whole article. Bring the material here and discuss by sections. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:43, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Unreliable sources

The article's prose is largely sourced to:

• Hinchliffe, Peter (2003). "The Lent Papers" Helmut Lent. Bristol, UK: Cerberus Publishing. ISBN 978-1-84145-105-3. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)

It comes from Cerberus Publishing, for which a web site does not appear to exist. From the listing of their titles, it appears to be a small-time militaria publisher with unknown fact-checking and reliability. I could not find much about the author.

Unless 3rd party references are presented to attest to the source's quality, neutrality and reliability, I'd consider it to be a WP:QS. I tagged the article accordingly. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:30, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

This book is held by dozens of libraries, including the Fort Leavenworth Combined Arms Research Library, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, and university libraries in Australia, the UK, Canada and the US. I've de-tagged it accordingly. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:50, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Wehrmachtbericht references

The article claims six Wehrmachtbericht references, which are described as "...an honour and was entered in the Orders and Decorations' section of one's Service Record Book" with no source. One of the references translates as "Reported additionally to the Wehrmachtberich: Geschwaderkommodore Oberstleutnant Helmut Lent, recipient of the highest German medal of bravery, found a flier's death. With him the Luftwaffe loses their most successful night fighter, who in combat against the British nocturnal terror attacks achieved 102 aerial victories." This is an obituary; do we have a reliable source that describe it as an "honor" or anything other than routine news reporting? –dlthewave ☎ 01:58, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

• Remove: these were OKW press releases. --K.e.coffman (talk) 03:26, 1 October 2018 (UTC)