Talk:Helmut Wick/Archive 1

Archive 1

JG1 and JG2

At this diff I have, I hope, clarified the rather confusing sentences describing the mistake in Wick's intended assignment to JG 1, and his resulting choice. I have tried to keep the meaning completely unchanged since I don't have access to the reference. If I've got it wrong, it may be a sign that the previous version was too confusing for me to understand - please correct me, but please also write what actually happened in simpler language. Richard Keatinge (talk) 12:29, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! Richard Keatinge (talk) 16:11, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Sea of blue, Third Reich, translations

I have questions/comments about this edit: Restore reviewed verson. In my understanding, the fact that the article has been reviewed does not preclude further improvements to it, or taking note that the acceptable practices may have changed in the interim.

• This is WP:SEAOFBLUE: "German Luftwaffe ace" (reverted version was: "was a German ace in the Luftwaffe")
• The Third Reich is currently considered to be a Nazi propaganda term; Nazi Germany is more neutral. Please see Nazi_Germany#Name.
• Translations: what purpose do they serve in the context of the article?

K.e.coffman (talk) 23:10, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Helden der Wehrmacht

I removed this work not used for citations:

• Frey, Gerhard; Herrmann, Hajo: Helden der Wehrmacht — Unsterbliche deutsche Soldaten (in German). München, Germany: FZ-Verlag GmbH, 2004. ISBN 3-924309-53-1.

Pls also see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history/Coordinators/Archive_44#Helden_der_Wehrmacht.

Pls let me know of any concerns. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:11, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Helmut Wick. 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/20140506134234/http://www.bbm.org.uk/Klein.htm to http://www.bbm.org.uk/Klein.htm

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 13:20, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Tags

The article's prose is largely single-sourced to:

• Ringlstetter, Herbert (2005). Helmut Wick, An Illustrated Biography of the Luftwaffe Ace and Commander of Jagdgeschwader 2 During the Battle of Britain. Atglen, PA: Schiffer Publishing. ISBN 978-0-7643-2217-4. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)

The source comes from Schiffer Publishing known for producing POV driven materials on the German armed forces during World War II. Given the WP:QS nature of the source, the level of detail in the currently is WP:UNDUE. I tagged the article accordingly.

Here's the related diff; pls see edit summary for rationale behind the reductions. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:12, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi K.e.coffman (talk · contribs), would you please hold off on your detail and pov changes until we resolve this issue, currently under discussion on the Werner Mölders page? Thank you! auntieruth (talk) 13:49, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

If the only way you can discredit a source is by attacking the publisher, you need to try again. There's nothing inherently wrong with Schiffer - they've published a number of works by Siegfried Breyer, who is a well-respected naval historian, for example. Find a negative review of Ringlstetter's book, and then we can talk about it. Parsecboy (talk) 14:24, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

That's not how WP:QS works. This reminds me of a discussion I had with another editor who demanded that I provide sources "specifically criticising the factual information provided by Kurowski specifically about Otto Kittel" (emphasis in the original). To quote another editor from that discussion: "The onus to show reliability is on whoever proposes the source" and "You don't get to shift the burden of proof. On Wikipedia, sources are not by default assumed to be reliable". (More at: Talk:Otto_Kittel#Further_discussion). Please also see identifying reliable sources. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:54, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

No, but you do have a responsibility to do due diligence if you're going to denigrate a source. Ringlstetter has written numerous books (1 2, for example) through GeraMond Verlag, which seems to be a reputable publisher. The book in question appears to have been originally published here through Motorbuch Verlag, which it seems is the German equivalent of the Osprey series, though unlike the Ospreys it covers topics beyond military history – while not the highest quality source, I don't see anything particularly offensive about it. Parsecboy (talk) 16:02, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Parsecboy regarding this source, you have to be able to put something up to make it questionable. Detagging. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:28, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Propaganda origins

Here's additional information via de.wiki (Helmuth Wick#Nachleben als NS-Idol):

• From 1941 several biographies Wick appeared in the form of Heftroman [pulp booklets] and a book based on Propagandakompanie material. These representations were designed according to the Nazi war-time propaganda, with Wick and his exploits hagiographically exaggerated. These include the 1941 16-page propaganda edition Major Wick - the model of the German fighter pilot and a 1943 48-page biographical description written by the author Franz Ludwig Neher, which appeared in the propaganda series Our Fighter Pilots. (...)
• 1943 also saw the publication of the book Helmut Wick: The life of an aviation hero, written by Josef Grabler, a member of a propaganda company. The book was based on propaganda war reports and appeared in the series Eagle Library, published by the Luftwaffe propaganda service. (...)
• A book by the amateur historian Herbert Ringlstetter, published in the Motorbuch Verlag in 2000, paraphrases Nazi propaganda anecdotes without a clear source of their origin. Ringlstetter states that his publication is largely based on a photo album and two diaries by Franz Fiby, a fighter pilot who flew joint engagements with Wick. This diary had already been used by the Nazi propaganda texts. Wick himself did not keep a diary against those dates. Battle descriptions, which are published in the Grabler's 1943 publication as quotes from Wick's diary, can be found in Ringlstetter as statements by Wicks supposedly provided by him to a member of a propaganda company.

Given the connection to war-time propaganda of the Ringlstetter's source, I believe the onus is on the editors who wish to remove the tag to demonstrate that the source meets WP:RS and WP:MILMOS#SOURCES guidelines. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:48, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Project ratings

Since this article has failed an A-Class Review at MILHIST, I've changed the rating for all other projects to Start-class. The rating was added to all project banners by MILHIST; none of the other projects have rated it A-class. –dlthewave ☎ 20:39, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Picture Date - What's your source?

You claim the picture shows Wick on Oct 6th 1940. How'd you know? What's your source?

This photograph is from our German Federal Archive - sig. no. 146-1968-015-19 - and dated Sept/beginning of Oct 1940 (approx.). https://www.bild.bundesarchiv.de/dba/de/search/?topicid=dcx-thes_personen_77k24cx2rvd1bc6iu5c2

So, nobody there seems to know the exact date. How come you 'know'?

In this picture he's wearing the Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross (around his neck), clearly no oak leaf visible, at least for the trained eye or when you zoom in. But he's awarded the Knight's Cross with Oak Leaf on Oct 6th 1940, hence he'd be wearing it on that particular day, don't you think? Although it could have been shot before the actual presentation.

So, the latest date would be Oct 5th or 6th, the earliest, however, September 1940, when he's promoted Captain, since he's a captain already in this picture. Better seen here, if you are able to count the wings on the tab (3): https://www.bild.bundesarchiv.de/dba/de/search/?topicid=dcx-thes_personen_77k24cx2rvd1bc6iu5c2 But note, that the original resolution is 2731x3769 pixel. You can buy it of you wanted to see all the tiny details.

Rest assured that they're experts in dating archived photographs at the Federal Archive. If this picture was to be dated Oct 6th, they had done it, but they didn't and so it's unclear. It's at earliest from beginning of Sept (after his promotion to Captain of the Luftwaffe), but before the Knight's Cross with Oak Leaves (awarded on Oct 6th 1940) and of course before it was published on Oct 22th 1940.

I saw another claim somewhere on an English 'Wiki' that the picture was taken on Oct 22th 1940, which is also false, read again above, it was published on Oct 22th, not taken, and because it took time to develop the actual photographs back then, then print it, publish it and then, I don't know if I have mentioned it already, there's still a Knight's Cross with Oak Leaf missing in the picture, it also wasn't taken on Oct 22th. Just saying. In case you wanted to investigate further wrong sources and came up with the same made up date like others.

And here you can see him with the Knight's Cross WITH Oak Leaf, that's how it would look like, but still as a Captain, thus it's taken after the presentation of the Oak Leaf on Oct 6th but still before his promotion to Major on Oct 19th 1940, gives a date of Oct 1940. There's no more exact date possible either https://www.bild.bundesarchiv.de/dba/de/search/?topicid=dcx-thes_personen_77k24cx2rvd1bc6iu5c2

Because of your false information it is now spread all over the net, because other people who've no clue either, take it for serious informations, like obtained from experts, and copy it and paste it everywhere, like on Pinterest and where not... it's a plague with these Wikis. Everywhere! Laymen pretend to be experts because they are allowed to write their OPINIONS in an encyclopaedia ... Should be prohibited. All this so called knowledge which is in fact either just half-lnowledge at best or even plain wrong has infested the entire mankind. No wonder that everything gets worse and worse onm this planet, because every Joe Blow makes decisions based on nonsense nowadays.

The source for the claim is Ringlstetter, see page 83. Ringlstetter states that the picture was taken on 6 October prior to him leaving JG 2 for the Oak Leaves presentation. On that page you will find a series of pictures, of which the one in question is just one, before Wick departs. Nevertheless, Ringlstetter could be wrong. Cheers MisterBee1966 (talk) 04:58, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

• Ringlstetter, Herbert (2005). Helmut Wick, An Illustrated Biography of the Luftwaffe Ace and Commander of Jagdgeschwader 2 During the Battle of Britain. Atglen, PA: Schiffer Publishing. ISBN 978-0-7643-2217-4.

Untitled

Please do NOT correct this article without using credible sources!! HerBert - what is your source on the year of birth of Wick's son? By the way, I have some old correspondence of Wick's and his friends did call him Sigfried!!

Walters year of birth: Walter Wick himself. What's your main sources? Could I have a look at one of these correspondences? Greetings HerBert

Individual reassessment

GA Reassessment

The following discussion 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.

---

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Helmut Wick/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

The article fails criterion #2b "all in-line citations are from reliable sources". The article is largely based on a work by an amateur historian (Ringlstetter, Herbert (2005). Helmut Wick, An Illustrated Biography of the Luftwaffe Ace and Commander of Jagdgeschwader 2 During the Battle of Britain. Atglen, PA: Schiffer Publishing. ISBN 978-0-7643-2217-4. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)), the contents of which can be traced to war-time propaganda; please see:

• Talk:Helmut Wick#Propaganda origins.

Given the questionable source, the article also fails criterion #4 as being non-neutral. --K.e.coffman (talk) 17:55, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

It's also A-class, I see. ——SerialNumber54129 19:31, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

The updated link to the original A-class review is: Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Helmut Wick/archive1. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:34, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

• I would be less concerned about the Ringlstetter-source and more concerned with two of the other sources. For some reason, we are using as sources:
  • A 1943 book by F. L. Neher, published by Hanns Arens Verlag. Far from an up-to-date source, and since it was published during World War II in Berlin, I would expect it to censor some details. Nazi Germany is not known for its freedom of the press.
  • A 1940 article from The New York Times, which mostly criticizes statements which Wick made in a news conference. Clearly a primary source, reflecting the views of the American press on Wick.Dimadick (talk) 19:42, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

• Notwithstanding the possible issues concerning the sourcing, parts of the prose reflect common errors when translating from German to English, leading to the suppositions that some of the text - attributed for example to the NYT (paywall) was in fact from a German language original (Ringlstetter?). Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:34, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
• Delist. I am convinced by K.e.coffman's reasoning above that Ringsletter was likely based off of Nazi propaganda. The main question is whether there are better sources, or if there are simply no high-quality, in-depth sources about this person and therefore it's not possible to write a GA on him. buidhe 12:50, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
• Delist. Further to my comment above, I have now thoroughly examined the more detailed de.Wiki article: Ringlstetter states that his publication is based largely on a photo album and two diaries by Franz Fiby, a fighter pilot who flew joint missions with Wick. This diary had already been used by Nazi propaganda writers. Wick himself did not have a diary at the time. Battle descriptions, which are in the Grabler's 1943 publication as quotations from Wicks diary are identified, can be found in Ringlstetter as unspecified verbal descriptions of Wick or as Wicks told a war correspondent. It is safe to assume therefore, that Ringlstetter is not a reliable source. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:40, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
• Delist per above. This certainly should have been caught by the GA reviewer, and the fact that it then sailed through A-class is slightly—worrying. ——SerialNumber54129 15:10, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
• Comment Everything ever written is "biased" based on the circumstances and culture of the writer. "Propaganda" and "bias" accusations are modern terms. How about adding the above comments and references to the article, rather than putting this in the discussion?

What did Helmut Wick do during his lifetime? is the question to address here -- within the context of when and where he lived and who wrote about him -- and when he was written about. This discussion includes a lot of information throwing light on when he has written about and probable biases. Why not simply add this to the article? Outlier59 (talk) 03:13, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Biased sources can be reliable or unreliable; Ringlstetter is the latter. Criterion #2b says: "all in-line citations are from reliable sources". K.e.coffman (talk) 18:40, 21 January 2019 (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.