Talk:Otto Kittel/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 04:09, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Driveby notes from GAN

• Lead: "claimed all of his victories against the Soviet Red Air Force flying the Messerschmitt Bf 109 and Focke-Wulf Fw 190" - correct me if I'm wrong but these were the only two fighter families they used in the East (the heavies were not needed there). So is it really significant for the lead?

Incorrect. He could quite easily have flown the Bf 110. Lay readers won't understand what he flew anyway. Dapi89 (talk) 16:09, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

• "By February 1943 he had only reached 39 kills which was not a significant total compared with some German aces" - again, a correct statement but in the lead it makes a wrong impression of "an easy war". The man survived two years in the air, he needs no apologies.

No. He had survived 18 months and had not seen much combat against a highly trained opponent as he would do later. Dapi89 (talk) 16:09, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

• Language: being Russian I'm not the best advisor on English writing, but many sentences read like riddles. "During his training and early career Hannes Trautloft became a role model who offered advice to Kittel." (the previous sentence starts with During too), "shot down and forced landed owing to return fire" etc. The article needs a lot of copyedit, not as much for grammar as for consistency, logic and flow.

Logic is fine and flow is fine. Dapi89 (talk) 16:09, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

• "By the winter, 1941—1942" - it is not clear if it's "by the beginning of winter" or "during the winter" or... and anyway, "winter" in Norther Russia could be anything, perhaps there's a clearer definition of time? It it's what preceded the Iron Cross (Oct.41) then there's no need for winter at all.

Doesn't make any sense. By the winter of 191-42 means by the winter of 1941-42. Dapi89 (talk) 16:09, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

• "claimed two Shturmoviks to for his 13—14 aerial victories" - could there be a clearer way to say it (say, "brought the count to 14 kills")?

No. Dapi89 (talk) 16:09, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

• "46 victories, including all types" - "all types" not necessary.

Yes it is. Dapi89 (talk) 16:09, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

• "removed his dashboard clock (all pilots were ordered to do so)" - this needs an explanation, maybe in a footnote - why? Did he have to carry it back or somehow dispose of it, unknown to the enemy, or?

Can be explained. Dapi89 (talk) 16:09, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

• "His comrade Herbert Brönnle advised him" - this Brönnle drops out of nowhere. Did this talk happen well before the crash, or was he hovering in the air ... If it indeed happened well in advance how could he know exact 255 degrees (he could not predict where Kittel would crash, could he?)

Can be clarified. It happened during the flight. Dapi89 (talk) 16:09, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

• "At night he crossed the frozen lake and made it to German lines after three days." - now that's important. Did he make the whole home run, from crash landing to German lines, in three days? Or was it three days just to cross the lake? looking at the map this is an improbable option but the readers don't have maps at hand. Or to get from the other side of the lake to the Germans?

I can clarify that it was three days from crash to saftey. Dapi89 (talk) 16:09, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

• There's something wrong with geography. Please re-check your sources. Both Demyansk and Staraya Russa are south from Lake Ilmen. How did he reach the lake if, as instructed by Boehle, he indeed headed west?

Quite easily. He was over Demyansk, he was advised to travel N-W to Russa and cross the lake. Demyansk was and is south-east of the said location (Russa) and Lake I'. Dapi89 (talk) 16:09, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

• Also please re-check your sources about the location of JG 54 in March 1943. On March 4 - March 22 the Soviets waged an assault against Staraya Russa (operation Polar Star). It ultimately failed, but I have doubts that the Luftwaffe still kept an operating JG within the reach of Soviet artillery.

It is correct. I need not clarify the fact that that Geschwader was three Gruppen strong, and different units served at different locations. Dapi89 (talk) 16:09, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

• The first two paragraphs of Baltic and Courland read like a database: date, score, date, score... They need some soul behind the numbers.

I don't agree. Several ace articles have made it to GA this way. This a wikipedia, designed for statements of fact, not reterical flurishes! And there isn't much to say anyway. Dapi89 (talk) 16:09, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

• The last fight. If, indeed, it was fought at 100-150 meters (why 820 feet, btw? please correct) then parachute was useless. A downed pilot simly has no time left to react, and it's too low to bail out anyway.

Speculation that doesn't help. I just stated the facts. Besides, he may have been able to force land and pilots have been known to survive jumps from that altitude. Dapi89 (talk) 16:09, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Good luck, East of Borschov 14:54, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestions. Dapi89 (talk) 16:09, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Otto Kittel/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: JonCatalán^(Talk) 16:00, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Comments: Comments on the text and the review will come soon. Before commenting I will read the article and copyedit where I believe is fit. Feel free to revert anything you believe inappropriate.

• I copyedited the text a bit, mostly reducing redundancies and marginally improving the flow. All in all, the text is concise and clear, and the article comes off as complete to a layman to the topic, such as myself.
• Some things regarding the references:

1. Page rangers are shown with an en dash (the shorter one), not an emdash; by the way, the same goes for dates. In fact, all ranges between numbers are shown with an en dash. I changed the dates, but not the references (forgot to do them when I was copyediting). Done
2. Sources listed in the bibliography but unused in the referencing of the article need to be moved to a "further reading" section. This includes sources such as Bergström 2007, Bergstrom 2003, Helden der Wehrmacht II 2003, et cetera. Done

• The article seems neutral, although you tend to use words like "score" a lot, which come off as slightly biased towards the pilot. However, I figure this is common language for topics revolving around aerial warfare during the Second World War. The only thing I would say to keep in mind is sympathy towards the Soviet victims. Done
• File:Emil Lang Oak Leaves.jpg is copyright protected. Since you have a free image of Kittel, I'm not sure the fair use tag is justified in this case. Done

Otherwise, the article looks good. Once the above is taken care of I can go ahead and promote the article to GA. JonCatalán^(Talk) 17:25, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Awesome! Give me a minute or two to promote. JonCatalán^(Talk) 18:22, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Kurowski

Initial discussion

Franz Kurowski is not a WP:RS source per WP:MILMOS, as he's not a reputable historian; please see:

• Franz Kurowski, a veteran of the Eastern front, saw his two major works released in the U.S. in 1992 (Panzer Aces) and 1994 (Infantry Aces). Smelser & Davis write: "Kurowski gives the readers an almost heroic version of the German soldier, guiltless of any war crimes, actually incapable of such behavior... Sacrifice and humility are his hallmarks. Their actions win them medals, badges and promotions, yet they remain indifferent to these awards." Kurowski's accounts are "laudatory texts that cast the German soldier in an extraordinarily favorable light", they conclude.

References

I plan to copyedit the article to remove dubious or non-notable details, along with military stats and operations results, attributed to this source. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:24, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

I think we have discussed this before. First research whether the facts are incorrect, then remove. Removal of information based on the assumption that the source is not reliable is the wrong approach. Cheers MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:49, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment. Here are the sections that I find Kurowski to be an unreliable source:

• Kittel claimed his first victory on 22 June 1941, the opening day of Operation Barbarossa. Kittel took time to amass his personal tally of aerial victories. By February 1943, he reached 39 kills, relatively insignificant when compared with some other German aces. In 1943, his tally began to increase when JG 54 began to operate the Fw 190. Kittel earned the Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross (Ritterkreuz des Eisernen Kreuzes) on 29 October 1943, for reaching 120 aerial victories. By the time he was officially awarded the decoration he had a tally of 123. A large number of his Soviet victims included the IL-2 Shturmovik aircraft, leading the German Army to call him the "Butcher Killer", a nickname they had given to the tough Shturmovik. -- military statistics cited to a non WP:RS source

• Edith had travelled into occupied Soviet territory near the front line to marry Kittel. - not notable

• By the time of the Yugoslavian surrender, on 17 April 1941, JG 54 had claimed 376 aerial victories during the entire war. Kittel had yet to achieve a kill. During the course of the campaign Kittel acted as wingman for his staffel leader, who was the first to engage any enemy aircraft. -- military statistics cited to a non WP:RS source

• On this date he claimed a Yakovlev Yak-1 and a Soviet bomber. Despite his two victories, Kittel got off to a slow start in combat. On 30 June 1941 he downed his first Ilyushin Il-2 Shturmovik. -- military statistics cited to a non WP:RS source

• In mid-March Kittel claimed two Shturmoviks for his 13–14 aerial victories. However, his Bf 109 suffered damage and Kittel returned to base, resisting the urge to chase more and risk his life. His motto was to get back in one piece and avoid risks: "Take the safe route and avoid ill-considered and wild offensive tactics". -- military statistics and potentially unverifiable statements about "resisting the urge" etc

• In the end that alone produced success. Risking himself for a single victory was not Kittel's way. Within two months his tally had risen to 17. Sometime in May 1942 Kittel claimed a further two victories, one bomber and one fighter, in a single mission. During the combat he became involved in a dogfight with two experienced opponents. Using clever tactics, the Soviet fighters tried to force him into a trap; one chasing the other in an attempt to cut him off. Kittel's aircraft was fired on several times and hit. However, he managed to escape, in the process shooting down one of the enemy fighters. -- military statistics and potentially unverifiable statements about "not Kittel's way" etc

• Every now and again an enemy aircraft would be sighted and shot down, but Kittel was frustrated. The ground crews kept up his spirits. -- potentially unverifiable/non-notable statements about "frustrated", "spirits" etc

• On 19 February 1943, Feldwebel Kittel achieved his 39th victory, which was also JG 54's 4,000th of the war. JG 54 Geschwaderkommodore (Wing Commander) Hannes Trautloft congratulated Kittel and said the following: "I have instructed that you're no longer to be assigned as wingman. Instead you're to be sent on freie Jagd [combat patrol] on your own whenever there's an opportunity." -- not notable / potentially unverifiable

• Kittel, in particular, was pleased. The Fw 190 was an ideal interceptor against the tough and heavily armoured Shturmovik, his favourite target. At this point, Kittel's victory tally climbed rapidly. -- not notable / potentially unverifiable ("pleased", "his favorite target")

• By mid-March 1943, Kittel had reached 46 victories, encompassing all types of aircraft. -- military statistics cited to a non WP:RS source

• His comrade, and a member of the flight, Herbert Broennle, advised him to hide after landing, to travel only by night and use a compass on a heading of 255 degrees (north-west) which would take him to Stayara Russa, towards JG 54's base behind German lines. Broennle himself had been shot down under the same circumstances in 1941, and had experience. Kittel ran for the nearest forest after landing. Several Russian women and children saw the crash from two houses nearby and came running out. No men were in sight. When Kittel got to the forest he found he had left his emergency rations behind, having only chocolate bar with him. He continued through the forest, able to move through the forest during the day unseen, resting often. Needing to eat, he raided several empty houses and found clothes but no food. Determined to find food, and now looking like a Russian peasant, he passed through several Soviet checkpoints looking for something to eat. -- potentially unverifiable

• On 10 June 1943 Kittel achieved another kill to reach 50. -- military statistics cited to a non WP:RS source

• Kittel had achieved a one kill per day average to reach 94 victories on 4 September 1943. -- military statistics cited to a non WP:RS source

• Kittel continued to increase his tally, shooting down another 50 aircraft by 26 August 1944, bringing his overall total to 200. -- military statistics cited to a non WP:RS source

• By 13 February 1945, Kittel had a personal total of 266 aerial victories. -- military statistics cited to a non WP:RS source

• Witnesses from Kittel's formation reported that a Shturmovik had been shot down by Kittel before he himself was killed during the air battle having scored his 267th and final victory. -- military statistics cited to a non WP:RS source

References

I see over-reliance on mostly one source. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:13, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

I aggree to you last point. To add to that, the article has issues in encyclopedic prose, I agree to that as well. But that is not the fault of the source. The core facts of the article, such as background, dates, awards and aerial victories, area of operations, etc. look correct and I see no issue with citing Kurowski as source. I suggest you rework the prose in step one, step two back up the facts with other sources, expose contradictions and let's see from there. Cheers MisterBee1966 (talk) 04:40, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment. I do think that the non-encyclopedic material is coming from Kurowski as the thrust of it is consistent with citations from his works in The Myth of the Eastern Front and the book's general description of the "gurus" (including Kurowski) as

“authors, (who) have picked up and disseminated the myths of the Wehrmacht in a wide variety of popular publications that romanticize the German struggle in Russia….. who insist on authenticity in their writings, combine a painfully accurate knowledge of the details of the Wehrmacht, ranging from vehicles to uniforms to medals, with a romantic heroicization of the German army fighting to save Europe from a rapacious Communism. There is little in the way of historical context in the writings of these men. They honor particularly the soldiers of the Waffen-SS, without bothering to tell us of the war of racial enslavement and annihilation these men pursued in the East.”

Kurowski's numbers may be accurate, but I think it reflects poorly on the article, especially a GA one, to be built almost exclusively on such a source.

I any case, I'll begin by condensing/removing the non-encyclopedic prose and will see from there. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:12, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

It seems that the book The Myth of the Eastern Front" by Smelser & Davies is not without criticism itself. It is relatively poorly rated on Amazon. I would be careful to draw all your conclusions from having read this book alone. As I said before, it adds another angle which should be considered when working here on Wikipedia, but it does not invalidate nor does it replace other sources.MisterBee1966 (talk) 06:12, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

In addition The Myth of the Eastern Front, I've read other sources that support Smelser and Davies's findings on the misconceptions that warped the view of Eastern Front military operations up to the late 1990s. Much of the historiography on WWII was reassessed since then, as the Soviet archival sources became available to Western and Russian historians following the dissolution of the Soviet Union. Here are some of the sources that discuss this trend and its consequences:

• MacKenzie, S.P. (1997). Revolutionary Armies in the Modern Era: A Revisionist Approach. New York: Routledge. ISBN 978-0-415-09690-4.
• Citino, Robert M. (2012). The Wehrmacht Retreats: Fighting a Lost War, 1943. Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas. ISBN 978-0-7006-1826-2.
• Wette, Wolfram (2007). The Wehrmacht: History, Myth, Reality. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. ISBN 9780674025776.
• Kienle, Polly (2005). "Still Fighting for the Myth: German Wehrmacht Officers' Reports for the U.S. Historical Division". H-net.com. {{cite web}}: |archive-date= requires |archive-url= (help)

I'm currently reading Ostkrieg by Stephen Fritz and it opens with the discussion on how the perceptions in the West had been reshaped by cold-war German narratives, so that's another source that can go on the list above.

See also: Revisionist tradition outside of HIAG for more discussion on the topic, by the historians Henning Pieper, Bernd Wegner and more.

Specifically on The Myth of the Eastern Front, since there are concerns about its veracity, here are two reviews: Tracing the Resurrection of a Reputation: How Americans Came to Love the German Army by a professional historian ("The book is a fascinating immersion into a simple but important question: How did the German soldiers who fought on the eastern front during World War Two become hero figures to so many Americans?"), and another one, surprisingly nuanced, from feldgrau.net. 06:35, 21 February 2016 (UTC)K.e.coffman (talk)

What has any of this got to do with Otto Kittel?

The opinions expressed about the source by K.e.coffman should be dismissed as personal. This article includes events, facts and figures from Kittel's operational life as a fighter pilot. Period. That K.e.Coffman deems information dubious, or not notable is of no relevance to anyone or anything. Moreover, where does Kurowski delve into stereotypes about the Eastern Front? Where is there evidence of specific unreliability? How can you find/infer these complicated themes and historical debates in such a brief article about one man? What have all these quotations that pertain to war crimes got to do with these fighting men?

Something sensible and substantive must be offered in this discussion for the complaints to be taken seriously. Dapi89 (talk) 15:08, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

The article is short because I've already cut out the non-verifiable details and non-encyclopedic prose sourced to Kurowski; please see the diff.

Specific to Kurowski, the opinions expressed above are not mine; they come from a WP:RS source -- two historians who studied the subject of World War II revisionism. I would encourage you to get the book, instead of calling others "complainers" which is not in the spirit of WP:Civility. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:13, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Revert

Dapi89, I noticed that you reverted the recently changes. Please note that I achieved consensus for them with MisterB (please see above). I would like to restore the changes, since both MisterB and I did substantial work on the article, which I believe was an improvement in its tone and encyclopedic nature. Please advise. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:31, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Please answer the questions and do not hide behind WP:Civility because you cannot answer them. There is nothing uncivil about challenging you.

You didn't achieve consensus. I can see that the above conversation directly contradicts that. For the sake of civility, please be honest and not deceptive.

These opinions, yours or otherwise, are irrelevant unless they point to specific, unreliable information about this subject (Otto Kittel). All other criticism of Kurowski's other books on broader works are irrelevant.

With regard to the changing of the tone: I have no particular issue with this. Please understand: these "encyclopedic" changes involved the annihilation of a lot of pertinent information. Dapi89 (talk) 18:56, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

MisterB has largely not challenged my edits, and where he did, I did not object. So I see no contradiction to the consensus above. He advised above against over-reliance on one source (Smelser & Davies) to which I responded with the two reviews and other sources that discuss the same trend, to indicate that The Myth of the Eastern Front is not a fringe book.

Please indicate which pertinent information was annihilated. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:07, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

There was no agreement on Kurowski's reliability or the removal of information, only style. It is contradicted by your edits, for which you had no consensus. I repeat for the third time: how does the introduction of sources about other topics relate to the reliability of Kurowski's work on Kittel?. The fact is, they don't. They have no relevance. Complaining about the over-reliance on one source is useless when you can't introduce another on Otto Kittel.

Scroll down the edit history to the three consecutive edits in which you deleted 5,000 characters from this article. The "Leningrad Front" in particular was massacred. It removed an entire block of information concerning Kittel's survival, in winter, behind Soviet lines. This is important (since you are interested in placing things in context) to Kittel's story. Dapi89 (talk) 19:28, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

On the Leningrad front material, I replaced this content:

• He removed his precision board clock, an intricately engineered instrument (all pilots were ordered to do so) and landed his Fw 190 which slid 150 metres (490 ft) to a stop in a snow-covered field. His comrade, and a member of the flight, Herbert Broennle, advised him to hide after landing, to travel only by night and use a compass on a heading of 255 degrees (north-west) which would take him to Stayara Russa, towards JG 54's base behind German lines. Broennle himself had been shot down under the same circumstances in 1941, and had experience. Kittel ran for the nearest forest after landing. Several Russian women and children saw the crash from two houses nearby and came running out. No men were in sight. When Kittel got to the forest he found he had left his emergency rations behind, having only chocolate bar with him. He continued through the forest, able to move through the forest during the day unseen, resting often. Needing to eat, he raided several empty houses and found clothes but no food. Determined to find food, and now looking like a Russian peasant, he passed through several Soviet checkpoints looking for something to eat. Kittel spoke Czech and some Russian and managed to evade detection. On the route he stopped at several points and was given food. Eventually Kittel made it to the edge of Lake Ilmen. At night he crossed the frozen lake and made it to German lines. Kittel was 'recaptured' three days after crashing by a German sentry.

With:

• On 14 or 15 March 1943, while on a mission over the Demyansk pocket, Kittel's Fw 190 suffered engine failure. He crash landed and walked three days to the German lines 80 kilometers (50 mi) away.

The first passage must have come from Kittel (?), since he was traveling alone, and is potentially unverifiable. The article presents this content as a statement of fact. I find a lot of these details non-encyclopedic, such as "having only chocolate bar with him"; "he passed through several Soviet checkpoints"; "he stopped at several points and was given food"; etc. I condensed it to potentially notable details -- he crashed; traveled for 80 km; he made it to German lines in three days. That's straightforward, without non-encyclopedic prose.

References

On the question "What have all these quotations that pertain to war crimes got to do with these fighting men?" -- Recent historiography reveals that, on the Eastern Front, there was often overlap between fighting and war crimes. For example, here are the book titles:

• War Of Extermination: The German Military In World War II, edited by Hannes Heer and Klaus Naumann. Berghahn Books. 2004. ISBN 1-57181-232-6. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• Stephen Fritz: Ostkrieg: Hitler's War of Extermination in the East. 2015.
• Jeff Rutherford: Combat and Genocide on the Eastern Front: The German Infantry’s War, 1941-1944. 2014. Here the a 20 min video interview with the author.

The historians use the term "war of extermination" (Vernichtungskrieg) to describe the phenomenon of dramatic escalation of violence on the Eastern Front since the invasion of the Soviet Union. Vernichtungskrieg describes the expansion of military operations into a racial war of annihilation, which reached a level of brutality never seen before. Wehrmacht and Waffen-SS willingly participated in this new type of war. For example, despite post-war claims by German generals that they did not pass on the Commissar Order and other criminal orders, recent research determined that 80% of German divisions on the Eastern Front implemented the order (cited via David Stahel).

Another insightful source on the subject is Neitzel, Sönke; Welzer, Harald (2012). Soldaten: On Fighting, Killing and Dying. Simon and Schuster. ISBN 978-1-84983-949-5. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help) -- here, you can hear first hand what German POWs were discussing while in US and British captivity (their conversation were surreptitiously recorded). The Wehrmacht soldier (mostly Heer and Luftwaffe) and Waffen-SS men freely talk about war crimes that they participated in or observed, such as:

• Strafing and bombing of civilians
• Deliberate starvation of Soviet POWs
• Mass shootings of Jews and commissars in plain view of the army
• Voluntary participation of soldiers in these mass shootings
• Executions of POWs
• Torture of prisoners
• Mass rape
• Reprisal shootings of civilians (so called hostages)
• Shooting and burning of civilians
• Burning down villages and killing off their entire population

Here are excerpts from a conversation by two Luftwaffe men in British captivity in 1940; events described happened in Sept 1939 (material is cited fromSoldaten):

Pohl: […] On the fourth day I was enjoying it. It was our before breakfast amusement to chase single soldiers through the fields […]

Meyer: But always against soldiers?

Pohl: People (civilians) too. We attacked the columns in the streets. […] We swerve to the left with all the machine guns firing like mad. You should have seen the horses stampede!

Meyer: Disgusting, that with the horses…

Pohl: I was sorry for the horses, but not at all for the people. But I was sorry for the horses up to the last day.

Meyer: One becomes dreadfully brutal in such undertakings.

Pohl: Yes, I’ve already said that on the first day it seemed terrible to me, but I said to myself: “Hell! Orders are orders.” On the second and third day I did not give a hoot, and on the fourth day I enjoyed it. But, as I said, the horses screamed. [….]

I was so annoyed when I was shot down; just before the second engine got hot, I suddenly had a Polish town beneath me. I dropped the bombs on it. I wanted to drop all the 32 bombs on the town. It was no longer possible, but 4 bombs dropped on the town. With 32 bombs, I would certainly have had 100 human lives on my conscience.

Meyer: Was there plenty of of traffic there?

Pohl: Chockablock. I wanted to drop a batch, because the whole place was full of people. […] It would have been great fun if it had come off. […] Sometimes I had 228 bombs, including 10kg bombs. We threw them into the midst of the people. And the soldiers. And incendiary bombs in addition.

Authors' commentary: “Pohl was taken out of the war long before the drastic escalation of violence that came with Germany’s invasion of the Soviet Union. […] He hunts down and kills people from the air, and he does not seem to be ideologically motivated when he describes bombarding cities and gunning down people. […] He enjoys killing and needs no other motivation. […] The senseless killing resembles a hunt, a sporting activity in which the only purpose is to be better than others, in this case, by hitting more people with bullets. That’s what angers Pohl about getting shot down. It spoiled the end of the hunt.”

In view of this recent historiography, the exalted depictions of Wehrmacht & Waffen-SS personnel I so often find on Wikipedia (including this one) are ahistorical. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:12, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

I agree to your point that the wording of the article in specific areas is not encyclopedic; this requires improving, no doubt. But what are you ultimately aiming for? Are you saying?

1. We need to find a more neutral and encyclopedic wording and we are good?
2. We restrict the use of Kurowski to information of the category "who", "what", "when" and "where". Information of the type "why" (interpretation), is politically/historically unsound and should not be derived from Kurowski.
3. Even if the wording were to be presented in a neutral and encyclopedic fashion, any information derived from Kurowski has to be considered unreliable and subsequently should be removed?

Where do you see this discussion heading to? You present arguments (from an abstract and global point of view) which are sound and I am not disputing, but they do not pertain to Kittel in a direct way, maybe indirectly only. Kittel was a real person, he fought in World War II, and he is notable according to the guidelines of Wikipedia (see WP:SOLDIER)! Your line of reasoning lets me assume that you are concerned that by pointing the readers to Kurowski, this article and Wikipedia in general, is implicitly confirming the revisionism of Kurowski (and potentially others). Is this the core issue here? Cheers MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:02, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

That was a very disappointing and dishonest answer to my question, K.e.coffman. But at least it is very easy to infer from it that you did massacre this portion of the text and it was not a change but a wholesale deletion of detail which is not acceptable.

Furthermore, you again cite your reasons as the unreliable or biased Franz Kurowski. You have also extended this to Kittel himself since you dismiss the story as unverifiable. So what if it is? The man was credited with 267 air victories. What unbiased, hidden message do you think that story gives a reader?

The prose given is adequate. Can it be improved, yes.

With regard to this strange idea, of trying to prove Kittel and Kurowski unworthy subjects: You've still failed to answer the fundamental questions posed to you. This has nothing to do with Otto Kittel. With this I am an in agreement with MisterBee1966. Dapi89 (talk) 16:41, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

I’ve been asked a general question (What have all these quotations that pertain to war crimes got to do with these fighting men?), and I responded in a general way.

Specific to Kurowski, I provided a source (reputable historians) that positions him as a “guru” and states that his accounts are "laudatory texts”. Kurowski's guru status extends to his entire body of work, thus casting doubts on the source in question. In the context of this article, this source also appears to be semi-fictional, introducing verbatim quotes from Kittel and his commander, along with potentially unverifiable details as to Kittel’s emotions, thoughts and actions.

Since it was apparent that we would not be able to reach consensus, I started a discussion on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard to get outside perspective.

To answer MisterB’s thoughtful and highly pertinent question, that’s TBD depending on the feedback from RSN. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:21, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Further discussion

Another irrelevant answer. We have told you, that answering questions in "a general way" on topics that have nothing to do with Otto Kittel, is useless to this article. Are these same "reputable historians", whom I cannot find, specifically criticising the factual information provided by Kurowski specifically about Otto Kittel? Your answer(s) have led us to conclude categorically no, which invalidate your complaints. Misterbee's question was exactly the same as the one I posed to you. In your attempt to be uncivil, you acknowledge the questions are important and you cannot answer them. You have also unveiled why you are here. Yet, you have provided no evidence that the information in this article is wrong, a lie or false in anyway and your opinion of Kurowski and his work on Kittel are unsupported and personal. At this juncture, it would be best to terminate the discussion since you have been given ample chance to prove your case and failed. Dapi89 (talk) 14:49, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, that's not how it works. A source is not considered reliable by default and only becomes unreliable with respect to particular statements explicitly refuted by other sources. On the contrary, the onus to show reliability is on whoever proposes the source. In this case, the source has been seriously criticised, so we would need a very strong argument indeed to accept it. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:02, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

No Stephan, that is how it works. The onus is on those making the allegation to prove their case. And yes it is Stephan. Until proven otherwise, the source is reliable. Particularly in view of the volume of well-received work by Kurowski. I refuse to believe that you cannot understand the nature of this thread and what is being asked of the editor making these accusations.

He has failed to show Kurowski as unreliable in relation to Kittel. He can't point to any area of this article that is unreliable. Do you understand that? You cannot possibly use another source, on an unrelated subject, which doesn't even discuss this topic [Otto Kittel] in its own musings, to caste doubt over this specific book (Kurowski on Kittel).

Logic has to prevail here. Dapi89 (talk) 10:06, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

The initial allegation is that Kurowski is reliable. You don't get to shift the burden of proof. On Wikipedia, sources are not by default assumed to be reliable - certainly not those published by fringe publishers and with a widely recognised bias. As far as I know, none of his books are "well-received" as factual histories among academic experts (I make no comment on his novels for kids) - either they are ignored, or criticised. And I don't think getting louder is helpful. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:50, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Really?????? Stephan, the initial allegation was that Kurowski was unreliable!!!!. Read the thread.

Excuse me? Are you saying the burden of proof is on the person asking for proof of the allegation??? You're not making any sense Stephan.

Widely recognised as biased?? So you're now making an allegation. Where is the proof that Kurowski is widely bias???

Well Stephan, "as far as I know" doesn't count. Would you like to point me to some reviews that are?

I'm afraid it has to be that way Stephan. I'm not certain you pay proper attention to what is being said, and it's the only way I can be sure you see it. Thanks for the confirmation.

I repeat, logic must prevail. Dapi89 (talk) 12:02, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

I disagree. I think you are confused about WP:RS and about the structure of the argument. And it might be a bit ironic to lecture me about logic ;-). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:46, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

What a weird nonsensical response. Stephan, editors have a brain each they can follow my points, but not yours. The logic of my position is undeniable. It really is a joke to say I can't understand the structure of the argument when you can't even get it right over a) who made the first allegation, and consequently who then has the burden of proof and b) despite repeated requested for proof have made continuous unsubstantiated claims.

Like the original editor, you've offered nothing to this discussion except contradictory and erroneous claims. Until you can debate while thinking clearly, and have a least some proof, then there is little more to talk about. Dapi89 (talk) 13:30, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

I want to ask a question on one very specific element as it pertains to Otto Kittel and Kurowski. The Wiki-article talks about Kittel's marriage and his son Manfred. This bit of information is currently attributed to Kurowski's book. I tried to verify this bit of information. Looking into Kurowski's book, he documented this aspect with family pictures of the wedding ceremony (page 52), Kittel on vacation with his wife following the wedding (page 54), and a contemporary image of the couple (page 63). Until recently, I could not find another source confirming nor denying this claim (marriage and child). In April 2015, the Badische Zeitung published an article about a man name Manfred Kittel, allegedly son of Otto Kittel, who is researching and investing his father's death. How should this very specific aspect be handled in this Wiki article? Cheers MisterBee1966 (talk) 06:22, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

RSN

Here's the thread on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard: Franz Kurowski for a GA article (WWII). At this point, it may be more appropriate to move the discussion there. K.e.coffman (talk) 15:04, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Unreliable sources tag

The article is primarily sourced to non RS Franz Kurowski -- pls see linked article. I tagged the article accordingly. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:45, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

I re-added the tag, as the sourcing concern has not been addressed. Here's a sample from Kurowski's writing (Panzer Aces):

The SS divisions disembarked east of Kharkov. Among the units was the the 13th Heavy Panzer Company of the 1st SS-Panzer Regiment under SS Captain Kling.

"The place is called Merefa. Behind us is Kharkov. The Russians will attack here and then try to encircle Kharkov."

"Nonsense, sir!" Shouted SS Sergeant First Class Hoflinger, a section leader in Wittmann's unit.

SS Staff Sgt Georg Lotzsch, known to all as the "Panzer General", because he knew everything about the Tiger tank, shook his head.

"There aren't enough of us, comrades. We must have escorting infantry and ..."

"Get ready, captain!" the executive officer called from the company commander's Tiger.

"All right comrades, everyone stays where they are and halts the enemy. Meyer and his motorcycle troops are up ahead. If we take off, then he's had it!"

You get the idea. The book contains no bibliography and no footnotes. There's no preface to explain what the material is based on. I've also looked at another book, in German, on the Afrika Korps. The setup is the same, although the German book had half a dozen of references in the back. Similar to Panzer Aces it contained no endnotes and no footnotes, and lots of dialog. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:39, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

CE

Did a quick ce, couldn't work out the date format since some were April 17, 1941 and others 17 April 1941. Is it intended to be in the American style (as with spellings) or the US armed forces style? Nice piece of work by the way. Feel free to revert my edits as desired. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 13:51, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

I am surprised to see it tagged: Use dmy dates|date=December 2014 and Use American English|date=December 2014. I assume that is correct but frankly have never worked on this article. Kierzek (talk) 19:34, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

The Diamonds article

I added a reference to a contemporary newspaper article about Kittel and it was very promptly deleted. Now, the reference I added was to a 1944 source that's in unsearchable, unOCRed Fraktur, and it just might be useful to someone. It's from the front page of that newspaper and would have appeared in hundreds of other newspapers that day. I felt the reference was appropriate and I added it. The article otherwise depends entirely on books and a 1944 secondary source is a useful thing to add, especially because it is open-access (albeit in German). This was the article describing the award of the Diamonds: November 11, 1944.

Clarification: The source in question has not been removed from the article. When I noticed that two articles had a fourth citation added (this one and Albrecht Brandi, I left a msg on the editor's Talk page, letting them know that this was not necessary: diff, as the fact of the award was not in dispute. The editor perhaps interpreted that I removed the source from this article, which I did not, as can be seen from article history. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:02, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Community reassessment

Otto Kittel

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Article has been delisted. While there was a suggestion that alternate sources be found for the Kurowski ones, the fact remains that it was been three weeks and no updates have been made to the article, which has an "unreliable sources" template on it. The "delist" arguments are cogent and sufficient to justify delisting; should alternative sources be found for the Kurowski half, the article can be submitted anew at GAN. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:08, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Stumbled upon Otto Kittel which appears to be a GA from 2010. Good articles are supposed to be "well written" and using "reliable sources". The majority of the article is sourced by Franz Kurowski, apparently a rather hagiographic, unreliable author about Germany in WW2. Furthermore, passages such as "Several Russian women and children saw the crash from two houses nearby and came running out. No men were in sight. When Kittel got to the forest he found he had left his emergency rations behind, having only chocolate bar with him," or "Risking himself for a single victory was not Kittel's way," or "During his training he was considered a good comrade on account of his unshakeable calm, presence of mind and sense of duty. Owing to his attributes, his superior officers treated him with respect," strike me as rather un-encyclopedic and either unsourced or – if the entire paragraph is sourced by the inline citation at its end – we are back to square one with this information sourced by Kurowski alone. There's a bunch of minor things like not capitalizing staffel but capitalizing it later, and whether it's really necessary to use the German word for squadron (though I don't know what the consensus is for that). I'm not an expert and judging by the article talk page, there seem to have been issues between contributing editors in the past, hence the request for community input. --CCCVCCCC (talk) 05:36, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Just wanted to highlight Keith-264's very quick contributions [1], already the article is starting to read much better. Although I dare say the reliance on that single source author an issue, as he comprises a half of the inline citations. Especially since most of the other references seem to be used to source rather dry statistics, e.g. dates, numbers, promotions, while for the "meaty" prose it's all Kurowski. --CCCVCCCC (talk) 16:18, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

• Delist: As a contributor to the Franz Kurowski article, I recommend delisting this article. The Kurowski source is non-encyclopedic and is not suitable to serve as a basis for a GA, or any article. I recommend limiting its use as much as possible. The acceptable use of this source may be for militaria details (I.e. details of uniforms, medals, vehicles, etc); the RS commenting on Kurowski's body of work list it to be passable for those, but not much else. K.e.coffman (talk) 15:59, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

• Delist: At first I was more worried about the flowery prose which was fixed in part, but after reading up more on the author in question I am for delisting, not a RS for a GA. Also I absolutely second what K.e.coffman said about the source in general, if there are other articles relying solely (or in large part) on it then they deserve attention as well. --CCCVCCCC (talk) 06:45, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

• Best to see if it can be salvaged, first, IMO. Can the info be sourced to a higher quality source than Kurowski?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:48, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
  • @Sturmvogel 66: Kurowski wrote over 400 books, including on such obscure subjects as Kittel. It's unlikely that there would be an RS covering Kittel's career in such level of detail. The only option (IMO) is to prune the article, which would not leave enough content for it to sustain a GA status. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:48, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
    • @CCCVCCCC: I've followed your advice and nominated Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Wolfgang Lüth/1 for community reassessment. Also, I think this discussion can be closed as "Delist" as it's been over a week since the last comment. I don't see a particular timeframe for keeping a GAR open at Wikipedia:Good article reassessment; but in addition to comments here, several editors edited the article following the nomination, and no objects to delisting have been raised. It seems reasonable to assume that the commenting period has been sufficient.
    • Edit: found this in instructions for "Guidelines for community reassessment discussion": "When a community reassessment has run its course, it can be closed by any uninvolved registered user. (Significant contributors to the article are "involved", as are reassessment nominators)". K.e.coffman (talk) 19:05, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Follow-up edits

I reduced the amount of Kurowski citations, as per the GAR that concluded. Please let me know if there are any concerns. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:53, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Recent bold edit

I've reverted the recent bold edits. They restored the article to the state at which it lost its GA status due to unreliably source (Kurowski) (diff), and then removed the 'offending' citations: diff, stating that the article will be "rebuilt with other sources".

Suggest doing this in userspace, rather than main space, as it seems highly unlikely that other sources would have the same level of detail as the known fabulist Kurowski. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:33, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

@Dapi89: Please compare the two versions between your two reverts diff. Yes, there's one source introduced, but the rest is just Kurowski narrative, with Kurowski citations templates removed. Please discuss on Talk page instead of reverting. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:07, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

"Kurowski's" narrative isn't his. It's been taken off other sources. Dapi89 (talk) 18:19, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

@Dapi89: Which ones? K.e.coffman (talk) 18:24, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Scutts, Bobb-Trautloft, and Spick, all published before Kurowski. Dapi89 (talk) 20:32, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Do they contain this detail:

• After exiting his aircraft, Kittel ran for the nearest forest after landing as several locals began emerging from nearby houses. When Kittel got to the forest, he found he had left his emergency rations behind, having only a chocolate bar with him. He continued through the forest. In the dense vegetation, he was able to move during the day unseen. Resting often, he raided several empty houses and found clothes but no food. Determined to find food, and dressed as a Russian peasant, he passed through several Soviet checkpoints looking for something to eat. Kittel spoke Czech and some Russian and managed to evade detection. En route, he stopped at several points and was given food, and eventually Kittel made it to the edge of Lake Ilmen.?

If so, which ones? K.e.coffman (talk) 20:41, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

I've just explained. And I'm not wasting time with this. Watch the article. Dapi89 (talk) 20:53, 16 February 2017 (UTC)