Talk:Manfred von Richthofen/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Portrait taken from http://www.awm.gov.au/1918/people/38931.htm

The image seems ro be copyrighted :

http://www.awm.gov.au/services/image_sales/user_photo_art.htm

According to a discussion I once had in the Village Pump, other guys recommended me that the process of digitalizing an image does not allow it to be copyrighted - the image is old, and the person who scanned it didnt make any creative effort. Yves

Although creative effort is required to create copyright in many jurisdictions, it is not the case in all. The UK, for example, simply requires that some work had to be done (The "sweat of the brow" test), not that it be creative work. The example used in the seminar where I learnt this (run by copyright lawyers!) was of creating a list by extracting names according to a rule from the (printed) telephone directory. It merely requires effort, not creative effort. Scanning, which may involve selecting material, scanning it, manipulation of the scanned image to rectify and/or crop it and possibly descreening, contrast/colour enhancement and so on certainly qualifies. So, whether or not copyright subsists in a scanned image of an original out of copyright depends on the legal jusridiction in which it was done!--APRCooper 22:48, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

When You look at the German version, You can find a different picture which I like even better. Perhaps somebody can change the picture, I am not skilled enough to do that.

---

'* This is controversal - was it really just the tails?
By the way, concerning the Red Baron's story, there are many divergences. Most of them related to imprecision, but at least one is controversal indeed - Who really killed the Red Baron? These issues, incluing also what some say - that he flew mostly with the Abatros planes, not Fokkers - may, and probably will, be treated in a later update.

"der rote kampfflieger"

I have removed the alias "der rote Kampfflieger". In 15 years, I have never ever come across this term where it was meant to refer to the red baron. In fact, the term would rather be associated with a red plane than the red baron.

Also, the term "Kampfflieger", while basically correct, is one of those german words that would never appear in any official document or encyclopedia because it can be considered low-level german and therefore hints at poor speaking skills of the person who is using it (no offense).

"der rote Baron", the red baron, is the name he is known by. Any other terms, while they might exist, will be very uncommon at best and therefore do not belong here.

LoneWolfJack 23:34, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Then I guess in 15 years you have never read Richthofen's own AUTOBIOGRAPHY which he happened to title Der Rote Kampfflieger ? Ckaiserca 23:27, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

The book you are referring to was written 90 years ago. ninety! Also, like you pointed out correctly, the title was chosen by himself, and it is quite possible that he was using that title to actually refer to the plane, not himself, even though he probably knew that everyone would associate this title with him. I will not display the same arrogance as you and just change the article back, assuming I can be nothing but right. But you should consider that the term "der rote Kampfflieger" will make every german's skin crawl. Also, it is not unlikely that a german confronted with this title will not initially know what you are talking about, while the term "red baron" will instantly hit home. LoneWolfJack 03:17, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Putting the title of Richtofen's own autobiograhy in an article about him is "arrogance?" That's a new one! Arrogance to me would be making a comment about the poor speaking skills of someone who would use a term like Der Rote Kampfflieger when Richthofen himself used it to title his own autobiography! Have you read the article about him on the German Wkipedia? Look for Der Rote Kampfflieger. It's in there! I don't think it's making their skin crawl. BTW. Take note of my name. See the "Kaiser" in there? Skin's still in the same place. . .Ckaiserca 18:35, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

wrong person

Frieda von Richthofen is not Manfred von Richthofen's sister. You were refering to Else von Richthofen.

She was his distant cousin.[1] I made the correction in the article. Postdlf 11:53 4 Apr 2004 (EST)

Lincoln College, Oxford

According to Lincoln College, Oxford, Richthofen was a distinguished alumnus of the College. The article doesn't mention when he was at Oxford. Does anyone know? Tonusperegrinus 19:55, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Couldn't find anything about Richthofen at the Lincoln College website, or on Google in connection with “Lincoln College” or “Oxford University”, except Wikipedia Rip-offs and Oxford University press books about him. -- chris_73 08:31, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I couldn't find anything on this either. For one thing this implies that Richthofen spoke English. Has anyone seen any reference for that? Cjrother 03:05, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

It would not be at all unusual for a German aristocrat to attend an English university. It is certainly not unusual for one to speak English!--Ckaiserca 02:47, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm aware that it wouldn't be unusual but I don't think I've ever seen a reference to Richtofen speaking English or for that matter going to Oxford. Does anyone have any references on his attending Oxford or should we remove this from the article? --Cjrother 21:09, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

It turns out that there was a Richthofen at Oxford, but it was not Manfred von Richtofen. It was in fact a 7th cousin of his! The Lincoln von Richthofen was Baron Wilhelm Friedrich Adam Lothar Max von Richthofen (1888-1962). He matriculated in 1913, so only spent one year in Oxford. According to Internet sources, his battels (accounts of Oxford college, especially for provisions.) bill was the highest for that year.Ckaiserca 15:57, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Who Killed the Red Baron?

NOVA did a story, "Who Killed the Red Baron?" in 2003. (spoiler coming up) It gives about 40 minutes of biography and 15 minutes of forensics. They explain that the bullet had to come from a distance - about 600 yards away - for the autopsy to show the path of the bullet. Further, its trajectory from below the right armpit up, exiting below the left nipple indicates a shot from the ground, right side. Buie and Evans, "by their own testimony,... were firing face on to the triplane so they could not have hit von Richthofen on the right hand side." Based on gunner position, timing and trajectory, NOVA credited Popkin, albeit with (IMO way too much of) a nod to uncertainty. [2] -- Ke4roh 01:33, 21 May 2004 (UTC)

Popkin is the most likely candidate by far, but there were so many Australian soldiers firing that no one can say for certain that it was him.

Also, I can't find any reference to Popkin or any other Australian being officially recogised, although the newly-formed RAF credited Brown with the kill. Grant65 (Talk) 05:46, May 23, 2004 (UTC)

The wording of the paragraph is now very confusing IMO. Was the baron turning his plane or merely turning around in his seat? Grant65 (Talk) 09:56, Dec 20, 2004 (UTC)

I thought the forensics on the NOVA program was pretty solid. Is there not a link or article on the PBS site about this? Wjbean 01:34, 2005 Apr 21 (UTC)

The section of the article titled "Who fired the fatal shot?" is confusingly written -- It would read better if we simply cut and pasted in this section of the "discussion" page. 65.91.82.62 01:27, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I believe something else. I recently saw a Discovery School documentary abou the same subject and it, very detailed, stated that Evans fired the bullet. There was a lot of forensic evidence shown and a historian's account who wrote a book on this subject.

The Discovery Channel must have this thing on high rotation! It seems to be based on the false premises that (1) Richthofen was shot from close range and (2) that Popkin only fired once. the PBS documentary, which came out after the Discovery program, supported a long range shot from Popkin on the baron's right hand side. The logic is explained in this article. It's difficult to see how Evans could have managed it. Or Buie, they were both in the same unit. I suggest you read Dr Geoffrey Miller's article, as linked from the article, which goes through the technicalities of the scenarios in detail. Grant65 | Talk 03:51, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

current Manfred von Richthofen

There is a Manfred von Richthofen who's the president of the Deutscher Sportbund. Is he related? Maybe that's someone to put on the page under Relatives of note. Really the only thing I've found for him is: http://www.dsb.de/index.php?id=535. BigBen212 21:40, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

--Ricardo Dirani 5 July 2005 18:58 (UTC) Suzanne Richtofen is a granddaughter of his who killed her parents, was in jail and is currently waiting judgement. That could be a "relative of note"...

Ricardo, I don't believe RIchtofen had a child. This women couldn't possibly be a granddaughter. I read a biography on RIchtofen a number of years ago, that speculated that he may have fathered a baby boy, but this was only speculatory. [Capt.Nero]

There's a BBC Article on this. 203.199.207.3 08:08, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Unsolved History Season 1 - Death of The Red Baron

In the Discovery Channel Series Unsolved History they pretty much rule out Bassett Popkin based on his own writings and a hand drawn map where he states that he did not shoot at Richthofen's plane at an angle that would have caused the fatal wound . The program gives the credit to Australian machine gunner Snowy Evans. There is more about the program to be found in this History News Network Article from the Ottawa Citizen --Ckaiserca 02:07, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm, I've read a lot on this over the years. Evans's claim is barely mentioned, compared to his friend Robert Buie, in most of the literature, although I note that the German Wikipedia states that it was Evans who killed Richthofen! However, Popkin was the only one of the machine gunners named who fired at the right time and from the right distance. Grant65 01:12, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

This is an interesting article, as it suggests that the official original (British) autopsy was flawed. (There were at least two autopsies.) Dr M. Geoffrey Miller, 1998, "The Death of Manfred von Richthofen: Who fired the fatal shot?" Grant65 01:20, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Inconsistency.

"Von Richthofen then made a hasty but controlled landing...His Fokker was not damaged by the landing"

"Australian soldiers and airmen with the wreckage of von Richthofen's plane"

"The engine from von Richthofen's aircraft is on display...It still bears the damage sustained in that final crash."

This looks like a real problem. DanielCristofani 14:43, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

The caption on the photograph claims that the damge was done by souvenir hunters, just as an observation. Zerbey 22:59, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Disambiguation of Denver

I have added the words (Colorado, USA) after the word Denver in the "Relatives of Note" section, mainly because as a Brit, my first thought was of Denver, Norfolk - which is very well known in the UK, for several reasons - heroic drainage engineering (Denver sluice is justly famous), and it is referred to extensively in Dorothy L Sayers' Peter Wimsey books. By the way, the disambiguation page for Denver does the UK one a disservice - it is a small town, not a village.

Errors and deletions

Besides a general cleanup, I have delted two items: the peculiar statement that MvR never took off without receiving a kiss from somone, and explanation of the Oak Leaves to the Pour le Merite, which he did not receive.

I have left intact the legend that the fatally wounded von R landed his aircraft without much damage. There are eye witness accounts stating that the triplane smashed its landing gear but I cannot find them this moment.

Dead Link

Not sure of the proper process, but I deleted a dead link http://www.the-underdogs.org/game.php?id=4845. -nvalley 02:23, 1 May 2006.

The link should've been http://www.the-underdogs.info/game.php?id=4845 . I don't know where to put it though. 203.199.207.3 08:12, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Help

Education for him?anyone know~Caleb Napier 14:22, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Hello. You used the {{helpme}} template. How may we help you? When you have asked your question, please put the template back so we know to check back. Cheers, Tangotango 14:24, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

What about the red barons education!Caleb Napier 14:31, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, we can only help newcomers with Wikipedia technicalities with the {{helpme}} feature. If you wish to discuss an article with someone, please leave a message on the talk page of the article. Thanks, Tangotango 14:34, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

No,thank youCaleb Napier 14:38, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi - think {{helpme}} is only used for Wikipedia technical problems. If you have any general questions, you just leave comments on the discussion page as you've done. Regarding the Red Baron's education, I remember reading he was being educated in England before the war started, but obviously came back home to Germany when it started. Not sure where I found this info, or what I could refer you to. If I find anything I'll post an update. FranksValli 18:06, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

80 Kills

I think it is more correct to state that von Richtofen was "credited" with 80 kills as that fact cannot be disputed. What is at dispute is whether or not he actually did it - it is even possible he had more than 80 due to the stringency of German claim requirements. The article states that later scholarship can only "prove" 73. Yet his total of 80 is famous. Therefore, the article should state he was officially credited with 80, not that he actually shot down 80, as that is impossible to prove. Not to denigrate his record, but simply to present facts as NPOV as possible.Michael Dorosh 23:01, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Incidentally, look at the article on Billy Bishop for use of that type of phrasing. In my opinion, that should be standard for articles on flying aces.Michael Dorosh 23:02, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Completely agree; 'claimed' air victories rarely tally with 'actual'. This is particularly with the Allied 'scores' where such wooly categories as 'out of Control' and 'driven down' are used. It is something the reader should bear in mind Harryurz 10:58, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Austrian Air Force- Australian Air Force

I think that you meant Australian Air Force rather than Austrian Air Force, as the Austrians were not an allied air unit. The Australians were the nearest allied air unit.--Mowensdude 07:49, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

BUT THE AUSTRALIANS FOUGHT ON THE NAZIS SIDE:@ AS IF THEY WOULD HAVE SHOT HIM DOWN THE BRITISH DID!

What can one say? Australia is not Austria and the Nazis didn't exist in 1918... 8-) Grant65 | Talk 03:45, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Suzane von Richthofen

Note really relevant here but apparently a great great grand children killed his parent according to this article [3]

The relativeness of the Brazilian von Richthofen family to Red Baron is discussed. It was based on a interview the deceased Manfred gave to the Brazilian TV, but brazilian historians do not agree.

According to the article in question she is not his direct decedent but a decedent of his great nephew. "Suzane von Richthofen, 22, whose father was a great nephew of fighter pilot Baron von Richthofen" Colincbn 12:16, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Hero?

"Manfred Albrecht Freiherr von Richthofen [...] is still regarded today as [...] a national hero of Germany." - By who? I've never come across anyone in Germany who does; and while the article technically doesn't say that he is regard a national hero *in* Germany, it sure sounds like. Should be deleted or at least cleared up (with a proper citation), I think. -- Schnee (cheeks clone) 17:28, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

edit by someone else :P
I'm German as well and I don't know anyone who considers him a hero either.

Of course this is nonsense, most Germans would be hard pressed to mention any "national hero" at all as the concept of national heroes is not very popular in Germany. I think the vast majority of Germans alive today wouldn't even know Richthofen's name. I'm taking out the phrase in question. -- mawa 05:06, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Popular Culture

The popular culture section was far too long and detailed. If a link exists to an article on a song, movie or video game, there is no need to describe it in detail in this article. There was also a lot of unsourced and speculative stuff, which counts as original research which I've removed. How do we know the Enemy Ace was modelled after the Red Baron? The similarities are obvious, but unless an article can be quoted where the creator admits the similarities were purposeful, we cannot conclude that was his intention.Michael Dorosh^Talk 15:21, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Undamaged Fokker?

In Death section I see: His Fokker was not damaged by the landing. Few lines later I see: The engine from von Richthofen's aircraft is on display in the Imperial War Museum in London as part of the War in the Air Exhibit. It still bears the damage sustained in its final crash.

So was crashed his Fokker or not? Current text does not make sense. (Unsigned comment by User:82.142.75.102.)

You are right. There was no "crash" and the plane was taken apart by souvenir hunters. I have fixed this and altered the text to reflect the facts. Grant65 | Talk 12:10, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Jasta 2 /11

I may just be mis-reading, but was his squadron Jasta 2 or Jasta 11? It looks like it's called both in the article. Anyone know? --TheOtherBob 19:48, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

It was both - he joined as a member of Jasta 2 and then later commanded Jasta 11. See the start of the "Piloting career" section and then the start of "The Flying Circus" section.  :) FranksValli 20:06, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Ah - that makes perfect sense. Thanks for the help! --TheOtherBob 20:15, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Rules of air combat?

The article repeatedly suggests that Richthofen devised his maxims of aerial combat. For example: "Richthofen suddenly and inexplicably strayed from several of the strict rules of aerial combat that he himself had devised and obeyed throughout his career." Yet the article also suggests these rules were the Dicta Boelcke, and links to an article stating they were devised by Oswald Boelcke. Very confusing.

Arthur (Roy) Brown's nickname?

It says Arthur Brown's nickname was "Snoopy." Given the Peanuts character that just seems too pat. I cannot find any reference elsewhere for this. Citation?

---

It's not.....some moron added it in. I attempted to correct it, but on the edit page the name shows up correctly. I've no idea how to correct it.

---

On the 'red barron pop culture references' page it also states snoopy was the nickname of arthur brown. I don't know myself so I just wanted to point it out.SummerOtaku 16:20, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

'Who fired the fatal shot?' section

Two different people (Snowy Evans and Cedric Popkin) are identified as having definetly fired the shot which killed von Richthofen in this section, and a third person (Robert Buie) is identified as a candidate but immediately dismissed. It would be great if someone who is knowledgeable about von Richthofen's death sorted out this section - perhaps by highlighting the fact that all the competing claims have at least a degree of validity and the exact identity of the person who fired the shot will never be known? (unless this isn't the case, of course!). --Nick Dowling 02:48, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Jewish ancestry?

There appears to be doubt about the authenticity of claims that Richthofen's family was of partial Jewish ancestry. Many say stories that Richthofen was part Jewish are unfounded rumors and there is no evidence to back up the assertion otherwise. See this forum for discussion:

http://www.theaerodrome.com/forum/archive/index.php/t-13753.html

I'll let the reference stand for now, but it would be nice to see some corroboration and further evidence for this detail.

24.113.82.222 08:41, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Damned right you'll let the reference stand. It's a book, which is infinitely higher on the list of reliable sources than any Internet forum.--chris.lawson 16:17, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I'll agree that Internet forums usually aren't a thing to be taken with much reliability, but theAerodrome's forums do hold some regard when it comes to WWI aviation. There are a few important WWI aviation historians and authors that frequent and contribute to the forum. So don't poo-poo it just because it is an Internet forum. Some of the topics and responses on theAerodrome do hold their own, and do cite a variety sources more often than not. That's just my two cents. Scarlett Lily 23:34, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:RS is pretty clear about what does and does not constitute a reliable source. Internet forums, no matter their membership, do not meet any definition of "reliable".--chris.lawson 03:35, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Chris, your source and its quote, BTW that book that isn't even on the red baron, is one of the worst I've seen here. And that's saying alot. JohnHistory 09:12, 19 March 2007 (UTC)JohnHistory

Nevertheless - what does Jewish ancestry mean? (by the way the definition that Jews are a race is a definition the Nazis used - this may be true in some aspects, but it is also posible that it was a religios thing with Richthofen and in this case if he or his parents changed the religion, the fact is not worth mentioning) Did he had a Jewish Grandma? Or was it even further ancestry. Then why don't you say in every third article about a person from Isralel that he/she had partial German ancestry? This would also be true - because there was much intermarriage in history. If the Jewish ancestry is further away than to his Grandparents this "fact" should be deleted fast. And for sure forums are no source - but you have also be careful with books. There are also books existing which denial of Holocaust and nearly no one would take that serios. You should think about he fact that the book was writen short after the war and that the only sentence stated is wrong or at the least tentential (Richthofen would not for sure have been killed by the Nazis if he had only partial Jewish ancestry and had been a "Volk"-hero - in his case they would most likely tried to cover up his ancestry - there are many examples for this).86.56.0.113 09:26, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Nowhere does the article claim anything about the Nazis' intentions to kill him had he survived the war. I have no idea where you're getting that straw man argument from, but your anti-Semitic tone is not appreciated.--chris.lawson 12:22, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

-don't play the anti-semite card, that is below the belt. Having read your comments here you clearly have an agenda! Any source worth citing on this subject would have the ancestors name. We can both agree on that! The source in question is the one saying he would have been liquidated, it's the only thing quoted from the source! How could you have missed that in your above comment to the other user??? JohnHistory 06:05, 19 March 2007 (UTC)JohnHistory

I have researched the "Red Baron" and I have found zero, absolutely no evidence of jewish ancestry. Have the jewish relatives name, etc, or don't make such a claim with no proof. The burden of proof should not be the other way around. Either way, the source is dubious and just the title "would have been liquidated etc, " shows some sort of agenda I think. Not to mention that Germans with less then half jewish ancestry were not liquidated automatically in NAZI Germany, no one is even claiming that his mom or dad was jewish. Thus, though totally unfounded and apparently with an agenda, even if the Red Baron was of partial jewish ancestry he would not have been killed with so little jewish blood as not even having the ancestors name would imply. JohnHistory 06:05, 19 March 2007 (UTC)JohnHistory

There seems to be just one claim that Richthofen had Jewish ancestors, which is in a book that is not directly about Richthofen. None of his biographies seem to mention anything about Jewish ancestors, and there is no evidence that any of his four grandparents were Jewish, so the claim that more than one of them was Jewish should come from a stronger source (or even better, several independent reliable sources) than what is presently used. I will remove the claim for now. Kusma (talk) 09:34, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Place of Burial

Why is my comment about his Tomb removed all the time. His body lies in Wiesbaden now!!! I am born in this town and saw his tombstone, besides that, the german page says this too, so what´s the matter. He does not lie in Berlin anymore.

He was not Jewish, no jewish ancestors name, etc, would not have been killed by NAZI's even if.

I have researched the "Red Baron" and I have found zero, absolutely no evidence of jewish ancestry. Have the jewish relatives name, etc, or don't make such a claim with no proof. The burden of proof should not be the other way around. Any quack with an agenda (in this case a wrong one) can write a book, that does not make it factual. Either way, the source is dubious and just the title "would have been liquidated etc, " shows some sort of agenda I think. Not to mention that Germans with less then half jewish ancestry were not liquidated automatically in NAZI Germany, no one is even claiming that his mom or dad was jewish. Thus, though totally unfounded and apparently with an agenda, even if the Red Baron was of "partial jewish ancestry" he would not have been killed with so little jewish blood as not even having the ancestors name would imply. Not to mention he was not Jewish at all. JohnHistory 07:13, 19 March 2007 (UTC)JohnHistory

To quote an anon, "any quack with an agenda can write a comment on Wikipedia, but that does not make it factual." If you are going to make such a claim, you must back it up with cited sources that are equally reliable and do not constitute original research. In this case, you had better have multiple sources that are as reliable as the book that's being used, preferably with at least one or two discussing why that specific source is not correct.--chris.lawson 01:42, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Wrong! Think about what you said. The burden of proof is on the one making a claim. How many sources are there for Bill Clinton not being Jewish? It is ludicrous for me to have to prove a negative! You must prove it!!! Who is the Red Baron's Jewish ancestor? Give me the name or stop this quackery! The fact is I'm not making any claim, you are. All you have is some book, out of how many books and documentaries/ shows on the Red Baron? Still, you produce no actual jewish relative! You are making a mockery out of wikipedia. What a joke! JohnHistory 06:10, 19 March 2007 (UTC)JohnHistory

I'm not the first one to mention this problem in the article, what is your agenda here? I suppose Hitler was Jewish too, and Goering, and everyone in the world, unless I have multiple sources to prove otherwise. LOL. ridiculous! JohnHistory 07:14, 19 March 2007 (UTC)JohnHistory

Please calm down and stay civil. And please sign your comments with four tildes like this: ~~~~.

Stumbled over this via VP. Just out of curiosity: Is there actually a source claiming von Richthofen had Jewish ancestors? —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 05:43, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

No, the quote from the "source", doesn't even name one, It just says he would have been liquidated according to that author, and no else I know, BTW! Thus, the source doesn't even have a relative. I'm trying to sign but it doesn't work. I was trying to be civil, but that guy essentially called me a quack, and made a ridiculous assertion that I had to have multiple sources to prove a negative when he doesn't even need the ancestor to make his. I found that rude. JohnHistory 05:48, 19 March 2007 (UTC)JohnHistory

-Also, the source, which has no ancestor named in the quote, is ~"how Hebrews influenced the west" [3] or what have you, not exactly unbiased in terms of Jewish ancestry. More importantly, no relative, no way to check anything! Until that proof is given, I say it has no place here. I took it out. unfounded rumors of jewish ancestry are common for some reason, let's not perpetuate this sort of pseudo history here at Wikipedia. JohnHistory 06:06, 19 March 2007 (UTC)JohnHistory

Furthermore, the "source" which provides no relative isn't even about the Red Baron. There is so much written exclusively about him, and this source which lists no jewish relative, simply says on 1 page that he would have been killed by the NAZI's (Which is flat wrong like the other guy said). The book, from over 50 years ago, isn't even about the Red Baron like so many others are which list no jewish blood. JohnHistory 06:18, 19 March 2007 (UTC)JohnHistory

Well, I don't know about this, but weren't there even some Wehrmacht generals with Jewish ancestry? I remember a teacher mentioning this in history class, albeit I have no source for it. Anyway, if there is actually a reliable source for that claim, you should find another source at least as reliable which explicitly claims the opposite. Do you have the book at your hands? Does it or does it not back the statement of a "family of nobility with Jewish ancestry"? —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 06:31, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

The quote from the book given in the citation [3] doesn't even say that, it just says he would have been killed. So the answer is No! Without the relatives name how can it be taken seriously. Much has been written as of late about the Red Baron none of it mentions any jewish ancestry. A google search came up with nothing saying he was of partial jewish ancestry, Period! You probably heard that Hitler was jewish too, right? Don't ask me how this gets started??? Why would a source claim the opposite? There's no nead to make that claim! Prove he's jewish! There's no source I know that claims he wasn't african either, so I guess I could put that in too while were at it???? What is reliable about this source anyway? It isn't even a biography about him! Nor does it name a relative! JohnHistory 06:40, 19 March 2007 (UTC)JohnHistory

BTW, how many German noble familys were of Jewish ancestry??? Doesn't seem likely. I don't know of any German generals who were jewish, rumors about Manstein maybe? But that's all they are. On the Manstein page, no quote is given for the jewish ancesty source showing any jewish geonology either. Not to mention, even if he was, was Manstein killed by the NAZI's as this source claims the red baron would have been? no, he wasn't! In fact, he gave orders to kill Jews and communist commissars in the USSR. Thus, discrediting this "source's" very claim. But I'm not even debating that!!! Be here now. If there is no relative named, it is not worth mentioning. (not to mention the quote given from the book doesn't even state he was of jewish ancestry as you inquired about) JohnHistory 06:47, 19 March 2007 (UTC)JohnHistory

Like I said, I have no source for that, just the vague recollection of hearing it once in class, and I was probably playing tetris or figuring out the number 71346315 on my calculator (I was so young and innocent). Anyhoo, if indeed the non-Aryan remark (""The famous Baron Manfred von Richthofen and his brother, Lothar, would have been liquidated by Hitler as non-Aryans."") is the only quote about von Richthofen's ancestry, the book is not explicitly talking about Jewish ancestry. But since it's a book on the "The Hebrew Impact on Western Civilization", I can only guess that this is somewhat strongly implied by the context. Otherwise it would indeed not be a suitable reference for this claim. The best piece of advice I can offer you: If you have the book, you may want to check it from the "opposite side": Try to find each and everything in that book that points towards Jewish ancestry of von Richthofen. Write it down and make up your mind about how to approach the topic here, then return. The article will still be here, waiting for valuable contributions. On the other hand, people are generally not reacting well upon shouting, not using the edit summary, unilateral deletion of references etc. (the world is a weird place, I know). Just my 2 cents. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 07:13, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I can't believe you would let that pass? It doesn't even state he was Jewish, there would be better sources including relatives then that. The quote given is as weak as it gets, one could infer he was a gypsy from that. Don't you think it's suspicious that Google came up with nothing, and the source doesn't even state that he was jewish yet alone name a relative? Like you said it doesn't even explicitly state that he was jewish yet alone back such a claim up, and you are left making an implied assumption from a book that is not even about the Red Baron. How much weaker could it get??? Maybe I am the only one who cares? JohnHistory 07:18, 19 March 2007 (UTC)JohnHistory

P.S. I orderd the book to set this straight once and for all. But, I shouldn't have to be the one prooving anything here. I think this really sets the wrong example for the future. You must have a real source, that backs up it's claim. when it comes to ancestry, it should be a a book dealing with that person exclusively if not almost so with names of relevant ancestors. Not one page saying he or she would have been killed, which we all know isn't true anyway! That is not enough to delcare the red baron a jew. This is very basic scholarship here, not rocket science. Wikipedia must have higher standards or risk being isolated from the real history community. Such wild unfounded claims such as the one in question here only hurt Wiki's reputation and open the gaits for any person, any ridiculous written claim so long as it was published (even though the source here doesn't even explicitly state jewish ancestry, yet alone provide the neccesary details of the jewish ancestors names, etc) , any bias to pervert history and lay the grounds of falsehood for future generations. Shame on you Chris Lawson! And Kncyu38... I expected more from you as your page says you are all about having good sources here. JohnHistory 08:20, 19 March 2007 (UTC)JohnHistory

-I mean here we have a 50 + year old book that isn't even about The Red Baron, that doesn't even state that he was jewish explicitly, possibly infers it from the books title, provides no proof, and b/c of this we have now changed the Baron's ethnicity. The quote for the source is so vague that it could also mean he was part Polish/slavic! Come on people (oh wait lots of people agree with me in the above) ! So I should just say "come on Chris Lawson"JohnHistory 09:59, 19 March 2007 (UTC)JohnHistory

I'm going to say this again, and it had better be the last time I have to say it:

There is a cited, reliable source for the claim that Richthofen was Jewish. Any claim to the contrary absolutely must be backed up by citations of equally reliable sources. Ranting and raving about how I have a pro-Jewish agenda and accusing me of personal attacks on other editors is not going to accomplish whatever it is that you're trying to accomplish.

If there is reason to doubt the validity of the current source's claims other than your personal opinion, please cite a source that debunks these claims.

Do I make myself clear?--chris.lawson 21:32, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Your "source's" quote doesn't even say he was jewish! Come on man! JohnHistory 04:10, 20 March 2007 (UTC)JohnHistory

To JohnHistory who I claims that only few German noble families have Jewish ancestry. There was a multivolume publication before WWII by German anti-Semites which was studied after WWII by serious reseraches who concluded that it is a relibale source about German and Austrian noble families of Jewish origin or whose men married Jewish women (it is all about Jewish blood , I use these boooks expression, not a religion)There were hundreds of German noble families who had Jewish blood.

Well, I'm sure you would love that to be true. You don't even say "distant" for the Red Baron, btw! I am white, I suppose I have distant african blood in me though, huh??? JohnHistory 04:10, 20 March 2007 (UTC)JohnHistory

Here is citation from one of leading German military historians a Prussian Adolf Kaspari (you can find his biography in German Wikipedia). Kaspari wrote: "Hitler was forced quietly mitigate his actions against Jews under the "Arian paragraph," where it came down to officer corp in the Reichswehr, so that two Christian grandparents in practice were sufficient to make a man Arian. Otherwise the higher echelons of the Prussian military would have been disastrously affected, and the German army cripled. Bryan Riggs touched this subject very litle in his "Hitler's Jewish Soldiers" but he did not study Prussian nobility pedegree and he even cannot identify these people because according to Kaspari, officers of Prussian noble origin vere excluded from Arian racial policies.

Riggs, however, cited a book by post WWII German Paul Wofgang, "Wer war Hermann Goring," p.33. Goring who came from Bavarian nobility, have a distant Jewish ancestors.

You don't even say "distant" jewish origins. In fact, the sources quote doesn't even state that he was jewish at all! Unless you can find a quote with the jewish ancestor's name, or at least just that author mentions him being jewish directly, it is just way to weak and vague to change the Baron's ethnicity. Sorry if it bothers you that he wasn't jewish, not my problem. To use your phrase...."Do I make myself clear?" JohnHistory 03:21, 20 March 2007 (UTC)JohnHistory

Please find a quote that specifically declares him to be jewish, not just non-aryan, which as I said before, would include Slavic people too. Agian, who is this jewish ancestor, I mean we've got the royal lineage, the illegitamte grandson of Leopold, etc, surely then you can give us the name of this jewish ancestor. Agian, the quote given doesn't say he was jewish, yet alone back that up with anything for this well known historical figure. JohnHistory 03:57, 20 March 2007 (UTC)JohnHistory

"A son of a German family of nobility with jewish ancestry" Which of these nobles was jewish??? You should be able to provide that. JohnHistory 05:11, 20 March 2007 (UTC)JohnHistory

""Hitler was forced quietly mitigate his actions against Jews under the "Arian paragraph," where it came down to officer corp in the Reichswehr, so that two Christian grandparents in practice were sufficient to make a man Arian."

-Well your source for the Baron's "jewish" origins (which agian doesn't even say he was jewish!!!!!!) says the Baron would have been "Liquidated" which is exactly contrary to what your saying in the above. Thus you have discredited your own source! In terms of the amount of jewish blood in German military, without geneologys how can anyone know???? Not to mention, they apparently weren't jewish enough to stop them from partaking in the final solution in some way or another. When the final solution was decided on it was for people who were half jewish or more (unless they displayed whatever the Nazi's thought jewishness was) this was to not cause undue strain on the family members most of who would not have been jewish. That was the real reason! JohnHistory 08:23, 20 March 2007 (UTC)JohnHistory

You just got done saying so many prussian officers were jews hitler couldn't inforce his policy, but then at the end of that you say the author (no pg. number , btw) could not identify the jewish ones b/c they were all exempt from "aryan tests". Thus, you and the author have no way of knowing what you are claiming. JohnHistory 08:23, 20 March 2007 (UTC)JohnHistory

I think the point here is not Book vs. Forum but more about the content of the claim. If the claim is simply that "he would have been killed by the Nazis" as has been stated than that is far from claiming Jewish ancestry as the Nazis killed members of other groups as well. The book itself might be completely accurate but not in fact be claiming that he was Jewish. Also what about this book makes it a credible source? Just the fact that it was published carries some weight but obviously that alone is not enough, for if it was having two books with opposing views would cause a paradox (maybe a wikidox?). So beside being in print what other claims can be made for its validity? In spite of a seemingly over emotional attitude concerning this issue the points made ie: No other source makes this claim; A family genealogy seems to dispute this claim; The source in question is quite possibly biased; The wording of the claim in question is vague, are all by them selves valid points for discussion. I hope that all the concerned parties will take a small break and come back to this discussion with a more cool headed approach. Colincbn 12:00, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Why so a honest person as JohnHistory deleted a note about Jeiwsh grandmother of another Aryan hero General Admiral, Commander in Chief of Nazi Navy Hans George von Fiedeburg? As well as information about Jewish origins of three major German commanders of WWI Otto Liman von Sanders, ("Lion of Gallipoli,)" Max Hoffman, (battle of Tannenberg) and Alexander von Linsingen, who led German armies in the East facing the best General of WWI Russian Brusilov and was by far the best German field commanderr of the war?

Interesting, while I was absent this pops up! I haven't even been to the articles that the above person references, yet alone deleted anything from them! I'm sure you can check that and see I'm telling the truth. Interesting how thick the agenda is that someone (maybe faking being a forigner?) would stoop to this level to try to discredit me. However, not only is it outright lies in the above, but it is also irrelevant as this about facts and logic, not me anyway! Though, I don't mind taking some slimy hits and slander in the name of History. If you read the above (if your able to decipher it?) it is clear this guy doesn't even know what he's talking about. Ever heard of Karl Donitz (not donuts)???? JohnHistory 13:00, 22 March 2007 (UTC)JohnHistory

I believe what kind of person he is is a separate discussion from whether the quoted material is reliable. I am not saying it is unreliable either, just that enough of a doubt exists to warrant further (constructive, level headed) discussion. Colincbn 12:40, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

From Jimbo Wales, paraphrased from this post from September 2003 on the mailing list:

• If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;
• If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;
• If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it is true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not.

If the point in question is only being put forth by a single person (even if it is in print) than I feel it falls under the last category. As such I feel the statement should be deleted, but do to the emotional response this discussion has generated I would feel better if someone with more experience than me did it. Colincbn 12:56, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

It is good that you are so modest! The irony is that John History and other pitiful creatures who now suffer that their Aryan hero Richthoven was part Jewish failed to understand that as a soldier he has nothing to do with Jews. His military culture was German. That is true about any Jew who served in non-Jewish armies. Spaniard Fernandez de Cordoba, French Andrew Massena, as well as Russian Rodion Malinovsky and Ivan Cherniakhovsky were much greater military figures than Aryan heroes a mere pilot Richthoven or Manstein who made gross mistakes because of his strategic incompetence (and now is rapidly losing his prestige, created by propaganda needs of the Cold War, among military historians). But these people as soldiers and field commanders had nothing to do with Jews. They were product of Spanish, French and Russian military upbringing, traditions and national characters of their times. It is simply happened that they have Jewish ancestry. Jews as soldiers shall be judged what they achieve in their own army, not in armies of other nations.

It seems highly unlikely any Jewish ancestry in Richthofen's family could have been that obscure or hard to trace. Jews and German nobles would not have been intermarrying a century or two earlier, so it could not have been that far back in the family tree. Given the inability of anyone to provide any further details on this alleged Jewish ancestry, and the absence of references to such Jewish ancestry in major biographical accounts of Richthofen's life, the claim that the Baron has any such genealogy seems likely to be factually inaccurate. Claims to the contrary should be removed until we have further corroboration. It might be worthwhile to add, on a temporary basis, a section on claims of Jewish ancestry to the main article. Perhaps other Wikipedians will notice the controversy and be able to shed some light on the veracity of such claims.

24.113.82.222 00:27, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Contradicting Statements

This statement: "It has been calculated that Richthofen lived for less than a minute after he was hit" and this one: "After being hit (probably by ground fire), Richthofen managed to make a hasty but controlled landing in a field on a hill near the Bray-Corbie road" seem to be conflicting. I am no expert on how fast one can make a "Hasty" landing in a WWI era triplane but less than a minute seems extreamly short. Colincbn 13:27, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Dagobert D. Runes "The Hebrew Impact on Western Civilization"

The quote from the book as included in the article reads "The famous Baron Manfred von Richthofen and his brother, Lothar, would have been liquidated by Hitler as non-Aryans." My proposal is to reword the current version "Dagobert D. Runes claims he was of partial Jewish ancestry" to "Dagobert D. Runes claims he would have been liquidated by Hitler as non-Aryan" or maybe something like "Dagobert D. Runes hinted at a partly non-Aryan ancestry of Richthofen/the Richthofen family". As Clawson pointed out, that leaves us with the need to find a more approriate place to include it. My idea is to rename the "relatives" section to "Richthofen family" and also to rework it a bit and to include the Runes citation there. Please give me your opinions, I'm open to any ideas, as I'm not exactly familiar with the subject matter. I offer to work out a version, in case of a consensus. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 14:21, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I just wasted some time on Google books, where I found the Runes quote and another claim that the Red Baron had Jewish blood. Searching the available Red Baron biographies for "Jewish" or "Jew" produced no results, though. I guess that (since the Richthofen family is very large and confusing; there exist already three notable Manfred von Richthofens: the Red Baron, a WWI general, and an influential sports functionary, see de:Manfred von Richthofen) somebody mixed up several of them; there appears to have been a DNVP (a nationalist party) Reichstag member von Richthofen who had a Jewish grandmother. The family history is extensive and interesting; until we have a complete treatment that gives a definite answer, we should probably include that isolated claims of Jewish ancestry exist (it is pretty obvious given the context of the books that "non-Aryan" is supposed to mean "Jewish") but not state as a fact that he had Jewish ancestors until we actually figure out who they were. Kusma (talk) 14:53, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I agree on mentioning the isolated claims, but in case they are contested, we'd have a hard time justifying the inclusion of such a statement. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 15:02, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I refer to my statement above concerning minority viewpoints. The post from Jimbo is a copy&paste from the NPOV policy page.Colincbn 15:20, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Which makes you the first user to contest inclusion of that proposed statement. Accepted, but I believe we can safely assume that apart from the exact words of the quote we have, Kusma is probably right insofar as Runes probably hinted at non-Aryan=Jewish. We cannot quote that as fact (which is why we're having this discussion), but we should then at least mention the title of the book within the text, to give the reader a fair chance at making up their own mind. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 15:33, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Colincbn, I see that you are still sceptical of inclusion of this source. But, hey, it's there, and it's reliable, and it actually mentions Richthofen by name. We're not going to sell Runes' quote as fact, but we should definitely include it for the sake of diversity. Nothing more, nothing less. E.g. like "In his book 'The Hebrew Impact on Western Civilization', Dagobert D. Runes hints at a partly non-Aryan ancestry of the Richthofen family." Something along those lines. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 15:54, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Put that (with the actual author Mackensen found) in the "Relatives" section (perhaps rename it "Family") and it should be okay. It doesn't seem to be of any importance in Richthofe n's life, though. Kusma (talk) 16:03, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Not that we know of. But we're not going to quote it out of proportion, and it's still nice to have one more source to flavour the article with. I'm going to work a preliminary version into the section and wait for your comments. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 16:10, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I just feel that, considering the large amount of biographical data concerning MvR, a single source claiming that he is of Jewish decent (and apparently not backing up that claim) is not enough to satisfy the above stated guidelines of "Majority or Significant Minority". It seems to me to fall under "Undue Weight". However if other editors feel it is important enough to add to the article I will by no means delete it either. Colincbn 16:13, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Alright, take a look at it, everyone. I'm copying the original citation here for archival purposes: <ref>Dagobert D. Runes, "The Hebrew Impact on Western Civilization", Philosophical Library, 1951, New York, p. 744: "The famous Baron Manfred von Richthofen and his brother, Lothar, would have been liquidated by Hitler as non-Aryans."</ref> —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 16:31, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

":Which makes you the first user to contest inclusion of that proposed statement." -Kncyu38. I'm confused, I and others have also, obviously, contested this! JohnHistory 03:24, 23 March 2007 (UTC)JohnHistory Maybe we are not "users". JohnHistory 03:28, 23 March 2007 (UTC)JohnHistory

Actual source

I've got the abridged edition of the book in front of me, but it does contain the quotation in question. The actual author isn't Dagobert, who edited the book, but William B. Ziff, who contributed an essay entitled "The Jew as Soldier, Strategist and Military Adviser." He begins the paragraph by stating that "Of the handful of German fliers, 200 were Jews." He does not, however, give an indication of where he got this information. Mackensen (talk) 15:47, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Interesting! Like I said above, it's probably safer not to sell that as fact, but it's a source. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 15:56, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

On the other hand, it's not-so-big news in that in WWI many Jews were fighting in the German army, as far as I'm informed. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 16:03, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

...So the more then half century old source gives no evidence or proof for the jewish claim? Out of how many books on the Baron, it's the only one to make such a claim! And, it says that small germanWWI air force had 200 jews in it with no evidence as well? The name of the book is "Hebrew Influence...." I think we can agree, this is a bad source, definate bias, and not up to snuff for wiki or any major historical figure. If this book said George Washington was "non-aryan" (what does that even mean?) would we add that to the George washington article? I don't think so! JohnHistory 12:37, 22 March 2007 (UTC)JohnHistory

User Kusma fount the answer

Kusma, I believe you fount the answer. If there was Richthoven of Manfred's generation who was a grandson of Jewish woman it is safely assume that he and Manfred came from the same stock and Richthoven a politician was a cousin (did Manfred has another brother besides Lothat?) User: BBG2. 20 March, 2007 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.74.186.255 (talk) 16:21, 20 March 2007

There is an extensive family tree at http://www.richthofen.de (all in German, though), see this image. The politician was from a completely different branch (Praetorius, born 1879, last common ancestor with the Red Baron was Samuel, born 1708). Kusma (talk) 16:34, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

68.74.186.255, please post your concerns here before making an edit like this, we're trying to establish consensus to end this discussion and your opinion is most welcome, just like everybody else's. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 17:18, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Non-Aryan issue (again)

Colincbn is right. Under the Wiki guidelines this source, with no evidence and no real claim either, what exactly is "non-aryan"??? falls under tiny minority with no proof. Thus, wiki guidelines say it should be removed completely. We can't go changing major historical figures ethnicities from singular old sources that provide no evidence and don't even make a real claim in the first place (what is he? non-aryan is not an ethnicity) Not to mention all the evidence, and lack of corroboration that would strongly suggest the opposite (a whole family tree). JohnHistory 12:40, 22 March 2007 (UTC)JohnHistory

I believe you should first thoroughly read about attribution before continuing to discuss this. The point is: We are not changing history here, there is a published source that we're quoting from in a truthful manner. Censoring the source would be like changing history and like lying to the reader, and it's not going to happen. If you have any serious proposals as to how exactly to change the article, please post them here before vandalizing editing the article and wait (and work) for a consensus. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 15:13, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

John, may I remind you of this statement of yours. There you have it. We're not writing Richthofen was Polish, Slav or Jewish. We're truthfully reflecting what the source says. I really tried not to make it sound like it's the truth, I just made it say that Ziff hinted at a partly non-Aryan ancestry. And that is "The Truth". Ziff did hint at a partly non-Aryan ancestry of the Richthofen brothers, in a published work that qualifies as a reliable source. You see, as long as there is no very well-demonstrated reason to assume Ziff was either lying on purpose and against his own better knowledge or incapable of figuring what he was writing, we have to just assume good faith and sufficient intelligence on his part and let the readers decide for themselves instead of declaring Ziff a liar or idiot and censoring the article without any reason whatsoever. Should you indeed know of anything that might indicate Ziff is unreliable, please bring it up here and we'll gladly discuss it. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 16:53, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Please do not accuse me of "vandalizing" I have done no such thing, and I find that offensive Kncyu38!

I have been patiently waiting, in fact you are the only one to have edited this recently and against the advice to take it out by multiple Wiki editors who have cited for you Wiki guidelines to do so. No one is calling any one an idiot or liar, we're just trying to simply follow the Wiki rules.

Please Read the rules below;

From Jimbo Wales, paraphrased from this post from September 2003 on the mailing list:

• If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;
• If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;
• If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it is true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not.

The said quote clearly falls into the last category! Thus, it should be deleted! I'm not sure what you don't understand about this Kncyu38? It appears very clear to me and others! Please follow wiki guidelines and don't vandalize this article/ or make edits on your own which others don't support as you have done. I think it is clear that with Colincbn and I you are in the minority for you decision to keep the "non-aryan" hints in. The consensus is in and it says, along with wiki guidelines that the quote should come out. It is this quote that is attempting to change history and not the other way around, that is plainly clear to see. BTW, the "edit link" you give demonstrates my point, not yours. i.e. the book doesn't say he was a slav, jew or anything for that matter so that is why it should be gone. I was saying it's so vague it could mean that and not jewish, but the reviewer of book earlier made no such comment, so the book doesn't support such any such claim (slav, etc).

So would have been right if it did, but it doesn't. BTW, there is no such ethnicity as "non-aryan" in fact "aryan" isn't even a real ethnicity in the first place. This needs to come to fruition, the debate is becoming quite silly. and I hope no one is hangin on just to feel "vindicated". The integrity of Wiki and history should be our mutual purpose here. Thanks! JohnHistory 00:11, 23 March 2007 (UTC)JohnHistory

Again, one person "hinting" is not good enough for inclusion for a major historical figure. Why hint at all? What did he "hint" that MvR was exactly? Again, "non-aryan" is not an ethnicity, nor is "aryan" a true ethnicity in the first place. By your logic, if said author "hinted" this about Abraham Lincoln we would need to add it to that article. I think this is highly flawed logic. Either he makes a real claim or he doesn't (he doesn't!!!!), yet alone the Wiki guidelines for such an extreme minority opinion ( no one else mentions this and he gives no proof, and makes no real claim in the first place) Again, what is the author saying that MvR was????JohnHistory 00:24, 23 March 2007 (UTC)JohnHistory

I think the fact that you can't answer that last question, no one can, makes this very clear cut, without even bring in the earlier users Wiki guidelines which makes this even more clear cut on a different level as well. Thanks! JohnHistory 00:28, 23 March 2007 (UTC)JohnHistory

It was not my aim to offend you, sorry if it came around like that. Let me reply point for point.

• "you are the only one to have edited this recently and against the advice to take it out by multiple Wiki editors who have cited for you Wiki guidelines to do so": You do not need my permission, do what you think serves the quality of the article best, keeping in mind Wikipedia policy and guidelines, which include the invitation to be bold in updating pages.
• Regarding Jimbo, please see the according policy at WP:JIMBOISNOTYODA. Well, actually the "extremely small (or vastly limited) minority" argument makes some sense. But: "Thus, it should be deleted!" is merely your opinion, to which you are entitled. My reply is: Does it really hurt you so much that this source is included? As it is, we are not selling it as the truth, we just mention that someone has written this. The latter is a fact which speaks for itself and I happen to believe it's interesting for the reader. And it doesn't hurt the article in any way.
• Regarding citing others (as in "It appears very clear to me and others!" or "you are in the minority"): You may want to just let those others speak for themselves. This is not a poll, it's a content debate.
• "Either he makes a real claim or he doesn't (he doesn't!!!!)" - Read up on what an opinion and a viewpoint really is. We are not including any viewpoint, we're truthfully including a reliable source for greater diversity. And one exclamation mark would have sufficed.
• Regarding "Please follow wiki guidelines and don't vandalize this article/ or make edits on your own which others don't support as you have done.": WP:CIVIL. I mean it, do yourself a favour and catch up on conduct policy.
• "Again, what is the author saying that MvR was????" Non-Aryan. One question mark would have sufficed. See, you have to accept the simple fact that the article is currently not saying "Richthofen was non-Aryan", relying on Ziff for that claim (or viewpoint). The article is simply mentioning that someone wrote this as a factoid. There's a big difference.

Having said all that, I can only repeat myself: be bold. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 03:53, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Please tell me what is "reliable" about this source? It's not even a bio on the Baron, it makes no claims as to what he was that is non-aryan, and it makes other unfounded claims, as Mackensen said, with no evidence! "#" This source provides no relative or any evidence what so ever to back up it's vague assertion despite a whole family tree for the Richtofen family. "#" It's very title emplies a potential bias! Also please answer my last question to you, which you missed in your "point by point", what does Ziff claim the Baron was? Again, "non-aryan" is the vast majority of ethnicities on Earth (not to mention, again, Aryan is not a real ethnicity to "not be". I think a claim about what he wasn't ("non-aryan") doesn't say what he was! That's a major problem here. I mean he wasn't an elephant either, right? Should we include everything people aren't, or instead what they are? Others have spoke for themselves, yet you say that it "just my opinion" to delete it when it is a shared opinion between me and multiple other people. That is why I repeat it to you. They have spoken your just ignoring it. you contradict yourself when you say "We're not including any viewpoints" and then you say that your 'relying on Ziff for that claim (or "viewpoint")". I think, after you mentioned me and vandalism (the word crossed out of course?), and your viewpoint confusion, as well as your confusion over "reliable", that perhaps a friendly sugggestion from me to you is for you to catch up on conduct policy, viewpoints, and the rest yourself, I really mean it. Your right, this doesn't hurt me at all. It hurts the integrity of Wiki and especially this article. Thanks(!!!!) '#" lol. If you were me you might be use a couple, at this point, too. "#" JohnHistory 04:19, 23 March 2007 (UTC)JohnHistory

Also, this was all part of the last discussion thread, I see no reason start a whole new one as you done have to discuss this. JohnHistory 04:23, 23 March 2007 (UTC)JohnHistory.

Again, I refer you to the Earlier users "jimbo" guidelines where your "factoid" (this is not a fact=not a factoid please update yourself on the words "fact" and "factoid") that one person wrote falls under extreme minority and should not be "mentioned". Case closed! Thanks!!! JohnHistory 04:40, 23 March 2007 (UTC)JohnHistory

Please learn to be more civil and just go ahead and make whatever change that's in line with policy. What else is there? —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 07:03, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I have waited long enough. Enough consensus has now been reached at this point for me, and even Kncyu38, as he says above. Not to mention the first anon objector, Scarlet Lilly, Me of course, originally and now again Kncyu38, Colincbn, and the late but great Chairman Meow to name a few. I deserve the honor of performing the coup de tat here anyway. So off with the head!!!!

P.S. I know the Barren is smiling on me from some biplane in hell. No problemo sir, the honor was all mine! JohnHistory 10:35, 23 March 2007 (UTC)JohnHistory

Absurd

This has to be one of the more absurd arguments on wikipedia. The Red Baron is a Jew? I seem to recall seeing a few things about him including oh...his biography and I've got to say that if the historians and the fact checkers over at A&E make no mention of his being Jewish than that is good enough for me. Oh, and the other thing that is good enough for me is that there is only one, single, little citation claiming Jewish lineage to be true...but there are HUNDREDS making no mention of it or directly refuting it. I think I'll go with the hundreds..... Chairman Meow 07:12, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Exactly!!!! JohnHistory 10:20, 23 March 2007 (UTC)JohnHistory.

I feel I should point out that the important thing is not whether he is or is not Jewish, the important thing (for me at least) is the NPOV policy on Undue weight. I have no Idea what the "Truth" is, for all I know the source in question could be 100% correct. I simply feel that this single reference is not enough to satisfy the requiermenst of falling under a "Majority" or "Significant Minority". I am in no way suggesting that anyone here has an agenda or ulterior motive either, I just feel that considering the large amount of biographical data on MvR that a claim like this should be backed up by no less than two (preferably more) independent sources. Also as a personal request I would like to remind everyone to try to assume good faith and remember we are all working for the same goal of making WP better. As such we are all on the same side. Colincbn 13:53, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Colincbn, thank you very much for bringing some sensibility to this debate. I absolutely agree with your argument as to undue weight and with your comment as to AGF. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 18:57, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, as I have been saying for along time now this source/quote is no good for changing MvR. Thanks Kncyu38 for finally coming around to the see the light! (colincbn posted that "undue weight" a while ago not to mention that is what I have been saying for days) Alls good that ends well, though. JohnHistory 21:45, 23 March 2007 (UTC)JohnHistory

let's close the book on this one JohnHistory 21:46, 23 March 2007 (UTC)JohnHistory

You cannot change facts by voting

The Aryan scum JohnHistory is back!!! His only earlier distinction was to delete from this "discussion" page my mentioning of literature about Jews in German nobility or army. So I believe I have a right to call him "Aryan scum." For him and his likes. Fools, you cannot change facts by voting. In your logic Nazi Germany won the WWII, you would be eager to vote for this. Do not debase Wikipedia. Ziff was too important man to lie, otherwise the book "The Hebrew Impact on Western Civilization" would only damage its authors. Could he get wrong information? Ziff consulted major "Prussian" military historian Adolph Caspay while writing about Jews in the German army. And do not play with terms. When Ziff mentioned Richthoven he did not think that he was Mongolian or any other non-Aryan. Here is a citation from Ziff: "Of the handful of German fliers, 200 were Jews. Among these were... (a list of names) The famous Baron Manfred von Richthoven and his brother, Lothar, would have been liquidated by Hitler as non-Aryans. So would General von Mossner, commander of Wilhelm's Hussar Guards; General Max Hoffman, who played a leading role at the great German victory at Tannenberg; and General Otto Liman von Sanders, who won the title "Lion of Gallipoli...

The sad question: why Wikipedia attracts some dregs of society like JohnHistory, etc. They shall go direct to Aryan nation web sites.

Personally, I do not care about origins of Richthoven. The another Richthoven, Ferdinand, a scientist, for example, was much more important and fascinating figure/. The German web site of Richthoven's family justly exhibits a portrait of Ferdinand, not of Manfred. But because German anti-Semitism of Richthoven's generation it is an ironic fact that most acclaimed WWI German hero was part Jewish. User: Tracadero. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.74.152.15 (talk • contribs) 00:40, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I am not even going to respond to this sort of garbage, by someone who is clearly out of their mind. I never deleted anything! BTW, You have proven my point. You are flat wrong and a liar! The only thing you have made clear is that your out of control and not to be tolerated or taken seriously. You missed all the points that many people have brought up on this subject at this page already. Quite frankly, your not worth explaining anything to either. Watch your mouth, and grow up! JohnHistory 08:51, 24 March 2007 (UTC)JohnHistory

It should be stated in the article

According to William B. Ziff who consulted in his writing about Jews in German army a major German military historian Adolpf Caspary, Richthoven was in part of Jewish descent. See Ziff's article in Dagobert D. Runes, ed., The Hebrew Impact on Western Civilization, New York: Philosophical Library: New York, 1951, p. 744. User: Tracadero. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.74.152.15 (talk • contribs) 00:44, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

No! JohnHistory 08:46, 24 March 2007 (UTC)JohnHistory

John, please be civil and let other editors speak their mind. And please start indenting your comments for better readability. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 09:04, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

-Kncyu please be civil and don't tell me not to respond as I did (politely) above when some anon creates lies about me, and calls me "aryan scum". we both know you need to address that comment to the previous user. We both know what your doing here. I do hope you stop. JohnHistory 09:17, 24 March 2007 (UTC)JohnHistory

Speaking their mind should not be using slander and name calling, your coming across as a major hypocrit, and you and I know what your doing here! My answer was quite restrained, and I'm proud of it. JohnHistory 09:19, 24 March 2007 (UTC)JohnHistory

In fact, your not allowed to "speak your mind" like that here on wiki. Please update yourself on the neccesary policies, I mean it. JohnHistory 09:20, 24 March 2007 (UTC)JohnHistory

Kncyu38, the fact that you critize me and talk about me being blocked for saying truthfully that this guy is lying about me deleting his discussion here, which you can check. and the fact that you say nothing to him after he calls me "aryan scum" , etc. Show your bias, and that you are out to get me. I'm sure now, you will go back and comment on that, to cover yourself, but that was not your first impulse your impulse was to critize me for responding in a controlled way to such a personal attack. I am a human being afterall. We both know that you and I have a history, and that we don't particularly like each other. I know how uncivil your capable of being, I have experienced it first hand. So please keep that out of Wiki, and stop herassing me. You will be blocked if you continue to herass me like this. This serves no ones interest. Let's both get on with our lives, I'm truly tired of this. JohnHistory 11:18, 24 March 2007 (UTC)JohnHistory

Do not try to put the racism under the carpet

Kncyu38. Why do you upset that I cited JohnHistory outrageous racist statement? Wikipedia is a public domain and everyone can cite statements made on its discussion pages. Of course I have a revulsion against racism and it is appropriate to point it out, citing racist startements. Well, I look the discussion page again and I see this statement is moved into an archive subpage. So JohnHistory is now "clean."

I'm not upset. It's just not a racist statement and even if it was, including it here does nothing to advance the discussion on this article talk page. Please see Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 13:23, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Kncyu38. 1) I do not know in what country you are. In America such statement like of JohnHistory while protected by the freedom of the speech will be considered racist. 2) We need to reinstate Ziff's information in the wiki's article. He, his consultant and editors were respected people and we cannot ignore their information.

Please tell me what is racist about saying that europeans came from africa, thus having distant african blood? It seems almost anti-racist as it states that were all one people basically. Why am I even bothering? P.S. I got said book and will review it, then I'm done here people. JohnHistory 20:53, 24 March 2007 (UTC)JohnHistory

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Reference requests

I have reverted some edits made by an unregistered "editor" most (or all) of whose edits to date, when I went to have a look at them, have been mischievous or unconstructive if not downright vandalistic. I have in this case nonetheless "assumed good faith" and addressed his implied questions so far as this was possibly justifiable.Soundofmusicals (talk) 09:35, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I concur that the issues raised seemed specious but your additional referencing appears to satisfy any concerns. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 12:02, 8 March 2008 (UTC).

Probability

I doubt if the bit about the "probability" of R's score was ever meant to be taken seriously - on the same grounds anyone could stand on a baseball plate and hit 80 successive home runs if he only stood there long enough!! Soundofmusicals (talk) 03:38, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

It is serious. The article Theory of Aces: High Score by Skill or Luck? is published in The Journal of Mathematical Sociology, a peer reviewed journal. The article is also citied in Scientific American's article Was the Red Baron Just Lucky?. Can you cite an article that supports your point of view? If not, can we agree not to enter into an edit war and reinstate your deletion?--Work permit (talk) 06:31, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Let's take this seriously for a moment then. Mathematical sociology (in other words applied statistics) can tell us quite a lot about people en masse - or groups of people. It can really tell us nothing whatever about any particular individual person. For instance, we can say that the life expectancy in a given community is 50 - but there will be lots of people who will die much younger than 50 - or live much longer. Nor does the article, as reported in the Scientific American, claim to tell us anything specifically about the Red Baron. The conclusion it draws is that it is reasonably likely - given the number of air aces in WW1, and the number of their victims, that someone would get to 80 victories, and it is thus fairly unremarkable that someone did. So what? And what connection has this with Richthofen anyway? There were at least two Allied aces with victory counts in the seventies - wouldn't the Journal of Mathematical Sociology's article apply (or fail to apply) just as forcibly to them? The Red Baron gets a mention in the article NOT because the statistics have anything specifically to do with him, but because he is the most famous ace - and statistically the most likely one to occur to anyone looking for an example. I just don't see the career of any particular fighter pilot (or any other person whatsoever, except perhaps a professional gambler) having this kind of connection with statistical analysis. Soundofmusicals (talk) 11:41, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

It can really tell us nothing whatever about any particular individual person. For instance, we can say that the life expectancy in a given community is 50 - but there will be lots of people who will die much younger than 50 - or live much longer. It tells us about the mean AND the variation, and the statistical liklihood of outliers.--Work permit (talk) 19:13, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

The conclusion it draws is that it is reasonably likely - given the number of air aces in WW1, and the number of their victims, that someone would get to 80 victories, and it is thus fairly unremarkable that someone did. So what? And what connection has this with Richthofen anyway? In particular, Manfred von Richthofen most likely had an intrinsic defeat rate of 2.5%. According to the distribution of intrinsic defeat rates derived in the article, about 27% of German pilots have the defeat rate of 2.5% or lower. This means that MvR is most likely merely in top 27% according to his skill.--Work permit (talk) 19:13, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

There were at least two Allied aces with victory counts in the seventies - wouldn't the Journal of Mathematical Sociology's article apply (or fail to apply) just as forcibly to them? The analysis in the article is on the statistics of German Aces, because the German scoring system was the cleanest scoring system. During WWI British Empire Air Force fully credited its pilots for moral victories (For example, forcing the enemy aircraft to land within enemy lines, driving it down ‘‘out of control’’, or driving it down in damaged condition). In addition, British Air Force fully credited its pilots for shared victories. That is, if for example, three British airplanes shot one German airplane, all three were credited with a victory. The French did not count moral victories but allowed for shared ones. The Americans were either under French or British command and had the corresponding rules applied to them. In contrast, the Germans had ideal scoring system. They did not count moral victories. The opponent aircraft had to be either destroyed or forced to lend on German territory and its crew taken prisoners.--Work permit (talk) 19:13, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I just don't see the career of any particular fighter pilot (or any other person whatsoever, except perhaps a professional gambler) having this kind of connection with statistical analysis. The subfield is about the analysis of high achievers and their intrinsic skill vs luck. This article is specifically about MvR and his skill measured against his contemporaries--Work permit (talk) 19:13, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm citing a peer reviewed article that analyzes Manfred von Richthofen within the context of his peers. Certainly this deserves mention. Is there some rewording of my orginal entry that would work? ''A study published in the Journal of Mathematical Sociology claims that much of Richthofen's success could be explained by luck.. German records list 2,894 WWI fighter pilots, who together scored 6,759 victories and only 810 defeats. The authors used the numbers to analyze the pilots' chance of being shot down after each flight. That rate started off at 25 percent for the first flight, and then fell sharply. By the 10th flight it had leveled off below 5 percent, consistent with weaker pilots being picked off and the remaining aces having similar skills. At that rate, the researchers conclude that the odds of one in 2,894 pilots achieving an 80-win streak are about 30 percent. --Work permit (talk) 19:13, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

The article, and the entire subfields, is about the analysis of high achievers and their intrinsic skill. That's the point - if you like. Richthofen is merely cited as an example - so at best the whole thing is pure trivia in this context. It could be equally applied, not only to Allied air aces, but to all high achievers. The "purity" of scores of the aces is another subject altogether - it is quite irrelevant to this argument, which could be equally applied to ANY other field of endeavour. The whole concept is very close to pure mathematics and, to belabour a dead horse, no particular relevance to any individual. It may have a place in the article on statistics??? Soundofmusicals (talk) 20:19, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

That's not what I said. I said the subfield is about the analysis of high achievers and their intrinsic skill vs luck. This article specifically analyzes MvR and his skill measured against his contemporaries. It analyszes him because of his great achievement of 80 kills. --Work permit (talk) 20:38, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Exactly! he is an example - the original article is only about him in the most tangental way! Incidentally - it IS precisely what you said, since I pasted it from your response - if it's not what you meant then that's fair enough. For me, you still haven't shown how the Journal of Mathematical Sociology has anything specifically to say about Richthofen. Forgive me for paraphrasing rather brutally, but this article seems to "prove" several things:

1. If you were a (fighter) pilot in WW1 there was a strong element of luck in merely surviving long enough to gain competence, much less exceptional skill. A lot of novice pilots were killed very quickly. (All too true, of course). Richthofen WAS lucky in serving his apprenticeship on the Eastern Front - where air fighting was much less intense - but then this sort of fact is not what the JOMS article is about.

2. The ratio between victories scored by German fighter pilots and recorded "defeats" of German (fighter?) pilots is very heavily weighted (the researchers themselves said "suspiciously" heavily weighted). I would have said ridiculously weighted - unless we ARE only looking at German fighter pilots - which in turn renders the statistics meaningless - since most "victories" were over reconnaissance and bomber pilots. (Who did incidentally score occasional victories, but not to anything like the same extent as the "experts".) Incidentally - a large proportion of Richthofen's victories were NOT over opposing single seat fighters but over "opponents" like the B.E.2 and R.E.8 (the same kind of thing could be said for most ace pilots, to be fair).

3. Based on this (admittedly suspicious) ratio, and the total number of German (fighter ?) pilots 80 victories is not really that unlikely. Being not that unlikely, it can be attributed as much to luck as skill. (???)

I repeat - So what, and how would you justify including all this in an article on Richthofen? IT ISN'T specifcally about him at all - in fact the only data relating to him is his official score (i.e. the number 80).

Soundofmusicals (talk) 21:33, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure where you are reading this from the article. Have you purchased it? I have. I don't find the words suspiciously anywhere in the article. The article simply sets up a mathematical framework to study skill vs luck for German fighter pilots. It them applies this framework to the fighter pilots in general, and MvR specifically. To quote the abstract We find that the variance of this skill distribution is not very large, and that the top aces achieved their victory scores mostly by luck. For example, the ace of aces, Manfred von Richthofen, most likely had a skill in the top quarter of the active WWI German fighter pilots and was no more special than that. This conclusion I think is relevant to MvR.--Work permit (talk) 21:51, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I have only read the Scientific American report of the article, and am assuming that this is a fair summary of the argument - so you may have me there. My main response is - assuming the statistics, (which are actually highly questionable) are 100% accurate what can be meaningfully drawn from them about R. himself? Any high achievement obviously has a luck factor - but just how relevant is this to a meaningful assessment of an individual achievement? Just as a life expectancy of (say) 35 in late eighteenth century Austria (this is a hypothetical guess incidentally) would tells us nothing material about the death of Beethoven - the chances of a WW1 fighter pilot reaching a particular score tell us nothing about the score of Richthofen - and even less about anything else about him. Soundofmusicals (talk) 22:10, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Not sure the Beethoven analogy is relevant, since beethoven is known for his music, not his age. A better analogy is your home run hitting one. Statistics would say that someone hitting 80 home runs in a row is truely remarkable. While MvR's achievement is great, is it statistically remarkable? Can we say with statistical certainty that he was more skilled then Ernst Udet, Werner Junck, Max Immelmann, or Kurt Wissemann?--Work permit (talk) 22:57, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

No analogy is perfect of course - the point is that statistics prove nothing about individuals. Responsibly applied statistics don't try to prove anything about individuals. Richthofen is "known" by "lay" people (non-WW1 enthusiasts) because he flew a red plane and achieved 80 credited victories (a lovely round number, and more than anyone else). And, let me add - because he caught the imagination of the creator of the "Peanuts" characters!!! He was also the subject of a great deal of wartime propaganda, which went down very well with the German populace - and made him unusually well known among his opponents also. His achievements, as viewed by enthusiasts, lie more in his record as one of the great fighter leaders (he was THE pioneer of fighter "wing" tactics) than the actual number of his victories. It is probably true enough that he did have a fair bit of luck - including very bad luck in the way he died - basically from an single extreme range hit from a ground based Vickers gun. Statistical analysis however can't say anything meaningful about how much luck and how much skill - only the unremarkable fact that it wasn't that unlikely that someone would get to 80 victories... well, doh? so what? The reasons for fame - both ephemeral and lasting, are indeed VERY capricious. This is a fair enough conclusion - but one that is far from being specifically relevant to Richthofen!! It could no doubt be said with equal justification for 90% of the people mentioned in Wikipedia!!! Soundofmusicals (talk) 23:38, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Requesting third opinion

I am requesting a third opinion. User:Soundofmusicals is in (amicable) dispute with me over the inclusion of the following paragraph in the article about Richthofen

''A study published in the Journal of Mathematical Sociology claims that much of Richthofen's success could be explained by luck.. German records list 2,894 WWI fighter pilots, who together scored 6,759 victories and only 810 defeats. The authors used the numbers to analyze the pilots' chance of being shot down after each flight. That rate started off at 25 percent for the first flight, and then fell sharply. By the 10th flight it had leveled off below 5 percent, consistent with weaker pilots being picked off and the remaining aces having similar skills. At that rate, the researchers conclude that the odds of one in 2,894 pilots achieving an 80-win streak are about 30 percent.

The analysis is from the article Theory of Aces: High Score by Skill or Luck? which is published in The Journal of Mathematical Sociology, a peer reviewed journal. The article is citied by Scientific American Was the Red Baron Just Lucky?. I feel the conclusions are relevant to an article about Richthofen, User:Soundofmusicals feels they are not--Work permit (talk) 20:51, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad you consider this dispute "amicable" - it certainly is from this side! Yes, I'd like to see what some of the other WW1 aviation "fans" think - not to mention any mathematicians out there! Soundofmusicals (talk) 21:44, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

• Basically, I appreciate the discussion points that have been raised as to the theory that was proposed and considering the contentious nature of an esoteric theory being introduced, the comportment of both editors is admirable. As to the validity of introducing this statement, essentially, the concern I have is that the theory being forwarded is applicable to fighter pilots in general and although World War I combat veterans are the focus, the example of Manfred von Richthofen cannot be considered valid without a comprehensive analysis of individual combats. If I was to make a decision as to its retention as a key component of the life and legacy of Richthofen, the theory has to be considered peripheral. The passage is best suited to an article on fighter pilots rather than Manfred von Richthofen. FWiW, further elaboration may be required as this is not a summary judgment but merely an initial impression. Bzuk (talk) 02:24, 5 May 2008 (UTC).

• Yes, it's good to see a debate being conducted both amicably and forcefully. I think the World_sport_context section of Don Bradman's article is instructive here. It makes a strong case that Bradman was a uniquely successful player in the context of all major ball sports. It compares him to great players in other sports such as Pelé, Ty Cobb, Jack Nicklaus, and Michael Jordan, noting that none of their statistics were remotely as exceptional. Looking at the articles for those players, not one of them notes that although they were (perhaps) the best player of their sport, they were not as exceptional as Bradman. From this I conclude that we tend to only include such statistical background when it adds to the uniqueness of that individual's record, not when it might be might make them seem less exceptional in a broader context. This suggests that omitting such contextual information from the Red Baron's article would not be unusual. Personally I think it's an interesting (though not entirely surprising) detail, but as a statistician I'm probably not a typical reader. -- Avenue (talk) 04:12, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

• The problem with Simkin & Roychowdhury's theory, as reported by Scientific American, is it downplays the fact that surviving, as long as Richthofen did, was more than a matter of luck. Clearly, a major successful fighter pilot is not only one who shoots down enemy aircraft; he/she is also good at avoiding being killed. Grant | Talk 04:15, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

The Scientific American article oversimplifies Simkin & Roychowdhury's analysis. They also found that Manfred von Richthofen most likely had an intrinsic defeat rate of 2.5%. According to the distribution of intrinsic defeat rates derived in the article, about 27% of German pilots had a defeat rate of 2.5% or lower. This means that MvR is most likely merely in top 27% according to his skill. --Work permit (talk) 19:13, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

• [Came here from 3rd opinion] It's a lot to base on only a single article, analyzing only a single aspect of the question (mathematical statistics). If that's all there is, I would prefer to see only a couple of sentences, referring the reader to an interesting external link. If there is more discussion about this, I would like to see it based on reference to both the popular Scientific American article and the original study. Ideally it would at least mention limitations that the original authors might discuss, and it may mention any positive or negative published responses to the article. But this is interesting and potentially significant, so it should be included in some form. Regards, and thanks for keeping it clean, folks. —Michael Z. 2008-05-09 07:28 z

• Its no doubt an interesting theory and makes fascinating reading, but surely belongs more in an article on the general topic of 'acedom' or what makes an 'ace'; concepts like 'situation awareness' etc, can then be included in a collective way, and a reference taken from the von R entry here, which strictly speaking should be about the man and his career etc. Just me thoughts...Harryurz (talk) 10:00, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I think that the study is fascinating - A 30% chance that he just got lucky? Wow! And I thought he must have been a genius. But that is merely my opinion. However, the fact that there is a peer reviewed article in a well respected journal about Richthofen and the number of kills is justification enough. --Timtak (talk) 09:41, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

---

While all of the above discussion of the probability of Richthofen's victories is very interesting, all of it is so intrinsically flawed as to be meaningless.

While math theories work on carefully gathered data, the victory claims of World War I aces are anything but that. Highly stressed men, difficulties in vision, vagaries of weather and terrain all made reports of victory more of a guessing game than an accurate accumulation of fact. Some combat reports state only EA--enemy aircraft--as the target; some lack even a date; many lack a time of day. There are historians who attempt to match up reported losses with combat reports with an eye toward validating the scores of individual aces, and they always fail.

Passage of time and subsequent loss of records further erodes credibility and accuracy.

The comparison of fleeting observations in the air to sporting events witnessed by multitudes is so basically fallacious as to be laughably unbelievable. It is not even a comparison of apples and oranges; it is more like a comparison of pomegranates and bananas.

In short, if you allow "garbage in garbage out" into the mathematical realm, you can prove most anything.

Georgejdorner (talk) 21:59, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

date of birth?

whts the dob of red borron?plz reply at earliest —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.162.55.150 (talk) 05:18, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

plz rd 1st sence of articl Soundofmusicals (talk) 09:19, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Richthofen's "poor judgement".

This is described in detail - and referenced - so why change the heading I have no idea. I have further edited the heading so it once more makes some kind of sense. A trivial point either way perhaps - but it really needs to be reverted to the original (clearer, more descriptive) form. Soundofmusicals (talk) 02:48, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Timing of his head injury

The section Richthofen wounded in combat Says he was wounded in July 1917, but later, under Theories about Richthofen's last combat (2nd paragraph) it says this happened in June 1917. Does anyone know which is right? --MiguelMunoz (talk) 02:22, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to be so late fixing this - have noticed it repeatedly and meant to "get a round tuit". A quick check of several references indicates that the combat in which Richthofen was wounded (and, incidentally, very nearly shot down and killed) was indeed 6 July 1917 - hence the reference later in the article to "June 1917" is an error and has been corrected. Thanks for noticing this. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 20:41, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Brown fans please go home

I grew up believing Brown shot down Richthofen. It's what all the "Boys Own Annuals" used to say, isn't it! There is now a great deal of evidence (just some of it referenced in this article) that this is almost certainly just not so. This is not something into which legitimate scholarly debate can be injected, I'm afraid. READ SOME OF THE REFERENCES PROVIDED (you can get most of them at your local library!!). Several of them are much more convincing than the famous television documentary.

The facts (we'd put something like this in the article but its a bit POV!) seems to be that

• 1. Brown knew very well he didn't shoot down the Baron - and in his original combat report didn't even claim to do so!

• 2. Because of the great stress German propaganda had placed on Richthofen's feats - the British government was very keen to capitalise to the full extent on the propaganda effect of his being shot down - the fact that an ace pilot like Brown was in the vicinity meant this could be best done by crediting his downing with a "Baron meets his match" headline. Brown's commanding officer altered Brown's combat report to indicate a "decisive" combat (in other words, a victory claim). He, the commanding officer, was very probably ordered to do so by his superiors - and Brown himself had no say in the matter either. The Germans, incidentally, had already done something very similar when Ball was killed - crediting his downing to Lothar von Richthofen when it was most likely due to engine failure or vertigo. It was just more romantic that way.

• 3. Statements and accounts in various publications at the time and since describing "how Brown shot down the Baron - some of which have been claimed to be by Brown - have been conclusively shown NOT to be the work of Brown (or any other pilot) if only because they contain aeronautical and logical absurdities - and evidence that the actual writers were not familiar with the organisation of the RAF, the names of its formations, or the relative ranks of its officers.

• 4. Brown (and some of his brother officers) were most wary and equivocal in later years when asked about the facts of the case afterwards - it seems likely, in view of what we now know about what actually happened, that they were simply being loyal to the orders they had been given in 1918.

It is NOT (and never will be) known for certain which Australian soldier scored the very unlikely hit that actually killed the Baron - but that is quite obviously a completely different question.

--Soundofmusicals (talk) 07:00, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Interesting how the above comment uses barely disguised sarcasm, basically calling those who stick to historical facts, and not nationalistic fervour, to make a Wikipedia argument. As if those who believe in the truth, which is that Brown shot down the Baron, are some sort of fanboys making a stink over the PS3 versus the obviously superior Xbox 360. The actual reason Brown is "now" not considered "by many historians" (a dubious term used without a single reference) to be the one who shot the Baron down is that Canada refused to join the United States in their invasion of Iraq, and are currently suffering the backlash of an insensate regime. Australia, having knuckled under to American concessions over the past 30 years so as to resemble another foreign holding, is given the credit as a further insult to Canadians, who are superior in intellect and historical import. Eventually the truth will again emerge, and once the stories of dingo rape get out, Australia will again be relegated to crocodile g'daying anonymity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.13.40.27 (talk) 15:13, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Nationalistic fervour? Your response is saturated with it. Be civil and don't attack other editors/nationalities. "Dingo rape" is never a civil thing to say, and if you keep it up you'll be blocked from editing. Have I made myself clear? Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 19:00, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

When I started this one we were having a spate of "Brown shot down Richthofen" edits/vandalism and I was irritated and flew off the handle a little. My post was NOT the most sensible I have ever done, to be honest (although it is, as always with me, pretty spot on, hem hem). I think the point of the "answer" to this is that we are childishly quibbling over obscure and basically very trivial historical detail (which is actually the case, of course). Why do we bother? Basically, I suspect, because it is fun! Or shouldn't I take YOUR response frightfully seriously either? --Soundofmusicals (talk) 01:56, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

French report of R's autopsy

I have cut out the new bit about a French report of R's autopsy (in spite of its being cited) as it seems to have little relationship to the one in Franks and Alan The Red Baron's last flight - which described the Baron as having been hit by a single bullet - other injuries (to the face and legs) having been received when the triplane crash landed. According to Franks and Alan there were two autopsies by different doctors - in fact this whole bit struck me when I read it as pretty sickening and distressing, and I strongly wished they hadn't done it at all, but treated a hero's body with a bit more respect. For instance they poked around in his chest cavity with a bit of wire to determine the path of the bullet, and so on - all very crude and nasty. The single bullet was found lodged in his clothing, having passed through his body. None the less - the whole consensus about exactly when and how R. was hit would be thrown back into the melting pot if this latest report were to be taken into account. If we really don't know if R was hit by one or three bullets, for instance - well, what do we know??

I think we have to accept that an enormous amount of absolute rubbish has been published about R. (including one article "by an eyewitness" that stated R. was flying a biplane, not a triplane, and "leapt from the cockpit to shake his captor's hand"). Sadly, I fear this comes into the same category.

Even if the French account is totally honest and based on real evidence rather than fantasy, it is at best second hand and hearsay - and I think this needs to be taken into account when comparing it with the direct documentation of the doctors performing the autopsy, as documented by Franks and Alan.

--Soundofmusicals (talk) 22:28, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

That seems to be a fantasy. I have only read of two autopsies being carried out, both by Australian (or possibly British) doctors. Grant | Talk 10:08, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd be surprised if the French ever got involved; vonR was primarily engaged against the RFC/RNAS/RAF portion of the lines, and came down in 'British held' territory- the French certainly did'nt have jurisdiction over captured airman or aircraft found in the British zone of the front, so why over a dead emeny ace? sounds very fishy to me. Harryurz (talk) 10:33, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

To be fair - the edit never said anything about a "French autopsy" - it was a French report about the British/Australian autopsy that was IMHO at least, based on what I have read - extremely inaccurate. I have changed the section heading to make this clear. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 13:31, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

To make this quite clear - here is the addition to the article that I reverted:

The autopsy report states that not one, but three bullets were found in the body: one in the heart, one in the stomach and another in the knee. This is consistent with a burst from Sgt Popkin's Vickers. Note that Popkin was still pressing his claim in the Melbourne evening newspaper at the end of the '50s.

The editor who inserted the above inserted this reference/footnote

Hareux> [Hareux, Jean-Michel: Villers-Bretonneux, SERHAM, Montdidier, 2007, tome 1, p. 319], Le 21 avril.

VON RICHTHOFEN au commande de son « Fokker » est abattu par un tir de mitrailleuse. Son corps est transporté à Bernay puis à Poulainville où un médecin militaire anglais procède à l'autopsie : une balle au cœur, une dans le ventre et une autre dans le genou. La carrière de l'as de l'aviation allemande a cessé 11 jours avant son 26ème anniversaire.

My (bad) French translates this (fairly freely) as:

Von Richthofen, flying his "Fokker", was brought down by a burst of machine gun fire. His body was moved to Bernay and then to Poulainville where a British military doctor performed an autopsy. (There was) one bullet in the heart, one in the belly, and another in the knee. The career of the German Ace pilot ended 11 days before his 26th. Birthday.

This, as I have said, contradicts the actual autopsy as reported in Franks and Alan - which stated that Richthofen was hit once - and that his other injuries (to his face and legs) were superficial, and caused by crashing with his safety belt undone. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 13:53, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Reversion of this page

The page has been reverted to its state before the last batch of edits, that rendered it incomprehensible - partly by the insertion of frequent interlinear comments, hard to distinguish from the original - and partly by insertion of large blocks of unrelated text.

To the editor concerned:

IF you genuinely feel you have a case to state - please enter it here -

NOT by editing the comments of others - which is what your technique of interlinear interjection comes down to (!) but by saying what you want in your own time and in your own words rather than by editing and interjecting on what others have said. Keep to the point, and bear in mind that however much others may be concerned about your obvious personal problems with reality, that is not the point here - we're simply trying to make this article (and the brave experiment of Wikipedia itself) as good as we possibly can.

This is about Richthofen's autopsy, which most serious editors of this page have read - and which may be found in the published and freely available sources cited. Please, BEFORE slahing out at all and sundry again, read this report. It is in English, so my poor French and non-existant German are irrelevant to the case. The complete text of the autopsy is NOT the sort of detail we want here, frankly - nor is it necessary. This article is very well referenced already.

Finally , keep any nasty personal comments to yourself. If anyone is polite to you - online or in "real life" - it is very probably with motives of genuine kindness rather than snide or sarcastic ones. Even if this is not the case, it never hurts to be polite back. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 22:42, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Extract of actual content out of vandalistic thrashing about on this page referred to above

– The answer is: in that case little or nothing; back to square 1. The whole consensus about more important things, such as the shape of the world and the relative motion of it and the sun, has after all several times been fundamentally disturbed and we have got over such traumatic experiences. The fact that the anatomising R.M.O.s found only one bullet is, if it is a fact, in the circumstances inconclusive:

The interpretation of Hareux’s version I offered on this page yesterday was that three bullets of a burst from Sgt Popkin’s MMG penetrated Richthofen’s body. One of them, the fatal one, went right through and was stopped in his clothes. I hypothesize for argument’s sake that it was stopped not BY his clothes but by the armour-plating of the seat, and that the other two passed out again through the plywood and fabric of the flimsy machine. The well-documented fact that the aeroplane was landed by Richthofen practically undamaged and immediately after the removal of his body thoroughly cannibalised for souvenirs by enthusiastic Diggers would explain even the disappearance of bullets lodged elsewhere in it. It may even be that they were found and carried off discreetly by their finders as the most precious of the souvenirs. On the other hand some of the pieces of the machine exhibited in the Australian War Memorial in Canberra are so big that they cannot possibly have been smuggled home by individual soldiers in their kitbags, any more than the tank Mephisto now in Queensland was. Again, it is certain that almost all English and most other British infantry and Flying Corps officers of the time, possibly including even some Australian staff officers, would have done everything in their power to conceal the fact, if it were a fact, that this famous, aristocratic and highly-decorated ace pilot was brought down by a simple machine-gunner from Melbourne who spoke uneducated English with a barbarous accent and apart from his machine-gun thought of little besides beer, two-up, V.F.L. football and the sheilas. Pamino (talk) 13:09, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

The above is what Pamino apparently meant to say - this has been extracted from the hopeless muddle to which the page was reduced by his/her sequence of edits. To answer his/her points one by one:

The British army doctors who examined the body found only one bullet wound. A wound caused by the bullet of a military rife or machine gun is distinctive, it very unlikely to be mistaken, especially on close inspection by a doctor, for an injury caused by collision with machine gun butts or the structure of an aeroplane, especially when such injuries have been caused by a relatively mild crash. And anyway the French report refers to three bullets IN the body, not three wounds. The seat was thin aluminium and not armoured - it still exists, (in Canada) and is undamaged. A row of holes in the back are in fact for bolts or rivets that originally held the seat in position. Any assumed presence of "other bullets" is pure speculation. (in "Wiki-speak" "original research").

Also specualtion (and totally irrelevant, not to mention racist) are the comments about the "typical British officer" and the "typical Australian digger". I agree that the evidence (the real evidence, not Pamino's wild guesses) points to an Australian machine gunner on the ground rather than Brown (read the article!!). This is bourne out by the actual autopsy (READ IT) just as much as by the French (per)version of the same autopsy. The RAF (or maybe even the civil authorities) DID have reasons for saying that Richthofen "met his match" in a duel with an opposing ace rather than falling victim to ground fire. It was obviously much better propaganda. But the idea that this was based in snobbery is not only speculation, but silly - Brown himself was a not an English gentleman, but a "mere colonial" (he was Canadian). --Soundofmusicals (talk) 00:58, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and incidentally, if I may be excused for addressing Pamino directly for a moment - Wikipedia is very patently NOT a forum for discussing new theories of our own (however sound we my think them to be) - certainly not on such matters as "the shape of the world and the relative motion of it and the sun", nor on the truthfulness of the doctors who examined Richthofen's body - whom you are calling liars, or else fools who knew less about the case than you do!! Such things belong to a different class of literature to a popular general encyclopedia. And I don't like snide abuse about my use of the words "please" and "thank you". Lack of manners (whether to "superiors or "inferiors") betrays ill breeding and ignorance - aggressive defence of such bad manners betrays something I'd rather not mention!! --Soundofmusicals (talk) 02:35, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Talk page comments

In relation to the last submission, a modicum of decorum should prevail even in talk page discussions. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 17:08, 16 August 2008 (UTC).

Personal research and editorializing

An assessment of all these factors must include the circumstances of the time. At the time of Richthofen's death the front was in a highly fluid state, following the initial success of the German offensive of March–April 1918. The Baron may have been acutely aware that the battle he was engaged in was part of Germany's last real chance to win the war — in the face of Allied air superiority, the German air service was having great difficulty in acquiring vital reconnaissance information, such as the positions of batteries, and could do little to prevent Allied squadrons from completing very effective reconnaissance and close support of their armies.

This entire paragraph is uncredited and smack of personal point of view. If Richthofen was brain injured as the Lancet suggests, why should anyone believe he was doing active reconnaissance of the enemy's artillery battery? Sounds to me like he had a boner for shooting down May, got careless, and got his ass handed to him for his troubles. This whole paragraph should be terminated with extreme prejudice unless someone can find a cite to back it up.139.48.25.60 (talk) 18:06, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I concede that your recent edits to this paragraph improve it greatly from an "encyclopediac" view. I would probably have excised that last sentence myself it anyone else had written it - and certainly have no intention to revert it!! On the other hand this paragraph, or something like it, is probably needed to round off the section. It is actually very close to the general conclusions of Franks and Bennett - and could easily have a cite to that effect appended. What do you think? Or we could very easily put in cites for the central facts - the German offensive, initially very successful, was running out of steam, among other reasons because the Allies had air superiority. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 01:00, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

May WAS a novice at the time!!

May went on to score eleven victories (not to mention his career as a pioneer of Canadian civil aviation). But this was his very first operational flight, so he WAS a novice. We all have to start somewhere, don't we? Please read context BEFORE editing.--Soundofmusicals (talk) 23:31, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Fact Tag on "Fighter aircraft superior to his own" - anyone have a reference to this one?

A rather silly tag has been put on the statement that Richthofen was facing fighters (Sopwith Camel and SE.5a) superior in most respects to either Albatros D.V and Fokker Dr.1. (Hardly controversial or OR that one, surely!!) But has anyone a simple one line reference to replace the tag with? --Soundofmusicals (talk) 21:11, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Who were Richthofens parents?

Surely its not unknown information right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.255.78.10 (talk) 23:49, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

• It's in the article. LewisWasGenius (talk) 18:31, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

kaputt

I have changed again the translation given for kaputt from "*destroyed* or *broken*" to *finished*. The word *kaputt* has many meanings - all with a negative slant, such as *destroyed*, *broken*. LANGENSCHEIDT English/German gives four : broken, ruined, worn out, all in. However, by checking an online German/German dictionary, ones gets more meanings highlighting in a Google search the words :tot, gestorben, kaputt; then kaputt comes up with the definitions meaning also dead:

Bedeutung: tot | Art: Adjektiv

abgestorben, eingeschlafen, kaputt, vorbei, verblichen, gefühllos, hin, heimgegangen, unbeseelt, blutleer, entzwei, hingeschieden, mausetot, leblos, verloren, verschieden, abgeschieden, empfindungslos, entseelt, verstorben, selig

I inserted a hidden statement beside *finished*

"Another eye witness, Sgt Ted Smout of the Australian Medical Corps, reported that Richthofen's last word was "kaputt" ("finished").

hidden statement: "It was Richthofen who was *kaputt* not his aircraft, and when he said *kaputt*, he was saying that HE was *finished*, that HE *was dying*, not that his aircraft was *broken* or *destroyed*/FW"

and gave the following online reference of a German dictionary: http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:SzqjSgxjO6AJ:synonyme.woxikon.de/synonyme/gestorben.php+kaputt+ist+synonymer+tot+sein&cd=3&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a

Frania W. (talk) 03:17, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

All of the definitions could very easily be interpreted as Richthofen referring to himself as "destroyed", "defeated" or "broken". BTW, "kaput" is the usual spelling. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 03:25, 18 May 2009 (UTC).

Making a big deal out of this is not really necessary - it is far from certain that Richthofen's last word WAS "kaput" anyway (see Franks and Bennett). This is only on the somewhat doubtful authority of Sgt. Smout, who was first to reach him - and who himself spoke no German. Assuming it WAS what he said, I think any speculation about exactly what he meant is just that, pure speculation, and not really a matter for an encyclopedia article. I would delete the hidden text myself.--Soundofmusicals (talk) 07:57, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Translation of "kaputt": (1) have you ever heard a military man on the point of dying saying that he is "destroyed" or "broken"? (2) if Richtfhofen did say "kaputt" and it is highlighted in the text, then he is being quoted in his mother tongue & the word should be spelled the German way with two *t*. Frania W. (talk) 12:40, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree its pretty obvious what he meant - that's the point! Just stating the facts and letting the reader draw the obvious conclusion is however preferable to a specific statement that is (at least technically) speculation. Can't find my copy of Franks and Bennett offhand (if you could see state of my study you would not be overly surprised) but I think from memory that Smout's account of what R said simply wasn't German - although it MIGHT (given a non-German speaker's hearing) have been something like Alle ist kaputt (sorry if that's wrong, but my German is probably worse than Smout's), or "It's all over". Anyone with an accessible copy of Franks and Bennett like to correct this??? --Soundofmusicals (talk) 01:58, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Please find your Franks & Bennett with the exact quote! Then just state the facts & we can fight over the translation of *kaputt* later. On the other hand, I do have a problem with this. If the bullet touched Richthofen's heart, would not he be dead... on arrival ??? Frania W. (talk) 04:01, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

He was, more or less. His wound was from an almost spent bullet that ploughed diagonally through his chest cavity and exited in his armpit, lodging in his flying coat. In the last second or so of life he just managed to crash land - turning off his engine and easing back the stick a little (he was, remember, already at very low altitude). Personally, I would not be the least surprised if he really was dead by before anyone could reach him, and the story of his last words could well be just that, a story. Anyway, has anyone else a copy of the book in question? Mine has been missing for a while - I was searching for it the other day to confirm something or other.--Soundofmusicals (talk) 07:00, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I love your "he was more or less" because *dead* is like *pregnant*: you either are or are not... Imagine someone with a wound in his heart (even if the bullet had only effleuré son cœur) crash landing his aircraft, which must have been quite a physical shock & still able to utter something... If not unconscious by that time, he must have been Superman. Too bad we cannot grill Smout. Frania W. (talk) 15:14, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

According to the people who still say Brown might have shot him down he flew for nearly 2 minutes after the bullet ploughed through the heart and both lungs - and it wasn't a little pistol bullet either - but a military rifle/machine gun bullet! I agree Smout's account is a bit far fetched. The crash landing was severe enough for R to have injuries to his face and legs, incidentally. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 03:30, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I know - lower jaw dislocated & teeth knocked out, if I read correctly, which would make it hard for him to hold much of a conversation. Frania W. (talk) 03:57, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I am am open minded about the last words. A .303 bullet (7.7 mm) is brutal, but considerably less so after travelling 600 yds/m. A broken jaw is a serious impediment to speech but "kaputt" is not difficult to mouth and Smout had likely acquired some German as a result of his work as a medic. Grant | Talk 07:51, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Not a witness to the scene, I was not originally arguing about Richthofen's supposed last word(s) but on the translation and orthography of the word *kaputt*. As for Smout's proficiency in German... no one needs a crash course in that language to know the meaning of kapput. More of my concern in all this: after a bullet went through his chest, his effort to land the aircraft without crashing it to pieces, plus having his lower jaw dislocated by whatever smashed his face as he hit the ground, in how much pain was Richthofen?

Oops! Looks like I had forgotten to sign, FW

Frania W. (talk) 13:52, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

A gory detail, and not awfully relevant, but a rifle bullet after travelling 500m makes a WORSE mess in a person's chest cavity than at close range - up to 200-300m it tends to fly straight through - at a greater range it "wobbles about". Back on topic - personally I would omit the whole bit about his "last words". It's just possible he did say something to Smout - and if so it's not at all unlikely that what he said included the word "kaputt" - but is such doubtful information encyclopediac? As for what he meant (if that's what he said) - assuming we leave that bit in I would prefer NOT to translate it at all - but leave the reader to look it up if he has never encountered the word before. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 23:22, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

After discussing this back & forth, I was coming to the same conclusion. Let's say that he was heard by Smout to say "kapputt" and leave it at that. Since you have been working on this article more than I have, à vous l'honneur! Frania W. (talk) 02:31, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

OK, 'tis done!--Soundofmusicals (talk) 12:04, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Completely off-topic, but you mentioned his facial injuries. As he was thrown forward (all WWI pilots automatically undid their safety belts before a crash - they had a horror of being trapped in a burning wreck) his face piled into his machine gun butts. This was a very common injury among WWI fighter pilots on both sides - it was known in the RFC as "Camel Face". --Soundofmusicals (talk) 12:14, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! It was nice discussing with you, a rather long discussion for such a small word, supposedly Richthofen's last. Let our last be Auf Wiedersehen! Frania W. (talk) 14:06, 29 May 2009 (UTC)