Template talk:Top German World War II Aces

Removal of bottom half of template

I have removed the "Order and date of milestone victories" sections of the template as per the discussion at the Template's proposed deletion, I have preserved someone's hard work below. I would be happy to discuss furter amendments. Cavalryman V31 (talk) 21:28, 25 August 2017 (UTC).

Recent edit

Preserving here by providing this link. The edit limited the inclusion criteria to those with 150+ aerial victories. I felt that 100+ names were excessive; the change leaves about three dozen names which seems appropriate for a template. I also removed the specific claim numbers; they were cited to Obermaier, who is best known for producing hagiographic accounts of careers of Luftwaffe pilots. Please let me know if there are any concerns. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:05, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Proposed change to initial state

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

---

I want to discuss if re-introducing all fighter aces with more than 100 claims is within the consensus of the community. I also want to seek consensus on re-introducing the previous structure which segmented this list into, pilots with more than 100, 150, 200, 250 and 300 claims. The basis for the proposed change is as follows:

• During the course of World War II, the first pilots to reach each of these "milestones" were awarded Nazi Germanys highest military decoration, the highest grade of the Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross with Diamonds. Werner Mölders for 100 claims, Gordon Gollob for 150 claims, Hermann Graf for 200 claims, Walter Nowotny for 250 claims, and Erich Hartmann for reaching 300 claims. See also French MacLean, author of Luftwaffe Efficiency & Promotion Reports: For the Knight's Cross Winners
• The argument that 100 listings is excessive seems a personal opinion to me, Wikipedia has multiple templates in the same order of magnitude, examples include {{Top US World War II Aces}}, {{Top UK World War II Aces}}, {{Neo-Nazism}}, {{German far right}}
• With slight variations, the figures listed in this template are supported by numerous sources including Aces of the Luftwaffe: The Jagdflieger in the Second World War by Peter Jacobs and most recently the published analysis of the German Federal Archives by Andrew Johannes Matthews and John Foreman, authors of Luftwaffe Aces — Biographies and Victory Claims
• All pilots with claims exceeding 100 received extensive coverage in multiple books, including works by Jochen Prien, Gerhard Stemmer, Peter Rodeike, Winfried Bock authors of Die Jagdfliegerverbände der Deutschen Luftwaffe 1934 bis 1945 [The Fighter Units of the German Air Force 1934 to 1945]

Please discuss, cheers MisterBee1966 (talk) 11:48, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Fully support, the template was reduced without consensus. Cavalryman V31 (talk) 11:57, 17 December 2017 (UTC).

Support, re-introduction of 100+; with concision and discernment to be used as to same. If cited, RS sources should be used. Kierzek (talk) 20:04, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Question to K.e.coffman who made the change - was it on grounds of length or verifiability? More info would help inform this discussion, for those like me who less regularly edit WWII topics. -- Euryalus (talk) 19:59, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose -- adding pilots with 100+ claims will result in a template with more than a hundred names, which is excessive for a flat, list-like template. Restoring the specific numbers is not necessary since the brackets (i.e. 150+, etc) are provided.

Re "extensive coverage in multiple books": the titles listed are descriptive compilations of material/documents about the Luftwaffe. Historians use them for getting numbers, for example - how many planes were used there and there... I consider these compilations to be collections of primary materials, so it's not WP:SIGCOV in secondary sources. These authors are typical Luftwaffe buffs, who have collected combat-related materials over the last twenty/thirty years. Prien's books were self-published in Germany; they were issued in English by a third-party publisher, Schiffer Publishing. That's not saying much, as Schiffer is best known for producing uncritical chronicles of highly-decorated Luftwaffe personnel; see WP:QS.

It's okay to use WP:PRIMARY sources on occasion, but building out entire articles based on such sources results in inappropriate synthesis. Wikipedia is not a platform for publishing original thought. In summary, I oppose the expansion of the template on the above grounds. It's excessive, unnecessary and I disagree with MisterBee's assertions about the sources. @Euryalus: hope this helps! K.e.coffman (talk) 01:11, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

• Support Frequently covered across several titles, there's no assertion or evidence that the claims are misrepresented, and it's a legitimate navigation tool for readers. On a sidenote, for K.e.coffman, could you expand on your issue with Obermaier? LargelyRecyclable (talk) 19:15, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
• Comment on Obermaier -- this source has been discussed in the past; samples:

• Talk:Werner Mölders#Tags
• Talk:Werner Mölders#Update on the literature

K.e.coffman (talk) 23:44, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. I see some objections of a biography he wrote as being too...uncritical (hagiography is quickly becoming an exhausted term around here)...but I'm unsure if I missed any previous discussion on his listing reference, as cited here. Are you aware if that's been covered anywhere? My understanding is his numbers come principally from the Gemeinschaft der Jagdflieger. Do you know anything about that, or the organization? The only academic citation I've been able to find is Richard R. Muller in Luftwaffe Over Germany: Defense of the Reich, which doesn't really impress. LargelyRecyclable (talk) 00:19, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Gemeinschaft der Jagdfliege is a typical veterans' association, concerned with preserving the past, etc. Apparently not as insidious as HIAG, for example, but I would not expect objectivity from them. I consider the numbers redundant and unnecessary since any specific numbers can be included -- even if disputed -- in individual articles. But my "Oppose" is mostly not about the numbers.

My objection is primarily directed against expanding the template to include those pilots with 100+ claims. I believe that 150+ is a good cut-off since it leaves a manageable template. Including more than a hundred names in a template is excessive, IMO. Comparisons with {{Top US World War II Aces}} and {{Top UK World War II Aces}} are not relevant since they have also been created by the OP and exhibit the same traits (one of them I significantly trimmed already: diff). K.e.coffman (talk) 00:46, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

So your objection is principally of the formatting past 100? Also, are you saying that the GdJ is some degree of insidious? LargelyRecyclable (talk) 00:51, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

I do not understand the question: "...principally of the formatting past 100". I would not expect objectivity from GdJ; all veterans' orgs involve some sort of mythologising, no? K.e.coffman (talk) 00:54, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm asking if your objection of the inclusion of pilots with 100+ claims is principally one of formatting. And no, I wouldn't categorically characterize veteran's associations that way at all. Historians work for and often draw from the work done by veteran's organizations. The VFW and the American Legion, for example, are actually chartered by the US Congress to collect and maintain historical information. The Veterans History Project in the US coordinates veterans organizations explicitly for this purpose. Apparently the GdJ also works with historians. LargelyRecyclable (talk) 01:04, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

On veterans' orgs -- they may have useful materials, but I would consider publications they produce to be WP:PRIMARY sources, reflecting the perspectives of the participants in the events. These memoirs, collections of materials, and similar could suffer from selective memory, lack of information, lost records, etc. They should be treated with care, as any primary materials, and are best reserved as sources for professional researchers, not wikipedia editors.

On the template, I'm still not sure what you mean by "formatting". To clafify: I believe that the current version of the template is superior to what's being proposed, which I assume would be this version. This is essentially a list in the guise of a template, and is excessive as a template. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:16, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

You've just described what most historical scholarship is based on. Sources are only primary sources in an encyclopedic context if they are presented and interpreted directly by editors. I don't know the methodology the GfJ uses to compile statistics but anything they put out that is analyzed and then used to make an assertion by a third party, is a secondary source. The exception being if the stats are directly taken from a primary source such as a squadron's official books, and then passed on to be republished without any analysis whatsoever. If the analysis was already done by the GdJ and then simply reprinted by Obermaier without his own input or examination, then he becomes a tertiary source. All that said, would you prefer a list article in lieu of a template? LargelyRecyclable (talk) 01:29, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

I would have no objection to a list if desired by the OP to focus specifically on those with 100+ claims. However, I'm not sure if it would be redundant to List of World War II aces from Germany, which includes all German WWII aces. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:39, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Support Fully The template seems to have been reduced / adjusted without consensus, and the template that includes people with 100 plus is entirely reasonable. auntieruth (talk) 17:32, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

• Is this a concensus? It is either a 5:1 or 4:0 vote (including or excluding coffman and myself) in favor of the rollback. If so, we can close this discussion and We implement the change shortly, moving forward, relying on Matthews and Foreman as a source. auntieruth (talk) 17:16, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Looks like consensus to me. Cavalryman V31 (talk) 00:47, 12 January 2018 (UTC).

• Support. The template itself is collapsible.Icewhiz (talk) 06:37, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

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

Template move

Chicbyaccident, I have reverted your move of this Template in accordance with WP:RMUM, as I am not sure it is required. Please discuss here. Kind regards, Cavalryman V31 (talk) 10:10, 15 May 2018 (UTC).