Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Erich von Manstein/archive1
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Erich von Manstein
Partial self-nomination, von Manstein is one of the most important military leaders of World War II and of the 20th century. GeneralPatton 05:24, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Object.Concur. As a military buff (and you know I am because you've seen the articles I edit), I realize von Manstein's importance...but he is not going to mean much to most Wikipedians. -Joseph (Talk) 06:41, 2004 Nov 14 (UTC)- ...so...? What's your objection? →Raul654 22:10, Nov 14, 2004 (UTC)
- Well, that's not the point with features articles, the point is that they represent the best work of wiki, regardless of how many people know about their subject. For instance, look at the Japanesei toilet article, obscure topic, but a good entry. It is about quality not popularity. Also, this reasoning is against wiki policy, for it states that "All objections must give a specfic rationale that can be addressed", as is not the case here. GeneralPatton 07:30, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Support.
Quibble: Is there really only one reference?Much better! Thank you! Zerbey 02:47, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)- Reference section has been expanded, citing the best books available. GeneralPatton 04:24, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Have those references actually been used to expand and/or fact check the material currently in the article? If not, it is intellectually dishonest to list them as references. - Taxman 14:26, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC)
- That I’ve used them, then the answer is yes, I could have listed more than a dozen other works that are not as helpful. Also, I believe the reference section should make it easier for someone who's interested to find out more on the subject matter. GeneralPatton 16:08, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Excellent. If you actually used these others then I think they would make a good addition. While making it easier to find more about the subject is noble, I don't feel it should override the importance of citing all sources used in the article, or of using and citing those you have available. - Taxman 21:49, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC)
- That I’ve used them, then the answer is yes, I could have listed more than a dozen other works that are not as helpful. Also, I believe the reference section should make it easier for someone who's interested to find out more on the subject matter. GeneralPatton 16:08, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Have those references actually been used to expand and/or fact check the material currently in the article? If not, it is intellectually dishonest to list them as references. - Taxman 14:26, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC)
- Reference section has been expanded, citing the best books available. GeneralPatton 04:24, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Support--enceladus 03:37, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC)
ObjectSupport. (1)"was a General, and later a Field Marshal" is a strange way to put it (he was also an ensign, a lieutenant, a captain etc). Perhaps "was a military officer", or plain "was a Field Marshal" would do.(2)The lead section should say a bit more about him: he's famous for more than just arguing with Hitler.(3)Wikipedia has many article on the two world wars. Please link to them when appropriate. For example, you write that he fought in the "attack on Verdun", but wouldn't it be better to link to our article on the battle of Verdun? There are other missing links, notably Third Battle of Kharkov.(4) The big pictures are rather overwhelming: perhaps 300px would be better. (5)"This was considered his first mark of genius" Considered by whom?(6) References should follow the format recommended at Wikipedia:Cite sources. Gdr 14:07, 2004 Nov 15 (UTC)- 1 and 2 have been fixed so far, im working on others. Thanks for your imput. GeneralPatton 15:05, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- I've now linked both the Battles of Verdun and Kharkov as well as some other articles. Working on the References. I ought to stress that your link is the "proposed" not the "accepted" citation style guide, thus I don’t think the articles are obliged to follow that exact style. GeneralPatton 15:59, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Removed 5 as its redundant, the text speaks for itself. GeneralPatton 15:53, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- And the photos really don't look this good when they're smaller, a lot of fine detail is lost, particularly because of their horizontal format. And they're really not a major bandwidth burden, since together they're around 120kb. GeneralPatton 15:09, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Support. -- ALoan (Talk) 15:07, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Neutral,
leaning toward object, but I am open to being shown I am incorrect. Seems a bit whitewashed. He was convicted of war crimes, but the intro fails to mention this seemingly very important fact. He was also a member of the Nazi party was he not? I know we have to be careful about guilt by association, but not mentioning it at all also seems POV. Otherwise looks good, well written and researched.- Taxman 21:49, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC)- He was never a member of the Nazi party, that's one of the reasons why he had no trouble in the West Germany, unlike some other of the Reich’s Field Marshals. For the first few years of the formation of Bundeswehr, he was seen as the unofficial chef of staff, and even later his birthday parties were regularly attended by official delegations of Bundeswehr and NATO bigwigs, such as Hans Speidel who was NATO SACEUR; The Supreme Allied Commander Europe from 1957 to 1963 and Adolf Heusinger who was NATO CMC; The Chairman of the Military Committee from 1961-1964. This wasn't the case with the party card carrying pro-nazi Feld Marshals such as Milch, Schörner, von Küchler, List... who were disregarded and forgotten after the war. GeneralPatton 02:31, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- The intro now mentions the trial. GeneralPatton 14:58, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Object.Neutral. Article has improved considerably, but I think the points not yet struck out below are still areas of improvement.This article is a good start, but still needs lots of work. I'm worried about the neutrality,and the languageneedsmay need work.Already in the intro: "mastermind behind the ingenious plan for the German invasion of France"—"ingenious" is a judgemental term that should go. "Eventually even Hitler had enough of him"—can't we formulate that better?(Changed it myself.) Manstein increasingly had serious differences with Hitler over questions of strategy, and tried repeatedly to lobby for the institution of an "Oberbefehlshaber Ost" that would have planned the overall strategy. This brought him in direct rivalry with Hitler.(Incidentally, I can find only a minor mention of his ideas on strategy except Fall Gelb in the article.)(Added a little myself, but the WWII section could do with a little bit more.)"Operation Northern Lights": "...where Manstein's inferior forces managed to outmaneuver superior Soviet forces..." without any mention of the fact that the goal of this operation was to take Leningrad by cutting it off from its supplies and that this operation did not succeed is too heavily biased for my taste.The WWII section is too much of a list of battles. It lacks coverage of Manstein's strategic ideas, his political views.In his autobiography, his thesis is basically that if the Generals had been in charge of strategy, the war on the eastern front could have been won. That needs mentioning,(Is mentioned now) together with some renowned historians' views of that credo. (BTW, Manstein expressed this opinion already already during the war, cf. "Oberbefehlshaber Ost" above.)His refusal to become involved in complotts within the Wehrmacht to dismiss Hitler ("Preussische Feldmarschälle meutern nicht.") deserves more coverage, too.(Done now.)In general, I think before this article can be featured, the critical biography at [1] needs to be taken into account: facts reported there need to be checked for accuracy and incorporated into the article.(Mostly done.)BTW, I added this link to the article, and it was removed pronto on the grounds that it was in German.(It's back there...) Lupo 16:05, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)- Oh, and another point: the images used in the article do not have sources. Lupo 16:08, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Most images still don't have sources. Even WWII images need sources. Lupo 09:54, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- You seem to forget to mention that I’ve also removed the link to the Achtung Panzer bio, that was highly positive in its portrayal of von Manstein. The form of this biography is pretty much to report the facts, leaving excessive criticism and or excessive praise out of it and letting the reader judge for himself. And about "ingenious", so according to you the invasion of France was not a success? And it's not my insertion, its something B. H. Liddell Hart wrote. GeneralPatton 17:06, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- A criticism by a valid source is an important part of th article. If you cite it properly and you are relatively balanced about the criticisms then it is not POV. What is POV is to leave out valid, important, information. You can attack Lupo for conspiracy[2], but the facts that he raises need to be discussed in the article. - Taxman 17:45, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)
- Err, I'm not attacking Lupo for conspiracy. I’m just saying he's making this look like I'm David Irving, which is ironic since last week when I nominated my Irving article, I was accused of being anti-Irving biased and ADL’s lapdog. So I guess I must be doing something right. Also, That article by Michael Schröders doesn’t reveal anything shocking or new, and is pretty much about how von Manstein’s memoirs and trial defense were self-serving and skewed in his favor, but that’s how all memoirs and defense strategies tend to be. GeneralPatton 19:22, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Answer on my talk page. Lupo 19:53, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Err, I'm not attacking Lupo for conspiracy. I’m just saying he's making this look like I'm David Irving, which is ironic since last week when I nominated my Irving article, I was accused of being anti-Irving biased and ADL’s lapdog. So I guess I must be doing something right. Also, That article by Michael Schröders doesn’t reveal anything shocking or new, and is pretty much about how von Manstein’s memoirs and trial defense were self-serving and skewed in his favor, but that’s how all memoirs and defense strategies tend to be. GeneralPatton 19:22, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- A criticism by a valid source is an important part of th article. If you cite it properly and you are relatively balanced about the criticisms then it is not POV. What is POV is to leave out valid, important, information. You can attack Lupo for conspiracy[2], but the facts that he raises need to be discussed in the article. - Taxman 17:45, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)
- The article also doesn't trump down on "Operation Northern Lights" just as it doesn't trump up on the Crimean Campaign. It's an effort to make a balanced, fact based military biography, without either taking sides or being too judgmental. GeneralPatton 17:19, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- It's not a question of "trumping up/down" something. It's a question of giving the reader some background. And I do think that by including some of the facts mentioned in Schröders' article we can arrive at a much more differentiated portrayal of the man. It is rather one-dimensional right now. Schröders' article certainly isn't shocking—but why should it be? That's completely besides the point. It's a scholarly article, with lots of properly referenced citations. The point is that Schröders shows another side of von Manstein, which is currently completely lacking from the article. Lupo 20:18, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- And that is? Where exactly have I failed? Give me a concrete list of problems, point by point, and I'll work on it. GeneralPatton 20:20, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- I'm trying to give constructive criticism on that article. I have given some concrete points in my original rationale for my objection, and I have explained what I think would need to be included. That, however, needs research. Maybe a round of peer review might help? Finally I'd like to point out the Forum on Erich von Manstein, a scholarly discussion forum of historians with lots of additional information (unfortunately in German again) and pointers to additional sources, hosted by the "News Service for Historians". Lupo 14:41, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- More comments and questions on the article's talk page. Lupo 08:34, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- I'm trying to give constructive criticism on that article. I have given some concrete points in my original rationale for my objection, and I have explained what I think would need to be included. That, however, needs research. Maybe a round of peer review might help? Finally I'd like to point out the Forum on Erich von Manstein, a scholarly discussion forum of historians with lots of additional information (unfortunately in German again) and pointers to additional sources, hosted by the "News Service for Historians". Lupo 14:41, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- And that is? Where exactly have I failed? Give me a concrete list of problems, point by point, and I'll work on it. GeneralPatton 20:20, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- It's not a question of "trumping up/down" something. It's a question of giving the reader some background. And I do think that by including some of the facts mentioned in Schröders' article we can arrive at a much more differentiated portrayal of the man. It is rather one-dimensional right now. Schröders' article certainly isn't shocking—but why should it be? That's completely besides the point. It's a scholarly article, with lots of properly referenced citations. The point is that Schröders shows another side of von Manstein, which is currently completely lacking from the article. Lupo 20:18, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Oh, and another point: the images used in the article do not have sources. Lupo 16:08, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Object There is almost no info on year 1939 and his participation in the Polish September Campaign. This should be expanded before this is a complete article worthy of being featured. In what battles did he participate before and after Siege of Warsaw (1939) (and why doesn't this article mention him at all ATM)? What units where encircled and destroyed afterwards?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 22:16, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)- He was Gerd von Rundstedt’s chief of staff, that means a headquarters job, not a frontline job. I’ll expand it within 24 hours. GeneralPatton 07:11, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- It's been expanded now, do you want more? GeneralPatton 14:25, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Abstain Better. Just stress what you wrote here (it is not easy to understand it from the article), and perhaps you could elaborate on how well did his plan work? After this is done I will likely support this article.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 15:05, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)- Expanded on that stuff. GeneralPatton 06:24, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Support now. Good job. In the mean time, take a look at the battlebox at Polish September Campaign and list of battles in it, you may want to ilink some of them relevant to the plans and battles mentioned in the article. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 23:41, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Expanded on that stuff. GeneralPatton 06:24, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)