Talk:Manfred von Richthofen/Archive 1

An event in this article is a April 21 selected anniversary (may be in HTML comment)

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.

'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

Propaganda: The Hebrew Influence on Western civilization

Wow, our fears have been confirmed immediately. The first sentence of this books preface says it all in terms of "reliable sources". The first sentence in the book states "This book is a book of propaganda." It goes on to say in the same paragraph "The pagans for whom this volume is meant are the many, many people in whose midst the Hebrews have lived for thousands of years." (pg vii)

"propaganda" meant for "pagans", great source!

Now onto the specific quote/source in dispute. BTW, anon, there is no p. 744 in the book, and you even say it was in New York "philosophical library" hardly then is it a historical work. The book does not say MVR was jewish despite constantly naming other people as "jewish" or saying they had "jewish fathers or mothers". Thus, the omition of specifically stating that MvR and his brother were jews sticks out quite sharply! Also, the book has all of these figures for the percentage of jews in this or that country and then has the exact composition of jews for their respecitve armed services, yet it gives no source or any evidence for this "progaganda". The Bib only has "hebrew" based books, no census data or anything else that would indicate being able to provide such data, even if such data (rumanian, etc) even existed in the first place. The jews always represent a higher percentage in every country's military, including the USA civil war, then their respective percentages in that country, and the very paragraph with the MvR comment starts, as Mackensen said, with the claim that 200 fliers in the tiny German air force in WWI were jews, again with no evidence. It has endless, no proof, fantastical claims ("the youngest german volunteers were all jewish lads" (pg 265) which appear dramatically inflated if not outright fictitious. As the book clearly says, and in light of the fact it was written soon after the holocaust, "this book is a book of propaganda." (pg vii) 'Nuff said! JohnHistory 22:00, 24 March 2007 (UTC)JohnHistory

Here's another source claiming Jewish ancestry for the Red Baron: "The Jews of Germany: A Story of Sixteen Centuries", by Marvin Lowenthal. Page 285 says "Baron Manfred von Richthofen, the red eagle of the German aviators, when he fell bled Jewish blood from his veins." (it is easy to find this by Google books). This may or may not be true; to refute this, it would be easiest if you could cite from reliable sources that his ancestors were not Jewish. Whether it be true or not, it is verifiable that people claimed a Jewish ancestry for MvR; and this is all that has been claimed here. Kusma (talk) 20:55, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Kusma, for bringing up that second source. In my opinion, we should re-insert the fact that the claim of Jewish ancestry has been made, in agreement with Wp:npov#A_simple_formulation. This in no way contradicts the undue weight clause that has been brought up, as we do not deduct and justify a viewpoint from the sources. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 23:05, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I was under the impression that "Undue Weight" was not a reflection of the source per say but rather of whether or not the opinion put forth by that source is held by a number of people significant enough to warrant mentioning, and that whether the sources are reliable or whatnot is a separate consideration. For example: Scholar A publishes a paper that puts forth Theory x, Theory x is in fact true but goes contrary to commonly held theories. According to "Undue Weight" Theory x is inadmissible to WP until other independent, reference-able sources also claim Theory x.

Another way to look at it would be in reference to Palaeontology: When the idea that dinosaurs were warm blooded was first put forth the idea was met with much skepticism and was only held by "an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority" and therefore would not have qualified as satisfying the Undue Weight policy. However as more research was done and the idea gained more and more acceptance, a lot more material referencing it became available and at that point it did satisfy Undue weight, and as such is definitely permissible in WP. In fact it has become the consensus view as referenced here, And here.

So it seems to me that Undue weight is not satisfied by the quality of a single reference but by whether the opinion or theory in question is held by enough people to count as "A significant minority".

Now whether these two references are enough to satisfy Undue weight is a more difficult problem. I personally feel that considering the vast amount of biographical data on MvR more than just two references should be provided. As a separate issue from Undue Weight I also feel that considering neither source actually says why they believe MvR was Jewish, along with not pointing out which of his ancestors (who have been thoroughly documented) were Jewish, makes me personally unable to endorse them. However as I am no expert on this issue I will not emphatically deny them either.

I would also like to point out that I have refrained from editing this article so far and plan to continue doing so until this particular point of contention has been resolved in a peaceful and scholarly manner. Thanks, Colincbn 10:55, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

This is now getting ridiculous

As so often happens with Wikipedia, the essential subject matter rapidly becomes secondary as posters wish to score a succession of political or idealogical points over others. The above comments and discussion now has little to do with von Richtofen and the thread should be stopped; there are other places for such debate- certainly not here, gentlemen. Thank you Harryurz 21:39, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Two sources have been brought up concerning the contested mentioning of claims of Jewish ancestry of Richthofen. Do you mind if we use this article talk page to discuss a proposed addition to the article here? —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 23:09, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Kusma and Harryurz

You are right. We shall not allow to bunch of racists to hijack wiki. Kusma, thank you for your search. Racists will deny everything what is not fit them, they moved by hate, no facts. I do not know how Wiki works the adminstrationwise but information you have now in two books shall be entered to the wiki article. Can you please reach serious editors of wiki if there are some. Meanwhile, who was a politician who had Jewish grandmother? Was it Harmann von Richthoven? Can you please cite your source? There was another line of Richthovens you can see in the family website whose member married a lady with last name Mendelssohn, I guess she was related to the great composer. It looks that Richthovens were very liberal, at least in choice of their wives.User:Tracadero.25 March 2007 (What UTC stands for?)

Tracadero - UTC stands for Coordinated Universal Time, also known as Zulu time or Greenwich Mean Time (GMT). Also, if you're not aware, it's a good idea to sign your posts using four tildes (~~~~) - it'll save you some time, and you won't have to worry about UTC. :) --Mary quite contrary ^(hai?) 22:42, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Mary, where shall I look for insruction how to sign? Tracadero.

Tracadero - type in four tildes, like this: ~~~~ after your post and you won't have to write your name or anything. On English keyboards, the tilde is typically the upper character on the key above the Tab key/left of the 1 key (but this is not always the case). For more info, check out WP:SIG. Thanks! --Mary quite contrary ^(hai?) 23:32, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Archive?

In an effort to clear away some of the bad blood here and bring the multiple threads containing the same discussion to a single place, in addition to the fact that this page has become quite long. would it be acceptable to archive this page and continue with a clean one? Colincbn 10:59, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Good idea. If you do it, I suggest leaving the most recent three or four threads here (those with actual discussion in them) and moving the rest to an archive page. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 16:30, 26 March 2007 (UTC)