Talk:Panzer ace/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Kershaw

Moving here for storage. Kershaw is not a trained professional historian (from what I understand), and thus it may not make sense to use his work here as a source, as it appears to fall under popular history. This article deals with historiography, so it's best to limit the sources that discuss the term / concept, rather than works that use the term to discuss its subjects.

• Kershaw in his book "Tank Men" refers to a "Tank Ace" being the minority of tank commanders that accounted for the most amount of destroyed enemy armour, saying it is roughly analogous with Flying ace. In particular, there are comparisons in Newspapers between WW1 flying Ace Baron Von Richtofen known as "The Red Baron" and tank ace Michael Wittman, referred to as "The Black Baron".

• Kershaw says some tank aces like Whitman, encapsulate what cumulative skills from years of combat in multiple campaigns may achieve.

• Overall, Allied Newspapers devoted a lot of space to aircraft and Naval tallies, human interest stories, and the Russian Front, but paid little attention to Tank combat.

References

K.e.coffman (talk) 06:29, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Separately, I restored the "Contemporary use" section to prior condition as edits introduced some inaccuracies (diff), such attributing descriptions of Bake's actions as a "panzer ace" to Zaloga, instead of Kurowski, etc. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:43, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Kershaw is a qualified Historian, he's got university qualifications, has written 10 books and has written for a number of newspapers. Additionally, he was service in the military. What makes you think he's not a "trained historian"? Deathlibrarian (talk) 04:35, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

K.e.coffman (talk) if you can explain why this is not WP:RS please go ahead, otherwise I will be putting these references back in the article. All you have said so far is a comment about him not being a "trained historian" when he has in fact an honours degree from Reading University in the United Kingdom, in History... Deathlibrarian (talk) 08:43, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Kershaw himself does not profess to be a historian, but speaks of himself as a "military author". He made his career in the military. Thus it would help your cause, if you could provide reviews of Kershaw's work that speak for its quality.--Assayer (talk) 19:20, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Hang on.... but what is there in particular that says his book isn't WP:RS?. As far as I can see, according to Wikipedia standards, it's a perfectly usable reference. If someone wants to point out why it should come out, and how it doesn't comply with WP:RS, please go ahead. Deathlibrarian (talk) 06:55, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

I argue that Kershaw's claims have not been supported, not even been considered by scholarship in the field of military history, that we are talking about WP:FRINGE which should not be given undue weight (WP:RSUW). I define scholarship according to WP:SCHOLARSHIP. If I am wrong, it should be easy to substantiate the significance of Kershaw's work with reference to other commonly accepted reference texts, like, e.g., reviews in academic journals, don't you think? And please consider answering the question to the "black baron"-tale in the section above. --Assayer (talk) 14:39, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Firstly, I am concerned as to how people seem to be keen to remove Kershaw's work form this page. Firstly his credentials were debated, and I showed in his defence that he has Honours level Uni quals in history. Then there was comments about his work not being RS - and Nick-D pointed out that his work is published by a reputable author. Then there were more comments that his work is not RS and should be removed, and when I asked what aspect of it didn't meet WP:RS, no one can actually say why. Now the effort to have his work removed has changed to his work being labelled as "fringe theory". To be honest, it just seems people want his work removed and are working any angle to try to do that, which concerns me. The term "tank ace" is commonly used, (754 hits in Google Books and 318,000 hits in Google) and Kershaw's work supports the validity of the term... IMHO his work is in line with the mainstream view, it doesn't present some fringe theory at all. If anything, the opinion by some that the term is somehow invalid and "made up" seems to be fringe theory, or a minority view, out of line with the fact that the term is accepted and used commonly, both in specific literature and the mainstream. Really in my opinion, this page is a mess, but at least presenting a range of opinions and making it useful to the wikipedia reader will go someway to making it valid. Deathlibrarian (talk) 22:25, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Assayer Apologies, I can see you asked me twice about the Black Baron Newspaper articles, and I didn't respond. There are now 7 references to that now, in the article if you want to look. Both UK and Canadian titles.Deathlibrarian (talk) 22:25, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Kershaw is not a professional historian, and in fact his work is part of the popular culture that the article is addressing. Kershaw is not an academic and the work in question is not published with an academic publisher. He may be a decent biographer of the people he profiles in his book, and should be fine to use on these individual articles. I'm still disputing his credentials as a source for this article which deals with the topic of historiography, not just history. Compare Kershaw, for example, with David Stahel. When Cambridge University Press publishes a work on "tank aces", then I would not have any objections to including it in the article. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:39, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Kershaw is not an academic (as in he doesn't work in a University), however...that is not grounds for his publications not meeting WP:RS. Also, his work doesn't have to be published by an *academic* publisher to meet WP:RS, as Nick D mentioned above, his book is published by a large firm with a reputation for quality control, so it meets RS. Also, as I've said before, he *is* a historian.Deathlibrarian (talk) 06:27, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

I may not convince you, but I think that I am consistent in my argument: The "tank ace"-legend flourishes in certain literature which I consider fringe, because so far no one has been able to prove me wrong on this by providing references that would meet WP:SCHOLARSHIP. Neither could anyone name a high quality third party source supporting the view that Kershaw's work meets the standard of WP:RS. To refer to some "quality control" is circumstantial. As to the newspaper references the problem is that Wikipedia and the press sometimes work as a closed procedural cycle generating "facts" by themselves. Fringe theory is written into Wikipedia articles, newspapers pick up this theory without verifying it, and are then in turn used as additional references and citations to support the fringe theory. Does anyone believe that the author of the Otto Carius-obituary came up with the "Panzer ace" by himself? I don't. See also my remarks on the "black baron"-tale above.--Assayer (talk) 20:19, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Moving here for storage, along with the Black Baron references. I feel these additions to be an attempted recreation of Tank Aces and Tank ace, both of which were deleted:

• Overall, Allied Newspapers devoted a lot of space to aircraft and Naval tallies, human interest stories, and the Russian Front, but paid little attention to Tank combat.
• Kershaw in his book "Tank Men" refers to a "Tank Ace" being the minority of tank commanders that accounted for the most amount of destroyed enemy armour, saying it is roughly analogous with Flying ace. In particular, there are comparisons in Newspapers between WW1 flying Ace Baron Von Richtofen known as "The Red Baron" and tank ace Michael Wittman, referred to as "The Black Baron".
• Military Historian Robert Kershaw says some tank aces like Wittman, encapsulate what cumulative skills from years of combat in multiple campaigns may achieve.

References

K.e.coffman (talk) 21:49, 5 November 2016 (UTC) As said before, Kershaw work meets WP:RS and so belongs in this article. If people can cite how it does not meet RS standard, please state so, otherwise, I will be adding the Kershaw references back in. The Black Baron references are relevant here, why would you take them out? Deathlibrarian (talk) 12:29, 6 November 2016 (UTC) Guys, I am spending a lot of time coming here, to find my references constantly removed. Kershaw's work is either RS or not. You can't remove it simply because you don't like it. If it's not RS, please explain how. If you are going to continue with this I will ask an admin to advice on whether Mr Kershaw's work is in fact RS or not, and whether it should be included. Deathlibrarian (talk) 12:34, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

To quote from this discussion: "The "tank ace"-legend flourishes in certain literature which I consider fringe, because so far no one has been able to prove me wrong on this by providing references that would meet WP:SCHOLARSHIP. Neither could anyone name a high quality third party source supporting the view that Kershaw's work meets the standard of WP:RS." That this author constitutes RS for this article as one editor's personal opinion at this point, as no proof has been offered (i.e. reviews of this book in peer reviewed journals). In addition, this is an attempt to recreate Tank Aces and Tank ace, which should be discouraged. In "Black Baron", pls see Talk topic above: "Contemporary and Modern use of the term in Newspapers".K.e.coffman (talk) 16:40, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Considering this discussion has been going on since 26 October, and doesn't seem to be going anywhere, to avoid an edit war, I would ask that we either look at mediation or a third opinion on whether Kershaw's work meets RS. So far I have asked for people to show me about 5 times where it doesn't comply.....and no one has. If there is some Scholarly criticism of Kershaw's work... or something else that stops it being RS.... I would advise people prepare that for the mediation. In the meantime I have reverted the edit while the discussion takes place. Please advise if you would like to be part of the mediation.Deathlibrarian (talk)

I have opened up a dispute on the Kershaw reference, thanks for your patience. Deathlibrarian (talk) 10:26, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Please stop removing Kershaw's references. They are relevant here, and provide both perspectives.Deathlibrarian (talk) 10:40, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

"List of german panzer aces" versus "Panzer aces in popular culture"

In origin this article was a list of notable german panzer commanders. Slowly it was modified and reduced to become a sociological explanation of the concept of panzer aces. Many informations have been lost. So in my opinion it would be good to separate the 2 articles. It would be also good if the original one became "List of notable German panzer commanders" because "Panzer aces" is equivocal (as correctly pointed out in the revision). For the moment i restore the old one; then "Panzer aces in popular culture" will be edited as a new article. Federico Bussone — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrserge70 (talk • contribs) 13:13, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

There's been consensus in many previous discussions that the previous list was entirely unreliable and of little value. In addition, there's a broad agreement that as the entire concept of a "panzer ace" is disputed it should not be presented as fact. Please take the time to read through the archives here before editing the article further. I've reverted your change. Nick-D (talk) 22:20, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Concur with the above comment from Nick-D. For background, please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/German tank aces. --K.e.coffman (talk) 16:48, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

I think this page needs to be brought into line with the other wikipedia articles on "aces". They are referred to as "Fighter ace" or "submarine ace" not "XXXXX ace in popular culture". I understand this title came about because of some past compromise between disagreeing editors, but frankly it's stupid and doesn't fit with wikipedia titling practice. I agree with Mrserge70.Deathlibrarian (talk) 12:49, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Re Title this page to "Tank Aces

Considering that this page addresses both Historical Tank aces, in books about tank aces (and not solely about tanks acess in popular culture), I am suggesting that we change the title to either "Tank Ace" or "Panzer Ace". I think that is more in line with Wikipedia title formatting for pages. "Panzer ace" in popular culture is more appropriate as a section title, within the overall "Tank Ace" page. I'll also note, while this says "Panzer Ace" non German Tank acess are also discussed on this page. Please speak up if you have any objections. Deathlibrarian (talk) 07:52, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

This has been discussed before, including in the thread you started above. It remains a bad idea for the reasons identified earlier. Nick-D (talk) 07:58, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Tagging this article.

I am thinking of tagging sections of this article- possibly as

or giving

. Or possibly

like the "Waffen SS in Popular Culture article linked. The idea that "uncritical portrayal of the Waffen SS" is ahistorical is not a neutral point of view. I believe the section called "Analysis" is really an editorial about why popular culture is WRONG to give credit to German Panzer "Aces". The concept of the German panzer ace is not as new a phenomenon as this article makes it out to be and really the article isn't so much about popular culture as denigrating dead German tank commanders. Like Michael Wittman on which the last section spends an inordinate amount of negative verbiage. The first paragraph/section is also completely unsourced and basically an editorial. I will try in the next few days to clean this up a bit- if I am unsuccessful I will start a new article which is simply a list of German tank "Aces". There are many such lists (eg. flyers, snipers) so I don't think it should be problematic to write. I am writing this to start a discussion before any tags are applied- thanks for your help, Jeff T.Makumbe (talk) 05:17, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

So you're going to either tag bomb the article, or start a WP:POVFORK? Neither option will end well. Instead, you'd be much better off suggesting improvements to this article which are supported by the reliable sources which you argue are under-represented. As for the first paragraph, please see WP:LEAD: lead paras don't need specific citations where the topics they cover are referenced in the body of the article as is the case here. Nick-D (talk) 07:48, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

No Nick- I'm not going to "tag bomb". As I said I want to work on it a bit first. But if you read this article with a fair set of eyes surely even you can see that it is not what the title implies and it is rather a disguised editorial. Why would starting an article which is simply a list without all of the editorializing "not end well"? If we have a discussion here and if the same article emerges then according to WP these are my only 2 options - tag or start a new article. The article IS unbalanced- but as you say the first step is to try to improve it. Thanks-Makumbe (talk) 13:14, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

The article did indeed use to consist of such a list as being proposed; see this 2015 version. The article evolved over time to its present form and reflects the current consensus. If there are concerns about the article's neutrality, then the appropriate place to post about it may be Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard to attract broader attention to the article. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:09, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Article title change

Nick-D- I would like to see how people feel about changing the name of this article from "Panzer Ace in Popular Culture" to something like "Panzer Ace Mythos". This new title would be more appropriate to the editorializing which happens in the article and would also give both the "Nazi fan-boys" as they are called in the article and the more current tank history buffs both an equal footing. I am 63- I remember in the 1960s how even then the Panzer commander in his black uniform was a part of the American movie scene- part of our popular culture. This image and its aura of invincibility may have been false but it was in the culture. I think there is a way to write this article so that both those who wish to de-mythologize the "Panzer Ace" and those who wish to explain that myth can be neutrally represented. At this point the article is NOT neutral. Thanks, JLTMakumbe (talk) 20:43, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Worked on "Nazi fan boy" section

Hi- Nick-D- I edited the paragraph with "Nazi fan-boys" but I left the statement in the paragraph, just toward the middle so that it isn't overly emphasized. I also added Zaloga's count of Wittman's kills. JTMakumbe (talk) 23:58, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Gatekeeper

Nick-D- I see that you will not allow my concept (that in spite of propaganda and technical superiority the Germans had the highest kill count of all tankers and that is why people admire them in popular culture) to enter into this page. You do not have a neutral point of view. I have tried to edit this article but you seem to accept only the point of view that there were no German Panzer Aces and that their claims are exaggerated. My last edit was perfectly reasonable and included citations that follow WP's guidelines. Right here on this page as I'm writing this there is the statement that; "Encyclopedic content must be verifiable." Are you saying that just 'çause Stephen Zaloga says so anyone who admires Michael Wittman is a "Nazi fanboy". You are not objective or neutral- as you said in the page discussing keeping this article: "As someone who wrote a reasonable chunk of the current article, I'd certainly object to the history of my contributions being deleted. Nick-D (talk) 01:35, 8 October 2016 (UTC)". You think of this as your personal article. That is fine but don't prevent someone from starting a list. I can tell from reading the Delete discussion that that is what most people want.Makumbe (talk) 03:58, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Please stop starting repetitive threads. Please also pay attention to the feedback you're received at User talk:Arjayay#"Panzer Ace" in popular culture. and above. Nick-D (talk) 07:25, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Added a last paragraph

Nick-D- I added the paragraph you removed from the first section and added it to "Analysis". I removed the offending sentence and used only citations from current wikipedia articles- I don't have the time or money to go to the National Archives. The citations I use should be kosher- hopefully I can balance the article a bit. "Analysis" has 8 citations from Zaloga and 3 from everyone else. Zaloga is not the only source of knowledge for this subject and his views are definitely not in the mainstream- and after checking the WP section on neutrality there is a statement that the mainstream view should be identified as such and the minority view as such. I think it should at least be pointed out in an article on Panzer Aces that the Germans did have a very high kill count. If I cannot accomplish this then please help me start a new article which is a list of German high-scoring tankers. Apolitical. Not even calling them aces. I have tried to help this article- please help me accomplish this.

The article already notes that some Germans destroyed very large numbers of tanks, and names some of the Allied tankers credited with large numbers of kills. Please actually read the article. Nick-D (talk) 07:31, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Ich gebe auf

I give up. Makumbe (talk) 07:39, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Question about RM

Is it OK to provide further arguments after one has put in a Support or Oppose bullet? Do we discuss the title in the RM section? Thanks for the info.Makumbe (talk) 13:19, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Makumbe – if you wish to provide additional comments, you can either start a new line, typically beginning with * '''Comment''', or add a new L3 subheading below the discussion (===Comments===). There are no firm rules, do whatever you feel sensible, and someone will fix the formatting if you miss it. No such user (talk) 15:10, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your helpMakumbe (talk) 16:51, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Another attempt to improve this article

"Panzer Aces in Popular Culture" is an ungainly and inaccurate title for this article. It really should be called "Making sure people don't admire anything about the Wermacht"! Similar to "Waffen SS in Popular Culture". I propose a list of German Panzer Aces without any editorializing. I actually have read some Steven Zaloga since trying to edit this piece and I've found that really he is misquoted and misused in this article- he is actually impartial in his judgement and not really trying to rewrite history. Ironic to me that in an article on German Panzer aces only 5 or 6 are mentioned cursorily at the end. This is a bad article. Thanks, Jeff T.Makumbe (talk) 22:49, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Makumbe. There seems to be this weird anti German bent to this article. For an article on Panzer aces, it seems to not want to mention Panzer aces! It's one of the oddest articles I have seen on wikipedia, but people seem to be afraid t change it and make it logical for some historical reasons. Deathlibrarian (talk) 07:29, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Nazi fanboy comment

I removed the "Nazi fanboy" comment from this article. It definitely does not meet WP neutrality standards. It implies (although attributed to author Zaloga) that anyone who admires German Panzer aces is a Nazi. The whole article suffers from neutrality problems, any positive reference (say to high kill scores by Germans) is couched in language which creates doubt. Do we accept the high scores of these individuals? Aren't these more or less confirmed? Do we doubt that they destroyed many enemy tanks (and other vehicles)? I still don't get why the whole article can't be a list. I came to this article trying to find a factual list of the highest scoring German tankers of WW2 and was treated to this sociological tract. I have no objections to keeping this little treatise but why can't we also have a list?Makumbe (talk) 06:00, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

I've just restored this material: there's nothing at all wrong with the source (it's from a reliable source, and Zaloga is a widely-published expert in this field). You keep claiming that the article somehow isn't neutral. However, to substantiate this and contribute to improving the article you need to come up with reliable sources which provide different perspectives. We're not here to advance some kind of viewpoint in this article: it reflects what the reliable sources on this topic say. These include the views of Robert Kershaw, who appears to be supportive of the concept of 'tank aces' being notable as well as the views of authors who disagree with such a concept. Your edits and comments here appear to reflect only your personal views. Nick-D (talk) 22:58, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

So I am trying to add balance to the article- to give it a more neutral tone. I did not say the source (Zaloga) was a bad source I was saying that calling people "Nazi fan-boys" because of their interests is wrong even if you are an expert. Are you saying that just because S. Zaloga says we who admire the exploits of men like Michael Wittman are Nazis it is true? Are you saying that of all the things Zaloga has written about Michael Wittman the "Nazi fan-boys"comment is necessary? Calling people who are interested in German Panzer commanders or "aces" "Nazi fan-boys" is not neutral. Steven Zaloga is a supposed tank expert but he is not qualified to judge the political views or military interests of readers. You are incorrect if you say "We're not here to advance some kind of viewpoint...". This whole article's existence is to help prevent a simple WP list with histories of Panzer tank aces. I cannot see why you personally Nick-D will not brook any changes to this rather confused and political article. And are you seriously telling me that putting in a comment about "Nazi fan-boys"is not "reflecting personal views"? I feel that we have discussed this quite a bit. I will try in the next few days to make the article better.Makumbe (talk) 23:29, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Rather than make further bad quality edits, please discuss your proposed changes first. The views you attribute to me are actually the consensus of many previous discussions on this talk page - please read them, and respect fellow editors. Nick-D (talk) 00:45, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Nick-D This article is indeed rather biased concerning the "nazi fanboy" comment. If only reliable sources count and you have a neutral view as your earlier post indicated, then i'd like to add some segments of reliable sources of the IfZ (Institut für Zeitgeschichte) which would balance out the odd "nazi fanboy" description of your reliable source, adding some criticism to descriptions like that and add information that show how the biographies of "Panzer Aces" are used not only in the USA but also all around the world as must-read books for soldiers involved in tank warfare. Since you think the "nazi fanboy" description is okay because the source is reliable i assume my planned additions will be okay as well? What do you think Makumbe? I was encouraged by several wikipedia users to add opposite viewpoints from reliable sources on articles such as this one, so i assume i can make my additions unless some users working on this article are not neutral at all of course. Kind regards and thanks in advance ChartreuxCat (talk) 01:08, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

ChartreauxCat- I am working on this article right now- reading books. I have read much of Zaloga's Armoured Champion and it doesn't support the POV of this article as it stands. Zaloga put ACE in quotes when he is talking ironically about how easy it was for German Panzer commanders to make kills from Tigers in 1943. He doesn't mean that there were no Panzer aces only that it wasn't really "fair" how they got those scores. I have a friend who works for Oxford University Press and he has gottne me in touch with Peter Caddick-Adams. He is the historian who wrote Snow and Steel about the Battle of the Bulge. He in turn recommended author Samuel J Mitchum Jr. who writes books about WW2 German Panzer commanders. When I am finished with my research I will start editing. This article right now is simply a WP:COATRACK which promotes an anti-German POV. It links to other articles and in the same verbiage explains how the Germans should receive no credit for anything they did in WW2 because they were ALL war criminals. A more balanced POV would explain both the war criminality of the Wehrmacht AND its accomplishments.Makumbe (talk) 01:41, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

You should not confuse an alleged "anti-German POV" with a critical approach towards Nazi German propaganda. As L.H. Gann from Stanford noted in a review of Hitler's Commanders by Mitcham and Mueller: This work will be useful to those readers who wish to know where the various German leaders went to school, when they were promoted, and what particular decorations they earned. Otherwise, this book is not a success. For instance, the co-authors uncritically accept Nazi propaganda with regard to the alleged exploits of favoured individuals. We learn that one Michael Wittmann, 'one of the greatest warriors in history' (p. 298), single-handedly destroyed 119 Soviet tanks, in addition to an unspecified number of British tanks. ... Only Soviet publicity produced military Stakhanovites of like renown. Gann also identified gaps in Mitchams and Mueller's general knowledge and warned, that the author's strategic judgement was not to be trusted. (The International History Review, Vol. 15, No. 3 (Aug., 1993), pp. 616-618, cit. 616.) Other works by Mitcham received equally unfavorable reviews.--Assayer (talk) 14:03, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Proposed changes to the article?

@Makumbe: what specific changes would you like to make? Regarding the title, my feedback is that "Panzer ace mythos" is not a subject that would work as none of the sources I've seen discuss such mythos. Likewise, "Famous tank aces" is POV sounding -- "famous" according to whom? Same goes for the turning this article into a list with the commanders' "kills". That's what the article used to be, and it has evolved into its present form.

But let's discuss the sources you would like to introduce. Perhaps there's something useful there. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:23, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

OK- I've been reading up on WP's rules and suggestions and one is to "keep your cool". I didn't say Famous Tank ACES. I'll suggest then "Famous German Tankers". Are you saying they're not famous? I say they are famous according to the thousands of books and articles that have been written about them. Famous according to "popular culture". Wait- WHOSE popular culture? What does popular culture even mean? Do people sing about them in popular songs? Well yes they do- "...Guderian stood at the crest of the hill..."Al Stewart or: "I rode a tank held a general's rank when the Blitzkrieg raged..." . My point is that "popular culture" is also vague and very POV sounding term. The POV is that stupid people in "popular culture" call these guys Panzer aces. I stumbled on to this whole thing simply because out of curiosity I wanted the name of the German Panzer guy who had the most kills in WW2. There is NO such list in all of wikipedia. I go to wikipedia and CANNOT find out the answer to this simple question. Because instead I'm treated to a sociological, political and revisionist explanation of how there was really no such thing- the list has evolved into this cobbled mess. Go to wikipedia- can't find the answer. Because of "consensus". Somehow I'm not sure you had consensus- I have a feeling people just gave up. As far as sources- why don't you help me? Are S. Zaloga and Neitzel the only go-to guys? Somehow I doubt many of Zaloga's books are from original sources- Neitzel yes but his POV is overtly hostile to the Wehrmacht. You spend a lot of time degrading Zulowski- I guess he's another hero of "Nazi fan-boys"- your Neutral POV term for people like me. I told you I give up. K.e.coffman contacts me helpfully and again I'm in an imbroglio with Nick-D who claims he and Arjayay gave me suggestions. No- they did not. Reverting and nasty comments (Arjayay called me a sock puppet- Nick-D threatened consequences at least twice) are not helpful. I have never had this trouble before on wikipedia- everyone has gone out of their way to be helpful and polite. (Not talking about you K.e.coffman- you have been helpful and polite) Makumbe (talk) 04:27, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

References

What specific changes? A neutral POV would at least allow a separate article which is simply a list of WW2 German tankers and their scores. There's one for flyers and that's gotta be even harder to ascertain- heck people get 5 1/2 kills and are aces. And I'm not even suggesting calling the tankers aces. There are unambiguous numbers giving the top U.S tanker a score of 12 tank kills. The Russian guy got 52 or so. Tank kills. There is a reason that people in popular culture admire German tankers and it's not just because they've been propagandized. It is because there are a few elite German tankers who knocked out scores or even 100+ tanks. That's why they are a staple of "popular culture". Can't I see a list of those men? The list would at least give information. Neutrally. Proviso's could be added if necessary. The way the article is now it is a Coat Rack. I look up Panzer Ace- and I get a lesson on historiography and Nazi propaganda. Why not just let the article devolve back to a list- it's weird and clumsy as it stands.Makumbe (talk) 04:55, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

@Makumbe: Re: simply a list of WW2 German tankers and their scores, what source do you propose to use? K.e.coffman (talk) 00:23, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

@K.e.coffman: Well I'm buying Zaloga's book Armoured Champion as well as 4 or 5 other books on Amazon. I work at UC Berkeley so I'm going to the library to investigate within the next week as time allows. The internet is full of lists of Panzer "Aces"- I will try to find original sourcing which is used for those- if it's all Kurowski then I may have to try deeper sources such as German archives. In science articles it is possible to find online sources of studies- direct from the source- I'm hoping I may be able to buy or find original sources. The top 10 or so German Panzer commanders are relatively well known- it shouldn't be that difficult to confirm their achievements and find short biographies. I will poke around at Berkeley- hopefully their gigantic library has what I need. The article as it stands has few sources and really no original sourcing except for possibly Zaloga and the German guy (sorry-forgot his name). I'll read the Zaloga book as soon as I get it. History articles on WP are different from science ones in that you guys can use second source material- in fact if it's in a book like Zaloga's picture books it's good and counts as a source. Not so in the science articles I'm working on. BTW- I've been looking into this whole concept of "popular culture"- it seems to me that the article as it sits now could be considered more of an editorial just for "popular culture" in the title- look it up on WP! So I think a list would NOT be a POV fork. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Makumbe (talk • contribs) 01:07, 31 July 2017 (UTC) Makumbe (talk) 01:13, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Makumbe13:04, This article *had* a fuller list of Panzer aces, which is pretty normal for a page of this sort (air aces has one, [of Air aces] as does submarine aces[aces]). However the Panzer ace list was removed and eventually replaced with just four aces, without any discussion. The full list was referenced by a number of sources. No need to re-create one, have a look at the version of this page from 3 September 2016‎ and just use that. Other "Ace" pages seem to have lists of aces, however oddly, the Panzer ace one didn't, but seeing the discussion on here about the NPOV issues on this page, I'm beginning to think that had something to do with it. Deathlibrarian (talk) 07:45, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

This has actually been discussed multiple times. A key problem raised each time is the availability of reliable sources to support a longer list. Can you please identify the reliable sources which can be used to create such a list? Nick-D (talk) 07:52, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi Nick-D The old list refers to a few sources, but when I was trying to source references for the various Aces, I largely used "Veit Scherzer, "Ritterkreuzträger 1939-1945", Scherzers Militaire-Verlag Ranis/Jena 2005 (1st ed)", as there was conveniently a lot in there. Was there any issues raised with this as an RS in the past, do you know? Deathlibrarian (talk) 08:07, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

If anyone has any reason why the above reference doesn't meet RS, please speak up, otherwise I will get the old references out and start adding them back in, just to bring this page in line with the other Ace pages. Cheers Deathlibrarian (talk) 08:51, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 30 July 2017

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Move to Panzer ace. The present title is pretty unusual according to the article titles policy and so would need an unusual level of support for it to be kept. That is clearly not the case here. In closing, I gave less weight to arguments that including the "in popular culture" and quote marks is important because there weren't really panzer aces. This does not conform to the titling policies; as was pointed out in the discussion, Wikipedia has many articles on things that only exist in popular culture that are still titled by their WP:COMMONNAME. As such, I find a consensus to move, with "Panzer ace" being the title better supported by both the local consensus here and AT policy. Several participants felt the article itself was unnecessary and should be deleted/merged to Ace (military). That is beyond the scope of WP:RM, but I'd encourage editors to pursue those options after this RM closes. Cúchullain ^t/c 14:05, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

---

"Panzer ace" in popular culture → Panzer aces in popular culture – There seems to be significant disagreement on this page about many things, and the title is at the core of it. I read over the last AfD: there may have been a rough consensus to move, but personally I think the quotes are unnecessary and out of line with WP:TSC. I think the mythos title above makes little sense: it certainly isn't a common name and isn't descriptive. Regardless, taking this to an RM to see what consensus is should happen, and I'll start it by pointing out the obvious stylistic problem with the current title. Hopefully this will get more outside eyes on the article. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:21, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

This seems rather out of process. There have been few discussions on this talk page (only 50 edits since late January, for instance), so the underlying justification that the article's scope is contentious isn't accurate. The title is fine, especially given that several of the sources state that there is no such thing as a "Panzer ace". Nick-D (talk) 05:39, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Quotes should be avoided in titles per our naming policy, and yes, I get the theory behind why they are there now, but I don't think they add much value to the title and the AfD didn't firmly settle on it: an RM is on the talk page and will establish a firm consensus on where the best place for it to land is. If this is an exception to that rule, great, but an RM provides a structured way for the various conversations to take place, which I think is a positive. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:47, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

But there aren't "various conversations". This was not a live issue until this proposal. Nick-D (talk) 06:17, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

The title was mentioned on this talk page by one editor on 25 June, another on 27 July and a third on 30 July. All before Tony filed this proposal. I think the issue was "live", even if it hadn't really reached the level of a conversation. Srnec (talk) 21:37, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

How does this process work? Is there discussion on this page or is there a separate page? Also- not to be contentious but why would there be no such thing as a Panzer ace just because "...several of the sources state..." there is not? What if several of other sources do state there is such a thing? Removing the quotes at least gives more of an appearance of neutrality. Finally- if Panzer aces are not real why not have an article titled "So-called Panzer Ace List" and just have that list?Makumbe (talk) 19:02, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

You either support or oppose the proposed title I made above. You are also free to suggest another title. The arguments should be based on sourcing and our naming policies and conventions. Other editors support or oppose based for the same reason. After time has based, an uninvolved editor comes by and closes the discussion based on the consensus of what the name should be. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:05, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

• Support per my comments of October 2016 (see archive). Srnec (talk) 21:37, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
• Support the proposed move. i.e. the removal of the scare quotes. I also support removal of "in popular culture" from the title. That tag implies that this article is a subtopic of a Panzer ace article that does not exist. The argument that, because both the term and concept of "Panzer ace" are an anachronistic, "Panzer aces" is an illegitimate title is weak. Wikipedia has many such titles from Byzantine Empire to the Franklin Prophecy. In addition, the revisionist historiography described in the article is not what one would normally call "popular culture". —  AjaxSmack  03:12, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
• Support I would also like to suggest just calling the article "Panzer Aces" and leave it at that with the quotes so as to still convey the doubt some feel about the existence of these men. "in popular culture" can be a section heading explaining this perspective. I do however support this RM which is simply removing the quotes. Makumbe (talk) 03:19, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose This move request is out of process as noted above, and the title reflects the literature on this topic as covered by the article: the notion that there was such a thing as a "panzer ace" is rejected by most historians. As noted above, if there are further differing views in reliable sources, they need to be provided. Nick-D (talk) 09:51, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
• Support Panzer ace (or aces) per AjaxSmack, and the proposed title as the second choice. Per WP:POVNAME, When the subject of an article is referred to mainly by a single common name, [...] Wikipedia generally follows the sources and uses that name as its article title [...] Article titles and redirects should anticipate what readers will type as a first guess and balance that with what readers expect to be taken to. The fact that "Panzer ace" is an anachronistic term and a product of modern culture does not preclude its use as a title in line with WP:COMMONNAME. Titles are not a place for editorializing, which should be left to the lead section. One just needs to peruse e.g. Category:Pseudoscience to find numerous alleged but easily debunked "theories", from Flat Earth to Greek cancer cure – they don't feature scare quotes or disclaimers in titles to distinguish them from real things. No such user (talk) 15:06, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose the proposed title, as it implies that "Panzer aces" were real. Various "ace"-related articles have been deleted in the past, including the List of German World War II ground attack aces and Submarine aces (see respective AfDs: "ground attack aces" and "submarine aces".

"Panzer ace" is used in Zaloga's book in quotation marks, and the article reflects that. Compare with "Polish death camp" controversy -- quotation marks are used to indicate that such entities did not exist.

Separately, Kurowski's Panzer Aces book series is part of popular culture. It has been issued in multiple editions by Stackpole Books and Ballantine Books; the latter is a mass publisher. Kurowski's books continue to be popular; just check out Amazon reviews.

I thus believe that the current title correctly reflects the focus of the article. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:45, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Oppose the proposed title, as it implies that "Panzer aces" were real – not at all, and not any more than e.g. Bigfoot, Faster-than-light or Knight-errant, the closest parallel to this topic I can think of. You dug out one (and rather controversial) example supporting your opinion among a plethora of counterexamples. No such user (talk) 08:20, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

• CommentAs others have said the title is an editorial. From wikipedia: "Popular culture is often viewed as being trivial and "dumbed down" in order to find consensual acceptance throughout the mainstream." Just because a concept is rather new (and I don't think in this case that is exactly true) doesn't mean that what it describes isn't real. In my cursory research up to this point I have found 2 authors who say that Wehrmacht figures about casualties and kills are more or less accurate. One of the main arguments against "Panzer Aces" is that they are a fiction of Waffen SS propaganda but I think that the much higher German kill ratio is uncontroversial. So some commanders racked up very high tank to tank kills compared to others and thus were "aces" just by definition. Finally there are other sources than Steven Zaloga- an argument and the title of an article shouldn't be based on one author's quote marks. In arguments against Zurowski as a source there I haven't seen any that specifically say his figures are incorrect for specific "aces". I have the Carius book which I haven't had the time to read but is full of original documents to back up his stories. He did exist- he is uncontroversially a Famous Panzer Commander and by definition an "ace".

Makumbe (talk) 13:48, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose This is an article about a term and thus it is put in quotation marks to signify that it is nothing but a term. The article about Bigfoot, which has been named as an analogy, is about the cryptid, not about its name. When the origins of the "Bigfoot" name are discussed, however, quotation marks are surely used. So, yes, to remove the quotation marks would mean to assume that "Panzer aces" were real, if only as a figure of the romancing militaria literature. But to do so, reliable secondary sources are needed. Kurowski and others employ the term, and are thus only primary sources. The knight-errant as a figure of medieval romancing literature is likewise defined by literary criticism, not by the medieval romancing literature itself. Accordingly, to claim that the "Panzer ace" is more than just a term, but a legitimate historiographical concept akin to the Byzantine Empire would need reliable secondary sources to show that it is not just used by some military romancers and computer gamers. To my knowledge such RS do not exist.

The article should be merged to Ace (military), because that is your knight-errant, i.e. the figure of military propaganda which has been extensivley discussed by RS.--Assayer (talk) 22:41, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Real or not, this is not how we title articles about terms. I challenge you to find one item in Category:Neologisms or Category:Fictional events which uses a similar approach. WP:TITLEFORMAT and WP:TSC expressly discourage quotes in article titles, except in a limited set of cases where this topic does not match. No such user (talk) 14:07, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

This is an article about the use of a certain term in popular culture and regardless how you name articles about neologisms, you'll have to make clear that unlike, e.g., the term Waffen-SS in Waffen-SS in popular culture, there is no such group of people commonly known as "Panzer aces". That's closer to being a title than to being an accurate description of German tank commanders singled out by wartime propaganda. Besides, you overlook that I am challenging the whole notion of "Panzer aces". WP:NOTDIC, therefore WP:WORDISSUBJECT applies, i.e. either the article must go beyond definition, etymology and use information, and include information on the social or historical significance of the term, or the article has to discuss the phrase itself as a "lens" to view a topic. The previous AfD has been closed simply by claiming that the concept was "notable as such", without showing that the term has any "social or historical significance". It is simply not enough to claim some "level of coverage" to construe significance. You'll need RS which deal with the concept as such to show its significance, not just sources which simply use the term. The discussion of a "concept", in fact, the whole notion of its existence, is backed up by a single source, which is only vague, features no systematic discussion and clearly addresses the militaria and the model builder community. Based upon the idea that this is enough to constitute notability, the article is nothing but a hodgepodge of alleged "wartime perceptions", a collection of contemporary uses by some militaria writers and a discussion of how success in tank battles during WWII may actually be measured. As I said, the crucial term here is ace and how that term is used within military contexts mainly in the English speaking world, not its deliberate combination with "tank", "submarine", "sniper" or even "Panzer". This article is a WP:CFORK to Ace (military), an article which did not yet exist during the AfD. Thus much of the information can be merged into that article, while the information on tank battles could be merged into various articles like on the Battle of Kursk or Michael Wittmann.--Assayer (talk) 22:15, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

• Comment In Panzers vs Shermans Steven Zaloga says: "In the hands of an experienced crew, the Panther was clearly superior to the Sherman. The victories of the occasional Panzer ace could not overcome the lackluster performance of the majority of crews." So even the main historian referenced in the argument against Panzer aces as real things uses the term insouciantly without quotes. "...occasional Panzer ace..." does not refer to an unreal thing but rather to an exception to the rule of "...lackluster crews...". An ace! A secondary source, apparently very reliable secondary source Steven Zaloga uses the term. Panzer ace is a legitimate historiographical concept even if it hadn't become widely used by gamers and "military romancers" (that term needs quotes) in the 1990s or whenever. The fact that the Nazis used them as they (and other countries) used flying aces for propaganda purposes only strengthens the argument to remove the quotes. I do however like the idea with merging into the Ace (military) article. It would be good to just have the list.Makumbe (talk) 00:17, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Both during WW I and WW II the Germans did not use the term "Panzerass" or even the term "Fliegerass". That whole "ace"-terminology is prevalent only in English literature and was gradually introduced into German by translations of English language militaria literature (e.g. Arch Whitehouse, Raymond Toliver/Trevor Constable) which sold very well in Germany. Even Franz Kurowski did not use the term "Panzer-Ass" himself. "Panzer Aces" is just the title of that 1992 J.J. Fedorowicz publication and its sequels, marketed to an American audience. I dare to claim that you won't find Kurowski using the term "ace" just once in the actual text. Just to illustrate the inconsistency of the "concept" you may note that "tank ace" Kurt Knispel scored 126 of his alleged kills as a loader and as a gunner and 42 as a tank commander. So given the nature of tank battles: If a tank destroys other tanks, which one from the crew eventually qualifies as an "ace", the commander or the gunner? Or isn't it rather the romancing literature like that series by Kurowski which makes the "ace"? (And Kurowski surely features a portrait of Kurt Knispel, calling him the world's top "tank killer", i.e. Panzertöter, most likely meant in a Wagnerian sense, and "tank soldier".)--Assayer (talk) 22:15, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

• Comment. Since it had been brought up, I though I'd point out that the knight errant is not only a figure of literature. To quote Derek Lomax from a review (The Year's Work in Modern Language Studies [1967]) of Martín de Riquer, Caballeros andantes espanoles (Espasa Calpe, 1967):

  But the most important work on the chivalresque novel for many years is [Riquer's Caballeros andantes espanoles], which proves that hundreds of knights wandered Europe looking for adventures in the 15th c., studies the activities of those in Spain and of Spanish knights abroad, describes their rules and customs, and relates all this to the chivalresque novels and chronicles which were at once a stimulus, a guide and a by-product of this activity.

  I am not saying that this has any bearing on the debate, but it struck me as an odd comparison. Many actual knights went out and imitated the deeds of the romances, and romances in turn were based on the actual deeds of such knights. I am not suggesting a parallel with the "Panzer ace". Srnec (talk) 23:24, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

• Comment Assayer- I agree with your suggestion to make this part of the Ace article but I disagree with most of your points about the supposed reality of aces and the need for the quote marks. In one of your comments above you say "This is an article about the use of a certain term in popular culture..." which it is. Therein my complaint- the article is a WP:COATRACK for the discussion of the Panzer Ace concept being a part of Nazi propaganda, modern revisionism, false Waffen SS statistics and the recent mythologizing of a figure that didn't really exist. Your whole point about flying aces contradicts your earlier assertion that secondary sources are needed to confirm a term's historiographical correctness and take it out of "romancing". The term "Panzer Ace" has been used in many books in the recent past- it is a term like "Flying Ace" or "Viking" which may not be correct but it is used to describe real people- primary sources back up the claims and secondary sources use the term. Heck- even the world's foremost tank historian Steven Zaloga uses the same phrase in his books without quotes and ironically in the sentence about the "...hero of Nazi fan-boys" calls him "ace Wittman"- no quotes. The argument that tank aces weren't real is absurd- if they weren't real then neither were flying aces or Vikings- but there were actual historical figures who did the things ascribed to them. Just because they weren't called "ace" at the time doesn't mean can't be called that now- and just because they had superior technology doesn't take away credit- would historians denigrate the American pilots in the "Great Marianas Turkey Shoot" just because they had a technological edge? "Ace" means excellence and these German tankers were excellent at killing other tanks. I therefore would like a list of these men- if it belongs in the Ace article then so be it. Or an article on Panzertöter as long as I could have my list.Makumbe (talk) 01:15, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

I nominated this article for deletion back in October. Please see my extensive argument there. In a nutshell, whereas the "(flying) ace" has been discussed extensively by historiography and shown to be an image, even a myth, there is no such discussion of the "tank ace", or even the "Panzer ace". I know that the latter terms have been used in printed works, but seldom have they been discussed as such and please be aware that I distinguish academic historiography, i.e. well documented studies written by people who have received some training by studying history and published by academic publishing houses from the militaria genre, i.e. works written by people with hardly any training in historiography and published by special interest publishers with little editorial oversight like Pen&Sword, Osprey, Casemate, Stackpole or even Fedorowicz. That's not on the same level both in quality and reliability, not to mention POV, and I strongly object to using Wikipedia to make it appear as if that "Panzer ace"-babble is serious military history. Most likely we will not agree on that, but you should at least recognize that the whole notion of "aces" in military contexts is based on a strong POV and thus not a neutral term. As you yourself put it, "Ace" means excellence, and excellence is a positively connotated term, a WP:PEACOCK which should be avoided. Thus the term "ace" should not be used to describe military personnel. Instead in this case you might just as well speak of German tank crews who are credited by certain sources to have killed more tanks than other tank crews. If those German tankers are notable enough to warrant a stand-alone list is a different matter.--Assayer (talk) 10:55, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

• Comment Actually surprisingly I agree with most of what you say. I agree with deleting the article and sending a list over to Ace and calling it a day. I agree with your suggestion: "Instead in this case you might just as well speak of German tank crews who are credited by certain sources to have killed more tanks than other tank crews." I have a friend at Oxford University Press who told me that wikipedia can never be used as a citation but it is the best thing in the world for looking up facts like "...who had the most tank kills in WW2?". If I google the question now the first thing that comes up is this useless article from wikipedia and then the actual information I need from sites like "Masters of Blitzkrieg". Makumbe (talk) 13:20, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

References

Comment

Good to see this page has been retitled, finally! "Panzer aces in Popular culture" ..what the? Deathlibrarian (talk) 07:34, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Table

I have added more tank aces to the table, as I had found references for these before, so seemed like a waste not to use them. There are a few that don't seem to have references, if anyone has them, please add. Deathlibrarian (talk) 10:42, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

I've just removed the unreferenced entries and an entry referenced to an unreliable source, and tweaked a couple of headings to better take into account the discussion earlier in the article (eg, not presenting 'aces' as a universally-recognised title and recognising the uncertainty around 'kills'. The 'Force' column is confusing: it's a mix of the service some of the soldiers served with and the ranks of others (and what rank is being used here? - their highest rank, or the rank when they commanded a tank?) Nick-D (talk) 11:10, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Nick-D, thats great. Yes, I hadn't noticed the force column being a mix of rank and service. I'll change it to rank as that's what most of the field entries are for. Deathlibrarian (talk) 11:34, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Some of the references added here appear to be to websites (eg, refs 58 and 59), but the url is missing - can you please add this as well? The access dates should also be updated. Nick-D (talk) 10:50, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

I went to look at these, but the references don't go to 58/59, only up to 42, I think they may have been consolidated? Could you advise what are the problem refs and I will add the URLs.Deathlibrarian (talk) 12:47, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi, It's the last two refs at present - ""Zvika's Story". The Department for Jewish Zionist Education" and " Rose, Larry (23 April 2015). "Tank Ace began stellar career at Normandy"". Nick-D (talk) 23:11, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up, I'll have a look at those. Deathlibrarian (talk) 07:44, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Nick-D I was doing some work on this table, and removed that reference for "Zvika's Story" story. The other reference is not from a news web site, it's from a Canadian Newspaper, sourced from the FACTIVA service - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Globe_and_Mail. Thanks for identifying these, I've been progressively moving through the table adding more to it, and removing sub standard references. Deathlibrarian (talk) 06:30, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Germany Portal???

I was wondering, as this page is actually a "Tank Ace" page and not specific to German tankers, shouldn't it be removed from the German Portal? Tanks aren't specific to Germany, nor are tank aces (though they do predominate). Deathlibrarian (talk) 12:49, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

I think the scope of the article is sort of in question. Right now it's mostly written as an essay on why the term "Panzer ace" is illegitimate in the context of the German military in WWII. If you want to establish the term as more broad than that I think additional material and references need to be added. LargelyRecyclable (talk) 13:04, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

I agree, I intend to add more material to it. I'm just waiting on some material to come in. While it is some historian's views that the term is not valid, it is certainly others that it is, and material from both points of view should be included. Deathlibrarian (talk) 07:14, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Veit Scherzer

Does anyone know Scherzer's academic or professional credentials? His reference book is widely cited here but I'm having a terrible time running him down. LargelyRecyclable (talk) 17:52, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

No idea of his academic qualifications, but his seems to be a core reference for German WW2 military awards and records of service. Deathlibrarian (talk) 05:56, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Right, that's actually part of my concern. He's widely cited but I can't find anything about him anywhere. His frequency of citation is the concern, not the qualifier. LargelyRecyclable (talk) 06:21, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes, well that's about all I know about the source unfortunately. Would be interesting to know the full story on it.Deathlibrarian (talk) 08:48, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Recent edits

I have reverted LargelyRecyclable's changes as they involved tagging reliable sources (including a book by two academics published by Cambridge University Press) as unreliable or dubious, removed some material, inserted material into the middle of referenced paragraphs, thereby confusing what reference applied to what, and requested citations for material in the lead referenced later in the article which is generally not needed per WP:LEADCITE. Per WP:BRD, the onus is (largely) on LargelyRecyclable to discuss these proposed changes. Nick-D (talk) 23:22, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

I also note that I have requested a SPI investigation into whether LargelyRecyclable is an alternate account for Makumbe given what I see as strong similarities in their editing and approach. Nick-D (talk) 23:33, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict):@Nick-D: has three times now [1][2][3] reverted my edits, wholesale, without any stated reason other than personal attacks. This is the place to give and discuss those reasons. LargelyRecyclable (talk) 23:27, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

I did not tag the Smelner/Davis book itself as unreliable, I tagged the cite as questionable because it was simply restating figures provided by a non-RS ref. The book in question is cited extensively here and that was the only entry so tagged, and very clearly explained. Citing tertiary sources that cite non-RS sources without any context or explanation is not a work-around for RS. You're right I removed some material; questions? Please cite the example of putting non ref'd material into "the middle" of ref'd material. I do not see supporting cites for the material tagged in the lead. Tagging the lead is perfectly acceptable. You must know BRD, and I'm not gonig to labor with explanations that mass reversions without any explanation or justification is not how BRD works. If you're going to revert any, at all, you need to explain why. BRD fails when "...a single editor is reverting changes and exhibiting other forms of ownership attitudes." I hope you can re-calibrate your so-far hostile attitude and come to realize that my edits are all made in good faith. You've made targeted, wholesale reversions of edits that can in no way be construed as contentious, simply because I made them, including but not limited to: [4][5][6][7]Can you expand on that? They haven't been justified here. LargelyRecyclable (talk) 23:40, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

LargelyRecyclable Just a comment on your change of the reference to Kershaw as a military analyst. He has a BA (Hons) in history, and is referred to as a military historian. He has written 10 books on military history. So to be correct, you could describe him as *both* a militrary historian and military analyst. He doesn't work for in academia, however not all historians do. Deathlibrarian (talk) 07:03, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

As a colloquialism I'm sure he is frequently referred to as an historian in different places. In a professional or academic context, which is the context we need in establishing his suitability as a reliable source, he lacks the qualifications. He has no academic training as a historian and has never held a teaching position at the university level. I know it seems like semantics but it's actually a serious issue in the world of publishing and academia. Every once in awhile uncredentialed popular historians such as Shelby Foote will transcend this through a consensus of the professional community, but it's very rare. You'll notice that Kershaw does not refer to himself as an historian anywhere on his page nor do his publishers market him as such. Instead he and his publishers use the commonly parleyed substitute, "author of military history." None of which is to say he's not a reliable source in this context, I think he's perfectly suitable, but he should also be appropriately identified. LargelyRecyclable (talk) 22:44, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

There is nothing in Wikipedia, or in the normal definition (OED) definition of historian that says you have to be working at a University to be an historian, so I would disagree with that strict definition. And he is referred to as a military historian in a number of places.I mean, he has studied military history at university, has written 10 books, and is a regular contributor to newspapers on military history topics... if that doesn't qualify him as a military historian, I'm not sure what does! Deathlibrarian (talk) 06:09, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

We can't go off OED. There's some coverage of this in WP:NAD and WP:DICT. As for assertions of credential, we have to go off of what reliable sources say. If you can find sufficient reliable sources calling him a historian in a formal or academic context then I have no issue but, considering that doesn't even call himself a historian, I'm not sure that's likely. Remember, any assertion we make anywhere in an article has to be able to be verified by reliable sources. WP:SCHOLARSHIP and WP:ACADEMICS both provide good if not perfect conceptualizations of what are considered credentialed academics. Do you have an issue with identifying him as an analyst? I think it's perfectly acceptable and doesn't negatively reflect on him at all. LargelyRecyclable (talk) 06:29, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

LargelyRecyclable Kershaw actually does refer to himself as a military historian, on his linked in page at least. In fact, his present job is as a Military Historian,  ::::according to his linked in profile.

https://www.linkedin.com/in/bob-kershaw-57362719/?ppe=1 Deathlibrarian (talk) 23:53, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

The way I interpret those articles, they are talking about not writing wikipedia articles as dictionary entries. That's not the issue here. We are discussing the use of the term "Historian", and we have a disagreement on its meaning. In which case, when people disagree on the meaning of a term, it is normal to refer to a dictionary. I don't see WP:NAD and WP:DICT saying that we shouldn't do that, though I may have missed it? Deathlibrarian (talk) 08:26, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

I appreciate the LinkedIn link, I hadn't seen that and it does complicate it some; it's self published and what I'd consider to be pretty exceptional but that doesn't mean it won't weigh. The previously provided links were just meant to illustrate that we don't just repeat dictionary definitions and that, in general, they aren't used as sources for assertion of fact, with empahsis on the section "Definitions as precise" in DICTS. Regardless, I don't want to get to lost in the weeds on this and it's not important enough for me to be making changes before a consensus is reached. This has been topic of discussion for some time, but it seems that it's less prominent than before. For some back ground I'd suggest checking out WP:HISTRS. Also, keep in mind that if we are introducing assertions of fact that could be considered contentious then we have to back them with reliable sources. In the mean time, I'm super busy and won't be very active for the next coule of days. Maybe just chew on it and let me know what you think? Cheers. LargelyRecyclable (talk) 23:40, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

If I might leave my 2 cents. In my opinion, Kershaw is not qualified enough, or at least, it have to be noted that his quotes only offer his own opinon and should not viewed generally. He obviously does not read or speak Russian, and is heavily dependent on other author's work, which would completely compromise his own view on that topic. Because of that, he make some very doubious statements, for example as quoted here in the article at page 334 of his book: "There was colourful German media interest in achievements. It is interesting to view differing Allied and German attitudes to heroism. German crews were results conscious, as exemplified by the plethora of medals and badges awarded. Allied crews looked at destroying opposing tanks as a means of shortening the war and getting home. Allied wartime pictorial magazines such as the English Picture Post or American Yank magazines displayed scant interest in tanks, whereas German equivalents like Signal and Die Wehrmacht often displayed panzers on their front covers. German wartime magazines promoted heroism and sacrifice as typical Germanic ideals fighting for Volk und Führer. They aimed at inspiring the factory workers who produced the key weapon systems such as tanks, and the fighting men and others on the home front. German magazines counted tank kills as they did those of air aces. Allied publications showed aircraft tallies and naval successes and devoted a lot of space to the Russian Front, particularly human interest stories such as female snipers, but less to tanks. Some ‘tank aces’ encapsulated what cumulative skill could achieve; one example was theGerman tank killer Michael Wittmann."

First, Krishaw claims that only German media covered and showed interest in achivements and that Allied view differet. Does Kirshaw include the Russian view in the overall Allied view?!

Second "Allied wartime pictorial magazines such as the English Picture Post or American Yank magazines displayed scant interest in tanks, whereas German equivalents like Signal and Die Wehrmacht often displayed panzers on their front covers." Let's see some examples of a common Russian wartime magazine (Tekhnika — molodozhi) covers: February 1941, May 1942, August 1942. Tekhnika magazine has orginally devoted its interest in technology and futurology, but was completely compromised with war time propaganda narratives.

Third: "German wartime magazines promoted heroism and sacrifice as typical Germanic ideals fighting for Volk und Führer." So the Russians, here some stories with photo portraits and names of the people's heroes: May-June 1942 The description reads: "The Komsomol heroically fought on the fronts of the civil war. During the Stalinist five-year plans, the Komsomol was the soul of a great construction. And now, at the fronts of the domestic war, where the question of the life and death of the Soviet state is solved in fierce battles, the Leninist-Stalinist Komsomol, as always, is in the forefront of the fighters. About half of the Komsomol organization of Moscow went to the front. Out of every five of the Leningrad Komsomol members, four are defending their beloved city with weapons in their hands. Young warriors continually learn to master combat weapons, defeat the enemy with courage and heroic feat, cunning and skill, accuracy and suddenness of blows. Stalin's military orders inspire Komsomol members to exploits, there is no approach to describe their heroic deeds. Lisa Chaikina, Ilya Kuzin and Kurban Durdi, Zoya Kosmodemyanskaya and - Sasha Chekalin, Dmitry Ovcharenko and Nikolai Bocharov, these and other heroes will be always famous for their people and will teach and inspire future generations of young men and women to new glorious feats."

Fourth: " They aimed at inspiring the factory workers who produced the key weapon systems such as tanks, and the fighting men and others on the home front. German magazines counted tank kills as they did those of air aces." The russians also printed letters from factory workers and soldiers to inspire other with their heroic feats. Some even noted that while their industry is relocating, they still hold their position and producing tanks until the last men get killed [at Stalingrad]. They don't even shy away to distort battle realties by promoting lengthy articles on how the curshed the German invades: March-April 1942 ( In the first 6 months of war, 6 Million German soldiers were killed, over 15,000 tanks destroyed, 13,000 aircarft and 19'000 guns).

It appears that Robert Kershaw is really not qualified enough to speak about that topic, its just his compromised opinion and should be stated as such. Steven Zaloga is fluent in russian, yet he would never make such a silly comparison. That's what seperates a decent historian from a much acclaimed historian. In fact, Zaloga has more than 40 years of experience. Not many contemporary russian historian, agree with that however. I hope I could present my humble russian view of that. Duskinvo (talk • contribs) 10:34, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Duskinvo Not wishing to get into one of these classical long debates on here, but Wikipedia has standards for what is acceptable for RS. It may be that we individually don't think an author is up to scratch, or may be biased, but we need to follow Wikipedia guidelines. I think negating an Author because of a factor introduced by an editor (like for instance, the author or a reference not speaking Russian), is in my opinion, beyond what Wikipedia requires in its standards. Introducing certain variables to exclude what is an otherwise RS can be used by people to exclude valid sources for their own wishes. You could equally say Zaloga was a problem author because he hasn't worked for a military museum, hasn't been in the Army, or is American so is biased against German WW2 history. Wikipedia has set standards for what RS can be used and those rules need to be followed when writing an article. Deathlibrarian (talk) 21:13, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

I reverted the formatting edits only because it wasn't technically possible to pick through them and revert only the ones which altered the article's substantive content given that they were mixed up together. Nick-D (talk) 10:08, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

In order to deal with the mass reversion, given that there are a number of separate issues, could we discuss them on an individual basis, and re insert those edits that may be deemed ok? There does seem to be a number of different issues at hand here. Deathlibrarian (talk) 10:41, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

I hope that's not the total extent of your response. LargelyRecyclable (talk) 20:56, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

@Nick-D: Going once, going twice... LargelyRecyclable (talk) 05:09, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

The onus is actually on you to explain and seek support for your changes. Please do so. A format such as 'I propose change X for reason Y' would be a good way of presenting this. For instance, please explain your concern with the material from The Myth of the Eastern Front and the latest reason for seeking to discredit material from Stephen Zaloga's books. Nick-D (talk) 06:00, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

I've explained all the issues you brought up, here or in the unambiguous edit summaries. Did you read them? If you're not going to actually respond to me, or explain rather than narrate your objections, then this won't be much of a discussion. So, please, address my replies and explain your objections to my logic. Simply repeating my edits back to me in a skewed manner isn't helpful and just comes off as stalling. LargelyRecyclable (talk) 06:14, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Could we perhaps separate and number the individual issues that needed to be edited? That way we can look at the separate issues, and see what edits are valid? Deathlibrarian (talk) 08:26, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Since this seems to be a dead end of a discussion from Nick I'm going to reincorporate my edits, barring a substantive explanation. LargelyRecyclable (talk) 00:32, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Turned out that I wasn't a Sock Puppeteer-

So it turned out I was not a Sock Puppeteer as Nick-D accused me of being. Largely Recyclable and I are separate cyber beings and actual ones also. I've been kinda keeping track of this article since the name change and I notice that it has not been successfully edited by anyone- the Triumvirate successfully repels any new ideas.

I know what is wrong with this article- it is basically an editorial- but I don't have the time or energy to do any editing right now. I've been educating myself and will do so in the future (edit that is).

Stephen Zaloga does NOT claim anywhere in his books that Panzer aces weren't real- he just claims that since German tankers had superior technology high kill counts for them were like shooting fish in a barrel. Sonke Neitzel does not dispute the high kill counts of individual commanders- rather he says that most German Eastern Front commanders of all the Wehrmacht exaggerated their claims (Gee- what a revelation!). Sonke Neitzel has made a tidy living for himself by being what our Israeli friends call in other contexts a "self-hater". He is a constant presence as a talking head on the History Channel and American Heroes Channel talking about how evil the Wehrmacht was.

The topper for our Panzer Ace article is the silly book The Myth of the Eastern Front. The Panzer Ace article and others strewn about Wikipedia are based on this book which claims that American "popular culture" created a myth which imbued the Wehrmacht and the Waffen SS with a false nobility- thus gamers and popular historians in Germany and the USA have overlooked their crimes. I think this is mostly BS. The main engineers of the actual whitewashing were the US military and the CIA with their "Wehrmacht Penis Envy" in the 1950s and 60s. Gamers and people in general- you know- "popular culture" are interested in the Wehrmacht and Waffen SS particularly because they had cool uniforms and equipment and BECAUSE they have an evil reputation. All the sociological hijinks in The Myth of the Eastern Front distract frrom the fact that any reasonably educated person from the 1960s onward was educated about the evils of the Wehrmacht. Ad nauseum by books like Heinz Höhne's The Order of the Death's Head and the TV series "The World at War". Only an idiot would have admired the ethics of the Wehrmacht by the 1990s. The Myth of the Eastern Front is really an editorial book with a very specific mission- to try to change gamers and US popular culture. Because admiring Germans Is BAD!

When I have the time and energy I will revisit this silly piece. As it is right now at least you have reinstated that list- it must be very hard for some to see it there with the first 17 spots filled in by German names and astounding kill counts. The list does not lie- whatever else you might think numerical superiority has a genius all its own.Makumbe (talk) 19:06, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Makumbe Glad to hear you were found not to be the sock puppet, its never nice to be falsely accused of having one, but if you stay on Wikipedia for long enough it will happen unfortunately!. The list of information about the various Panzer aces was reinstated - it was removed on a whim for no good reason really, considering some effort had been put into constructing it, it is information that people will be looking for, and otherwise available (but without proper references and less accurate). Feel free to come back and contribute to the page. Deathlibrarian (talk) 11:54, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Deathlibrarian. I will try to clean this up as I learn more. It seems to be that the "Wehrmacht was very very bad compared to other armies" theme runs through many articles on Wikipedia. An article such as " Clean Wehrmacht" or this current version of "Panzer Ace" do not belong in what purports to be an encyclopedia. As written both of these articles (and many more) specifically single out the WW2 German Army as being particularly evil. NOT NEUTRAL! These belong in popular history magazines with a specific Western Allies POV, not on Wikipedia.Makumbe (talk) 22:48, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, there have been big problems with this page in the past, I think it's better than it was before, but needs more work. It's a fairly political page unfortunately, so seems to require a lot of maintenance. I've purchased some books specifically to get some more varied RS into this page, and to help with wp:bal (which I think this page has problems with. I agree, the tone of the article I think has leant to the "Nazis are evil" side of things, which is not what this page is about. Its about the nature of successful tank commanders, in their tanks, and combat.Deathlibrarian (talk) 00:16, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

References in List of high scoring tank commanders

I have some questions about the recent additions to the article. The concern is that it looks like the material was either added to existing references, or cited to sources that may not contain the material provided. Examples:

• [8] Smelser & Davies do not have this info

I have replaced that with a new RS reference (from George Forty's book on Tank Aces) Deathlibrarian (talk) 11:47, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

• [9] I'm not sure that Veit Scherzer's RK book includes kill numbers, or this info specifically: "Most amount of tanks destroyed in one action by a German commander (39)"

Comment removedDeathlibrarian (talk) 11:43, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

• [10] S&D do not cover this engagement: "In one engagement in 1944, he dismounted from his tank and destroyed three tanks with an infantry weapon."

Comment removed- if I can find a good reference for this, we can always insert it later, but not sure, it may be apocryphal Deathlibrarian (talk) 11:43, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

• [11] Scherzer is not the author of Kursk: The Vital 24 Hours

Correct author (it's actually by Will Fowler) information insertedDeathlibrarian (talk) 11:43, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

• [12] This is an Israeli tank commander; he is not a "Panzer" ace. Etc.

This was discussed a while back. The table title was changed to "List of high scoring tank commanders" as it just doesn't cover Panzer tank commanders, there is Allied and an Isreali commander in there as well. It's ordered by "kill tally" not by Nationality. The article itself isn't restricted to German Tank Commanders, its discusses Russian and American. While the list appears to be mainly German, it's not restricted to German, it is only because they had the most amount of "kills" so dominate the listDeathlibrarian (talk) 11:43, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

I would appreciate a clarification on these points. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:54, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for highlighting these, I've fixed up most of them now I think. Deathlibrarian (talk) 11:49, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Some of the current citations are still misleading. For example, S & D do not include information on how many tanks Bäke destroyed, or that he "participated in over 400 tank combat missions, 13 of which resulted in the destruction of his tank": diff.

Likewise, Scherzer does not provide information that örner "Destroyed 100+ enemy tanks". Could you clarify where this information is coming from? K.e.coffman (talk) 21:24, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

I can see references to this online, but can't see a good RS standard as s reference for how many kills he got, which is a shame, because he is purported to be the second highest scoring Tank Ace in history. There are references for how many tanks he destroyed in individual engagements, and his various military awards, but I can't find a good one for his total tally for the whole war. Frustrating, but I have removed his name from the list. If someone can find a good reference, please put him back in!.Deathlibrarian (talk) 00:44, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

I have replaced the old Korner reference with a new reference for his number of kills. It previously said 100+, the new reference says 102, so I have replaced it with that number.Deathlibrarian (talk) 00:34, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

It’s still unclear how this material is being sourced. Have you actually consulted the books by Scherzer and Thomas & Wegmann? K.e.coffman (talk) 00:37, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

K.e.coffman All the information should be referenced now... please advise if these references are incorrect, it's not a problem if that is the issue. Just advise which ones are problematical, and I will replace them if that is the case (as I have done above). Deathlibrarian (talk) 03:04, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Why are you asking me to advise if these references are incorrect? I did not add this information, you did. :-) See WP:BURDEN.

In any case, I found a page from Scherzer’s RK book – he does not address the subject of Panzer aces nor provides the number of tanks they were credited with destroying. Berger and Thomas & Wegmann are similar catalogues of award winners. Providing a citation to Scherzer's Ritterkreuzträger 1939-1945 is meaningless, and these additions now look very sloppy, if not misleading.

I’ve removed the entries where sources do not support the information provided. I’m preserving the material here by providing this link. I generally have the impression that the entries removed have been compiled from non-RS internet sources and constitute original research. As I recall, you’ve attempted something like this before: [13], twice: [14]. I would suggest trying to source entries to actual RS, in a more transparent manner, before adding them back in (and not Das-ritterkreuz.de, for example).

I will look at the list in more detail and will post additional comments here, if any. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:52, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

K.e.coffman I am going to revert this edit and would ask that any issues with any particualr RS be raised here and I will deal with them. You have done a mass deletion of multiple references, without individually raising your problems with them. You have already been raising issues with individual references, and I have been happy to comply and delete references where there were problems with them - but deleting half this list without any justification or information makes it hard for me to put the references back in. I don't wish to get into a huge "panzer aces" style debate - however if you don't let me know which references you have issues with or you think are incorrect, its hard for me to repair them. Deathlibrarian (talk) 00:07, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

I've already explained that the sources listed do not support the information that's included. If you wish to work on the list, please place it in your sandbox and work on it there.

The material has been challenged and removed. You have restored it in violation of WP:BURDEN; please self-revert. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:15, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

I've reverted now, I didn't spot your reference to Scherzer above. I'm happy to remove those references, and will continue to find alternate references for this information. Thanks once again for spotting the bad RS, its been helpful to make this a better referenced table. Deathlibrarian (talk) 00:20, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the self-revert. (talk) 01:30, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Additional concerns about sourcing

These recent additions look questionable to me diff:

• Neumann, Joachim "Die 4. Panzer-Division 1943 - 1945. Bericht und Betrachtung Zu Den Letzten Zwei Kriegsjahren Im Osten" Selbstverlag, Bonn-Duisdorf -- looks to be an in-house publication of perhaps a veteran's association. Non RS by all appearances.

I've just translated the title, and realise Selbstverlag is the German word for self publishing, so it fails WP:RS. I will remove that reference.Deathlibrarian (talk) 06:01, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

• Henschler, Henri; Fey, Willi . Armor Battles of the Waffen-SS, 1943–45. Mechanicsburg, PA: Stackpole Books. This is is a propaganda book; per Robert Citino, Fey is one of the authors who “flirt with the admiration of the Waffen-SS”, some “going farther than that”. I don’t think we can expect objective reporting from it.

Wikipedia does not require RS to be neutral, and can include sources that are biased from one side or the other. Please see: WP:BIASED

• Florian Berger, "Ritterkreuzträger aus Österreich und den K.u.K. Kronländern", Wien 2006 -- Again, does the source contain the information you are citing from it? Have you consulted this book?

I don't have the page number reference for this, so need to find it. In the mean time, I will remove it and replace it when I get a proper inline citation. Deathlibrarian (talk) 06:01, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

• Michulec, Robert and Healey, John "Panzer Division in Russia" Concord 2004 -- looks to be a picture book replicating war-time propaganda.

Again, I don't have the page number reference for this, so need to find it. In the mean time, I will remove it and replace it when I get a proper inline citation.Deathlibrarian (talk) 06:03, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

• Mark C. Yerger "German Cross in Gold, Holder of the SS and Police: Volume 8" Bender Publishing Pgs 305-307. 2013 -- Yerger was an ardent admirer of the Waffen-SS, and was the only American to recieve a prize from HIAG, a German Waffen-SS lobby group. Not an RS.

Wikipedia does not require RS to be neutral, and can include sources that are biased from one side or the other. Please see: WP:BIASEDDeathlibrarian (talk) 06:03, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

What makes Bender Publishing a source of reliable works? Does it have a reputation for professional standards of fact checking, etc? Its website is not typical of that of a serious press, and some of its books appear to glorify Nazi war criminals (eg, this book which states that some people see the notorious Reinhard Heydrich as being a "renaissance man" and appears to agree that Germany faced a "Jewish question") which obviously no serious history publisher would do. Nick-D (talk) 09:09, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

I do not consider these to be RS, and will remove the entries unless you can make a convincing case for the inclusion of this information or find better sources. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:30, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for looking at these and improving the list, I appreciate your time with it. As noted, I'm happy for some of these to go, and will remove them. However, as per WP:BIASED and WP:NPOVS, RS that is biased one way or the other is not grounds for removal. Of course, some of the sources that are already used in the article may be seen as biased one way or the other. Deathlibrarian (talk) 05:59, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

K.e.coffman I've removed those three RS you have raised as an issue, thanks once again. Deathlibrarian (talk) 06:09, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Please do not break up other editor's comments as you've done here; this makes discussions more difficult to follow and also has the appearance of posts being unsigned.

I further reduced the list by removing questionable sources. Sources are not considered by default to be reliable and, BTW, there's no such thing as bad RS. Reliable sources do not have to be neutral, but it's not yet been established that Fey etc are WP:RS. Preserving the material here by providing this link. Please see WP:IRS and WP:QS. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:34, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Separately, it's still unclear how how you are sourcing this material. Do you know if the sources contain the information you are citing from them? (i.e. some don't have pages; I've removed them). Have you consulted these books? If you can elaborate on your methodology, that would be helpful. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:54, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

I do not have all these books, I have purchased some of them, and some of the others are on their way - however there are a lot of different books here and it can get expensive. Some of them I have and I am referring to them directly, others I am relying on other reference material that refers to them. As per WP;RS we do need page numbers for RS so I will endeavour to get those for all these references. Deathlibrarian (talk) 22:44, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Re: others I am relying on other reference material that refers to them -- you can't really do that, especially given how sloppy and misleading the recent additions have been. I suspect that in this case, the information is coming from dubious websites. For transparency, can you indicate which sources used in the table you actually have on hand? The rest should be removed pending verification. Please advise. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:42, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

K.e.coffman Could you point out to me the Wikipedia guidelines you are referring to that indicate you actually have them on hand? I'd just be interested in looking at it. Thanks. Please advise.Deathlibrarian (talk) 00:12, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

The information on wikipedia must be verifiable. If, for example, you find an online blurb that states that soldier X destroyed N tanks, and lists Scherzer at the bottom of the page, you cannot take this claim and insert it into an article citing Scherzer. This is because you are in essence citing the website where you found the information, not Scherzer.

These websites are tertiary, self-published sources; see WP:SELFPUBLISH. In addition, they tend to be POV-challenged and unreliable: feldgrau.net, achtungpanzer.com, etc. See WP:IRS#Questionable and self-published sources. Separately, such additions are also misleading, since they are purporting to cite Scherzer, while the information comes from a (questionable) website. Does this help clarify?

For transparency, can you indicate which sources used in the table you've consulted directly? And which entries were sourced in the manner that I described, which I assume actually what happened? K.e.coffman (talk) 02:32, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

HI again, K.e.coffman you seem to be interpreting the guidelines in your own fashion. verifiable means that the RS needs to be able to be verified by wikipedia authors. The references are all there, with page numbers, they *can* be verified, if you have issues with them, please indicate what they are. As per your own request, and WP:Burden, the references without page numbers have now been removed, and I have spent considerable time doing so, and replacing them where I can. All the references are now compliant with wikipedia policy. There are certainly no WP:SELFPUBLISH references, if there are, feel free to remove them. So if you can show some issue with the current references, and indicate wikipedia policy that says they can't be used, please do so. Deathlibrarian (talk) 03:05, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

I don't have a dog in this fight, but will tell you that Bender books have been found to be RS and as for the Heydrich book which they offer, if one has read it as I have, you would see it is not a Nazi fan book, but a detailed work of his life (although, Gerwarth's bio on Heydrich is even better as a source). As for Fey, I would agree he would be considered a poor bias source. As for Yerger, if one is using him for something, such as detail of the organization of the general SS offices, that is one thing, but frankly, I would not use him for anything else, Deathlibrarian; there are better sources. If better sources, which can also be verified, exist for any subject, it is the way to go! As for publishers, they can be mixed bags, some more than others. Kierzek (talk) 13:41, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Specific question & "reference lists"

I asked a direct question, several times: For transparency, can you indicate which sources used in the table you've consulted directly? I've listed multiple problems with the way you've cited things (numerous examples in the two sections above), misrepresenting RS (S & D, Scherzer, etc) and citing questionable sources. Going by this edit, you've apparently "relied on reference lists", whatever they are. You've provided no evidence that these lists should be considered reliable or where exactly they come from.

I would appreciate if you could answer the question I asked. It's becoming difficult to assume good faith. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:21, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

K.e.coffman I'm sorry I disagree with your approach here in dealing with this. You seem to be wanting to remove a whole section of an article, because you perceive issues with *some* references...possibly? If you have issues with individual references, please state so, that's the normal procedure for wikipedia. As per WP:Burden references are all present with page numbers and meet WP:verifiable policy. I have spent *hours* working on this so far improving the quality of references, and I now feel it complies with wikipedia policy, I really have other things to do than proceed in this back and forth over this one section.In the meantime, I'll be getting access to more references so as to improve this section. If you don't like the references in this section, or you don't like the situation as it is, I suggest we ask for an admin to be involved, or get third party mediation WP:M Deathlibrarian (talk) 04:01, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm also very concerned about the above, as it appears to be an admission that the editor who added this material had never actually seen the references they stated supported it. Given that the long-standing concern regarding tables of 'aces' is the availability of reliable sources, I don't think that WP:V is met. Deathlibrarian, to be frank, I'm also sceptical about any statements you make about other references in light of this. I'd suggest removing the table until another editor can verify the claimed references. The other material added to the article by Deathlibrarian probably also needs to be treated with scepticism. Nick-D (talk) 08:34, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Nick-D Once again, I would disagree with this. It's not Wikipedia policy to remove whole sections, because someone suspects there may be an issue with *some* references. References should be judged on an individual basis. My interpretation of WP:V is that, in good faith, I have provided the full citations, and those can be checked by anyone doubting them. That meets WP:V. I have spent a lot of time removing references where K.e.coffman challenged them, and I thought we got to the point where we had all the references in compliance with RS and WP:Ver - but now the whole table is being removed?. It would seem to me that people are applying harder tests to this article than is applied to other articles. For instance, look at the List_of_aces_of_aces article, which doesn't even have all the references. But here, whole sections are removed because of an unproven suspicion that some references are not valid.... *without even any mention of which references they are*. With all due respect, IMHO removing the table in such a manner does not comply with wikipedia editorial policy. Deathlibrarian (talk) 06:27, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

I don't mean to be rude, but it goes to a question of trust. If you added material for which you had not sighted a reference for, where did you source this information, and why should other editors have any confidence in it? WP:V obviously doesn't hold if the material was added without the reference actually being known to support it given that the editor who added it wasn't able to verify the material. This is much worse than unreferenced material in my view, as at least it's obvious there that there isn't a supporting reference. Nick-D (talk) 06:36, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Nick-D This will be the third time I have had to rebuild this table. I have spent hours and hours on this page so far, and in particular this table, trying to find alternate references where they were incomplete, or to satisfy K.e.coffman. Please go ahead and delete it, if you and K.e.coffman believe that is honestly the best thing to do. Deathlibrarian (talk) 06:44, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

More balanced article

In an attempt to make this a more balanced article, I've inserted a bit more general information about tank aces - mainly some stuff on contributing factors that has made them a success. It's been noted the article in the page, was more focussed on panzer aces in fiction, and generally took a negative tone to the concept. The article title has been changed now, so its more appropriate the article talks about Panzer aces/tank aces generally. Deathlibrarian (talk) 00:12, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

I believe that you misunderstood the purpose of the move. Quoting from the close: "As was pointed out in the discussion, Wikipedia has many articles on things that only exist in popular culture that are still titled by their WP:COMMONNAME. The purpose of the move wasn't to suggest that the article should talk about Panzer aces/tank aces generally. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:28, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Firstly, if you read comments on here, some editors clearly see that the nature of the page has changed, and is now no longer an article that is a critical attack on the nature/existence of a Panzer ace, as it was in the past. Also as per WP:TITLE the title of the article describes what the article is about. Previous history of title change aside, the article is *now* "Panzer Aces". So any reasonable Wikipedia user coming here would expect to find information on tank aces/panzer aces here. For the benefit of the users, this page should include information on panzer aces generally that is helpful to the reader. Deathlibrarian (talk) 00:56, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

This material is pretty poor in my view. For instance, the para starting with "The difference in armour and firepower is undeniably a factor." seems to assume that all that matters with tanks is their armour and their gun. Experts in this field also note a wide range of other factors, not least how mechanically reliable the tank is, the quality of its optics, and the supporting organisation (all of which was lacking for the late-war German tanks). Similarly, the assertion in the previous para that German tankers were better trained than those in other countries is plain wrong. This may have been the case early in the war, but from mid-war German tank training was greatly reduced while Allied training held up. The material also makes the mistake of treating tank vs tank combat as the norm, when it was actually the exception: all sides fought as combined arms armies, supported by close air support. Taken together, factors such as this explain the series of devastating defeats suffered by the German armoured forces from 1944 onwards. More broadly, this section duplicates some of the topics discussed in previous sections: for instance, the results of the relative invulnerability of the Tiger I and II tanks between mid-1943 and mid-1944. Nick-D (talk) 09:00, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Nick-D I certainly have my personal opinions about tank combat, and Zaloga for instance, but as Wikipedia editors, our job is to represent the writing of all experts in the field, not just one side of the coin, so that we achieve WP:bal. So while interesting, our own personal opinions in some ways, are not relevant (which is why I don't go on about tank stuff, which I certainly could! :-) However, you have noted "Experts in this field also note a wide range of other factors" - by all means I agree - if you have the references, by all means, please add them as it would make for a more rounded article, which is what I am trying to do. This is pretty much all I have. Deathlibrarian (talk) 06:35, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

" '...Nazi fan-boys' "

This article is an editorial! Just the fact that the term "...Nazi fan-boys" is still in it proves it. Just 'cause Steven Zaloga says it doesn't make it appropriate or useful on WIKIPEDIA!! Wikipedia purports to be an online encyclopedia- do any of you gatekeepers of this piece honestly think that this kind of poor writing would be in The Encyclopedia Britannica? Any attempt by editors to neutralize this article is always countered by the same anti-German Western Allies POV clique. Just in general historical terms the idea that somehow the Eastern Front was a cakewalk for the Germans is false. Revisionism aside- the only reason the Western Allies stood a chance after D-Day on the ground is that basically the Wehrmacht was bled white- most importantly by Russian blood and Allied air power. The Russkies did the heavy lifting. Because they had no choice but to keep skillful pilots and tankers and submariners in the war the Germans racked up amazing kills in all those fields. Accept it- all the fancy-pants counter-"popular culture" shenanigans won't change the numbers. I tried to help this article and was falsely accused of being a Sock Puppet for my troubles. None of this is what Wikipedia is about. Makumbe (talk) 18:35, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi @Makumbe: what is your specific suggestion? Is it to remove the wording of “hero of all Nazi fanboys” from the article? Zaloga did say, so WP:V is met. Michael Wittmann’s bio includes an entire section on his cult status, so I don’t see how it’s undue to include a mention here. If you consider the specific words (“Nazi fanboys”) or the entire article to be non-neutral, you could post to WP:NPOV noticeboard for additional input. Alternatively, I could see us rewording the statement to say that Wittmann “gained a cult status among the admirers of the Wehrmacht and the Waffen-SS…” or something to this effect, without directly quoting Zaloga. Please let me know what you think. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:25, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. IMO the term "Nazi fan-boy" is pejorative. Both words which make up the term have negative connotations- and of all the sentences in Zaloga's works I find it odd that this whole concept should be singled out. It implies that admiring the Panzerwaffe or the Wehrmacht automatically makes one a Nazi with all the baggage that entails. It implies that all who are interested in the WW2 German military are stupid, navel-gazing dorks (fan-boys). As I have shown before- Zaloga (who isn't the most neutral "historian" to begin with) uses the term ace in another part of the quoted book without quotes and not ironically. I ask you- do you honestly think that there isn't a lot of editorializing in this article? It has a very restricted POV- what Norman Davies calls The Western Allies POV. I admit that at this point I am not qualified to be a good editor of this article and I admit that you have at least put the list back in. I do however believe that it does not meet Wikipedia's WP:Neutral requirements. More later- must away- thanks. Makumbe (talk) 03:05, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Again, a passing comment. I believe what Davies was talking about as to "Western Allies POV" was based on them not accounting enough credit to the Soviet Union Red Army and the fighting and losses on the Eastern Front. I am going from memory and have not read your link. I am not seeing how that relates to the point of POV or the German military in regards to panzer aces. Kierzek (talk) 17:59, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Probably you should read the link to understand better. My point as it relates to Panzer aces is that the historians cited in the Wiki article and Steven Zaloga specifically sneer at the fact that the high scores of German aces were mostly from the Eastern Front. Tank warfare in the East was in a whole different league than the pathetic struggles of the already defeated Wehrmacht in France and Germany after D-Day where complete air superiority and a 10 to 1 advantage in equipment were just barely enough for the Western Allies to achieve victory. As Max Hastings writes in Armageddon (I'm paraphrasing here)- "... the soldiers of the Western Allies were no Panzergrenadiers...". The current Wikipedia very much tries to denigrate the achievements of the German tankers- it is NOT neutral.Makumbe (talk) 21:10, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

References

It's an unencyclopedic peacock term, which is exactly why I removed it over a month ago. It's inclusion is inappropriate and it should be removed, again. It's continued inclusion is part of the larger sum of reasons why this article has attracted so much negative attention for its POV and tone. LargelyRecyclable (talk) 22:34, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Well, without getting into a long reply, I will leave it to say, I don't write about Panzer/Luftwaffe "aces" or personnel, for that matter. I see K.e. made a fair suggestion above, which if used I would make a minor tweak to:“...gained a cult status among admirers of the Wehrmacht, Waffen-SS and tank warfare…” Kierzek (talk) 02:19, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

I'll implement the change. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:38, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Kierzek and Makumbe. There was a lot of editorializing in this article (in fact that's what it mostly was!)... the inclusion of that term seems to reflect that, and to me, in terms of wiki writing style, it always stood out. I thought it should remain as it was a quote from Zaloga, and sums up his viewpoint, (and its important to include various views to get WP:bal, even if they are biased) but I'm not even sure it does that. Deathlibrarian (talk) 21:22, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

To be clear, I have never said there was "a lot of editorializing" as to the article. I made several comments as to RS sources and tried to understand an argument that was made and lastly tried to facilitate the matter of the sentence wording above. Frankly, I don't plan to be involved in editing this article, per-se. Kierzek (talk) 21:37, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Kierzek Apologies - indeed you didn't mention editorialising. Sorry about including you in it.Deathlibrarian (talk) 13:59, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Kierzek (talk) 15:24, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Scope and content

I strongly object to this revert by LargelyRecyclable, with an edit summary that is inaccurate, to put it mildly. The article is about "Panzer ace" as a propagandistic term; it is not a list article about tank commanders. The difference should be clear. And George Forty and that Kershaw guy are not, in fact, reliable sources--they are/were amateur historians who wrote popularizing books that glorify military hardware, and their books are not to be used as reliable sources on Wikipedia. Drmies (talk) 21:47, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Some notes on my side. The claim that the "United States did not adopted or rejected the concept", was largely unsourced before; see long-standing October 2017 version. I don't know why you kept the reference in place after removing the mention of Lafayette G. Pool as a "tank ace", diff. George Forty mentioned in his book, that the Yank, the Army Weekly magazine, featured several sucessfull American "tank aces". However, I take your objections that Forty is not reliable. Duskinvo (talk) 09:28, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Drmies I'm a bit late to the debate here, but no the article *was* about tank aces generally. The article was previously about "tank aces in literature". The article title had been changed and is now simply about "Panzer aces", and at that point, information about tank aces from other countries because making another article for them was seen as wp:fork. If tank aces from other countries can't go here because of scope, than they will need an article created to cover them, which would be "Tank Aces" rather than "panzer aces". Deathlibrarian (talk) 05:45, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

This was entirely addressed in my edit summary. This is a list article. The two removed sources are not treated as historians, they're treated as professionals in their field. I don't need to link to the RS page for you, I'm sure. The exposition on the propaganda uses of the term is follow-on material that quite clearly exceeds what is reasonable in a list article, not to mention substantially UNDO. I'm afraid you have it backwards. Perhaps a separate treatment or a moving of the material would be the best solution. Finally, your edit summaries are rather pointy, there's no need to come out of the gate calling people liars. Also, BRD works well, but only if everyone is willing to play nice. So why not do that? LargelyRecyclable (talk) 22:22, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

• Well, if you want a list of Panzer aces, write up List of Panzer aces. No, your edit summary didn't adequately address what's going on, and so your simple revert of a half a dozen carefully explained edits was not sufficient. If you disagree with the lead of the article, you should have addressed that earlier--this, pulled at random (version by K.e.coffman), is from over a year ago. No, "treated as professionals in their field" is nonsense until that is proven to be the case (that you treat them as a professional doesn't mean that much to me), and there is no evidence whatsoever that their books are reliable. One doesn't have to be an academic to be an authority, but these popular mass-market books, no. By contrast, The Myth of the Eastern Front is by Cambridge UP. Drmies (talk) 22:50, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
• So you write up Nazis? I saw your draft for Josef "Sepp" Dietrich. I hope you'll expand a bit on what HIAG is, lest the article look completely like a hagiography. Drmies (talk) 22:55, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

I too can pull random versions and I already have a list article, this one. The article has gone through several changes but it is still classified as a list. If you'd like to expound on the propagandistic history of the term perhaps you should discuss the merit of changing the article type. Or start another one. The previous attempt to remove the list and change the article was rejected. This is though the place to make that proposal, again. So why don't you?

And yes, I do currently write on Nazis. Quite a bit. Nazi resistance figures too. Is that alright with you? I'm glad you've read the draft I'm working on, maybe you can provide me some feedback on the relevant talk page as it develops. LargelyRecyclable (talk) 23:04, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

I've reverted your restoration again per WP:ONUS. Drmies has challenged the content: you need to gain consensus to restore it, not vice-versa. I have no strong opinion either way here (it was just on my watchlist because of the move), but challenged content should not be restored until there is consensus to do so. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:08, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

ONUS is intended to clarify the burden on introducing material. The list has already achieved consensus to remain and the other material has been on the page for quite some time, through several cycles of different editors. ONUS is not cover to remove mass amounts of material from an article or to fundamentally change the article without first achieving consensus on the Talk page. Wouldn't you agree? LargelyRecyclable (talk) 23:13, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

ONUS means that material that has been challenged, must achieve consensus before it has been restored. That is the clear wording of it. If consensus has already been achieved for including that material as you say, it should be easy to demonstrate it. If it hasn't, and this is just a poorly watched page where the material got in without others looking at it through a critical lens, then having further discussion on it will improve the quality of the article. Drmies has presented valid objections, and until they are addressed, the material should not be in the article. That is not saying that he is right: I don't know if he is, but until we have consensus either way on it, we don't display the information to readers. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:16, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

It's a topic that has been discussed extensively over the past year. ONUS is not designed to guarantee exclusion of any contested material pending widespread input. Drimies removed it with a justification. I put it back in with a justification. This is what BRD is for. Contested widespread changes to an article and/or the contested mass removal of material requires consensus, as laid out in the corresponding guideline. No? LargelyRecyclable (talk) 23:27, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

ONUS requires consensus for challenged material to be included. You have not established that yet, and Drmies gave justification in his edit summaries and on this page. You are not allowed to ignore it by simply reverting. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:31, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Again, I'll refer to the substantial amount of discussion on this topic; ONUS isn't a trump card that requires more than one party to object to the removal of material. The list table (on the list article ) has already achieved consensus and this is a highly trafficked page over the past year. Literally dozens of editors have had their hands in the removed material, to remove it all, without any attempt to attain consensus first, or subsequent to reversion, doesn't meet the meaning of OUNS, nor does it reflect accepted practice in the policy on editing. This is not new material and much of it has been explicitly confirmed by consensus already. This is not constructive behavior. LargelyRecyclable (talk) 23:42, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

If that is the case, then you should have no problem with other editors agreeing with you and wanting to restore it. A mass revert of all Drmies individual and good edits challenging the material on strong grounds, however, is inappropriate. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:46, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

I thought you didn't have a position on the appropriate removal of the content? LargelyRecyclable (talk) 23:49, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

I don't: I know nothing about WW2 history beside the broad strokes. Drmies has, however, raised valid policy based objections that appear strong enough to warrant discussion. I have no opinion on what the outcome of that discussion should be, but until there exists consensus that the material should be included, it should not be restored. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:51, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

• Largely, that version is from 2015. The one I pulled up was from October 2016. You had over a year to challenge the, what did you call it, "expanded hand wringing over the term", and apparently you didn't. So instead of a list article we have an article on the apparently misleading or leading terminology of "Panzer ace", which apparently critics maintain is incorrectly or unjustifiably applied to a number of German military personnel in a romanticized kind of glorification of those tank commanders. Very interesting stuff! If you want a list article, stick with the general program and set up/fork off that list from the 2015 version into a policy-compliant "List of" article. Drmies (talk) 00:44, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm very into the program, but thank you for the advice. This article is, and has always been, a list article for Panzer aces. I too think the material is interesting, even if there's substantial issues with NPOV, especially WEIGHT and UNDUE. On that note, I'd again recommend that if you think the materiel is deserving of it's own article then you should go ahead and make one. Or, even, propose that the list be on a new article! And, again, this would be a great place to talk about that. LargelyRecyclable (talk) 00:51, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

That you don't understand that lists are usually called "List of" is beyond me. But by all means throw acronyms around. NPOV is really quite inappropriate, unless of course you find an authoritative source that argues that "Panzer ace" is really not a value-laden term that suffers from the aforementioned. Now, what do you think an article on "Panzer ace" should be called? I propose "Panzer ace". Drmies (talk) 01:11, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

It should be clear by now that the use of the term "ace" in military contexts communicates a certain POV. Much of the text defended by LareglyRecyclable is not really a list, but an affirmation of the term, mainly based upon a work by George Forty. The term is used uncritically and thus this POV is being adopted. While various military historians have argued that it is virtually impossible to determine how many tanks were actually destroyed during a battle and by whom exactly, the article was about to feature a whole chapter dedicated to Contributing Factors to Success as if such "success" was self-evident and claimed that numerous factors [were] established by writers in the field, that contribute to the success of a tank ace. If there is no such thing like a "tank ace", there is nothing which could contribute to its "success".--Assayer (talk) 03:05, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

As has been pointed out, the concept is clearly in use by many historians and writers, and is even used by Zaragova himself, even though views here would have him dismissing the term. Deathlibrarian (talk) 06:25, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Assayer Historians have argues about a certain *exaggeration* of tank kills, but this is nothing that amazing, as the German milirary themsleves noted about the exageration effect. No historian argues that Tank Aces weren't successful - so for instance no historian argues that Wittman didn't destroy a lot of tanks. The concept of individuals being successful in destroying a number of tanks is well proven and documented, its about the exact number, no one disputes that it didn't happen.Deathlibrarian (talk) 22:06, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Prior discussions

The list has not achieved consensus and the sources used look suspect. Please see:

• Talk:Panzer_ace#Specific_question_&_"reference_lists" (and the section above it as well).

At least two editors, myself included, have expressed concerns about the sources. When the article was kept at AfD, it did not contain an expansive list: October 2016 version. Please also see the AfD, where the scope of the article was discussed:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/German tank aces.

The version of the article post-Drmies' edits is in line with that consensus, not the tacked-on listing, based on a dubious "reference list". Likewise, List of Panzer aces is a non-starter; a similar article, Tank Aces, was deleted here:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tank Aces.

There's been a consensus in previous discussions that the material on 'Successful Tank Aces' and the like was rubbish, and the list appears to have been created to reinsert it as a factual claim rather than as a popular culture concept, which is how serious works treat it. Hope this gives additional background on prior developments. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:54, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks K.e.coffman . I'll start re building the list with verifiable references, and if anyone has issues with those references, we can look at those individually. This will be for the third time I have put the list together, but we'll get there. The article does need a list, and no one else seems to be building it. Deathlibrarian (talk) 05:13, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

I disagree that the article does need a list. There have been multiple attempts to re-insert the list: [15], and here: [16], and via Tank Aces, and then via "reference lists". None have not been successful. I'm concluding that this material does not belong. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:18, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Do the other Ace articles have a list for them?Deathlibrarian (talk) 21:31, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Fighter aces do, because it's a recognised concept. The other "aces" don't; see for example List of German World War II ground attack aces, which was deleted here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of highly-decorated German pilots of ground attack aircraft. Hope this helps. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:36, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, as fighter aces have it, then it should be ok. The point is, the article exists, and users will be coming here to see the page, and expect to read about tank aces. It should be up to the user to decide what they think about tank aces, and the users will expect to see information about them here. K.e.coffman it seems to be mainly you that doesn't want the list on here, I gather, but the average user would expect to see such information on a page like this, as they would with the fighter ace page, but similiar concepts. Deathlibrarian (talk) 21:48, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Deathlibrarian, sorry, but "it should be ok" obviously does not follow from K.e.coffman's comment. Panzer ace is not a recognized concept, is the argument. As for a list, well..."List of". Drmies (talk) 22:40, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

There are content arguments to be had but let's not get too far down your "list of" fallacy. LargelyRecyclable (talk) 22:43, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

LargelyRecyclable, "Panzer ace" is not a list, unlike, for instance, Kronos Quartet discography--a discography is already a list of sorts, so that makes sense. A Panzer ace, if if exists, is a Panzer ace, not a list of Panzer aces. It is very important that we be precise in our language here. For example, one can "go down" on a phallus, but one can't really go down a fallacy. Drmies (talk) 23:01, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

I think that LargelyRecyclable's confusion is due to the fact that the article was classified as a list in the past. The article has since evolved, but no one has remembered to update the rating. I've done so now: [17]. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:19, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

If you'll review the history you'll find that the article was created as a List and the repeatedly rejected attempts to remove the list, often by you, were always contested. As I'm pretty certain you're totally aware. You've essentially walked up to an apple cart and put in a bunch of oranges. Then you tried to toss the apples out while protesting all the apples in your orange cart. This is transparent. LargelyRecyclable (talk) 00:21, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

I don't mean to be rude Deathlibrarian, but to be frank I don't trust you to develop a list of highly successful tank commanders given the above discussion where you admitted developing the previous version without having ever seen many of the references you claimed supported the content. Nick-D (talk) 06:04, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

@Largely: I refer you again to the two AfDs:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/German tank aces
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tank Aces

When the article survived the AfD, it did not contain an expansive list. In fact, the list, inserted by DeathLibrarian, was removed in the course of the AfD: Dubious, propaganda-driven numbers and questionable sourcing; more: [18]. I've been quite transparent on this talk page, consistently questioning the list and its purported sourcing; sample: Talk:Panzer_ace#Specific_question_&_"reference_lists". In fact, I even originally voted "Delete" at the AfD.

Consensus can change, as it did here; the article was no longer a list since 2016. If you and Death want to have a list of Panzer aces, then create it as List of Panzer aces or Tank Aces. Who knows, it might even survive an AfD. Since we are on the topic of AfDs, I'd like to ping those who participated. That was the last time that the article received wider scrutiny, so additional input would be appreciated: Peacemaker67, Assayer, Buckshot06, Kierzek, Lineagegeek, Anotherclown, GraemeLeggett, Peterkingiron, TheLongTone, and Squeamish Ossifrage. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:39, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

I've removed the page tags at the top of the page. There is sufficient well-grounded concern about whether 'panzer aces' existed 1941-45 to question the inclusion of any list, and to *firmly* focus the article on the history of the evolution of the term post-war. WP is here to educate, not push distorted stereotypes which aid in the glorification of the Nazi land war effort of 1941-45. If we get peer-reviewed academic journal articles identified that start talking about "lists of panzer aces", the reliable sources will have changed and we can change the thrust of the article. Until then, lists of German tank commanders who were more successful than the average German tank commanders can stay off this site - WP:NOT, among other things. This seems to be a generally Anglo-American-Western discussion, so Merry Christmas people - nothing is lost by deferring this all for 24-36 hours to focus on the important people in your life, rather than 50+ year old scholarly historic rabbit holes. Buckshot06 (talk) 00:07, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

I am maintaining my previous argument that no academic (and I am tempted to write: serious) historian argues that there was such a thing as a "Tank Ace". Dennis Showalter, e.g., whose book on Hitler's Panzers has been quoted, mentions Wittmann merely in passing, and does not call him "ace", nor does he devote any line to those other "Tank Aces". Historians are well aware that the whole notion of "ace" in military contexts originated with WWI Allied propaganda and was adapted by military pulp writers. In earlier discussions I have provided multiple references to RS which analyze such notions of "ace". There is no such thing like a concept of individuals being successful in destroying a number of tanks. The only references are from military pulp and popularizing books. Fair enough, but if you care to follow WP:NPOV you have to attribute these "Tank Ace"-statements to their respective sources. And there is neither need, nor reason for a list which would uncritically affirm that tank count. Neutrality assigns weight to viewpoints in proportion to their prominence. I strongly object to treat historians who publish their works with peer-reviewed journals and publishing houses as prominently or even less prominently as writers who publish with special interest publishers. While it is important to account for all significant viewpoints on any topic, Wikipedia policy does not state or imply that every minority view or extraordinary claim needs to be presented along with commonly accepted mainstream scholarship as if they were of equal validity.

To illustrate my point, I will provide some background on Karl Körner. Anthony Tucker-Jones wants us to believe that: On the road between Bollersdorf and Strausberg [Körner's] Tiger II ran into a Soviet brigade consisting of eleven Joseph Stalin tanks and up to 150 T-34/85s. He attacked with two other Tiger IIs, catching the Soviets in the process of rearming and refuelling. The ammunition and fuel trucks exploded, causing panic among the Soviet crews. In the confusion Körner fired thirty-nine rounds and destroyed thirty-nine Soviet tanks before withdrawing to his own lines. Forced back on Berlin during the withdrawal, Körner and his crew hit 102 enemy tanks and twenty-six anti-tank guns. Former Waffen-SS member and later part-time writer Wilhelm Tieke wrote in his history of the III. (germanisches) SS-Panzer-Korps (the English edition bears the title The Tragedy of the Faithful, 2001; the German original was Tragödie um die Treue, published by the HIAG publishing house Munin in 1968): On departure from the assembly area, Korner discovered two Russian T-34 tanks that were covering the refueling and resupply of ammunition of a large armored formation that had moved up along the road from Bollersdorf to Strausberg and was at Bollersdorf itself. Surprise and chaos prevailed among the Russians when the Tiger main guns opened fire. Armor and supply vehicles were so close together that they got in each other's way when the fight started. At about 1700 hours yet another armored engagement took place on the heights west of Bollersdorf. During that engagement, Korner's and Untersturmfuhrer Schäfer's Tigers again knocked out numerous enemy tanks. All in all, the Russians lost 70 tanks in the area east of Strausberg. Körner knocked out another 17 tanks on the outskirts of Berlin. That brought his total to 101 tanks and 26 antitank guns destroyed. (p. 285) If you compare those sources, you will notice many differences between both accounts, e.g., that Tieke speaks of two engagements, does not mention that Körner alone destroyed 39 tanks with 39 rounds, and claims that the Soviets lost 70 tanks in the whole area. I think that Tieke's claims have to be taken with a grain of salt, to say the least, because they are most likely based upon Nazi propaganda. I consider authors like Anthony Tucker-Jones to be completely unreliable, though. I will quote from reviews of other works mentioned in the appropriate threads below. --Assayer (talk) 19:36, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

I've learnt from the past not to get in elongated discussions with people about their pet topics. There are writers who support the abilities of tank aces, and their are writers who are critical of them. There are the facts that some tank aces destroyed a lot of tanks. That's mostly what is important here. IMHO Lengthy detailed debates about it is just a sidetrack. Deathlibrarian (talk) 04:08, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Kershaw

Can people please stop removing Kershaw's point of view? he has been discussed at great lenght here. He is a qualified expert and historian, and his opinion needs to be expressed here. The article is tilted to one point of view, and should express all points of view about the article content - which means including his viewpoint to achieve WP:BAL. Additionally his work meets WS:RS, so there is no reason it shouldn't be used in this article. Deathlibrarian (talk) 05:29, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Kershaw has been extensively discussed here: Talk:Panzer ace/Archive 4#Kershaw. The arguments for including him are not convincing. From the prior discussions:

• The "tank ace"-legend flourishes in certain literature which I consider fringe, because so far no one has been able to prove me wrong on this by providing references that would meet WP:SCHOLARSHIP. Neither could anyone name a high-quality third-party source supporting the view that Kershaw's work meets the standard of WP:RS.

• His work is part of the popular culture that the article is addressing. Kershaw is not an academic and the work in question is not published with an academic publisher. He may be a decent biographer of the people he profiles in his book, and should be fine to use on these individual articles. I'm still disputing his credentials as a source for this article which deals with the topic of historiography, not just history.

K.e.coffman (talk) 21:12, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

This has been discussed extensively. He is an historian, and his book has been published by a reputable publisher. It has already been established as a RS. If you want to prove it is not RS, please go ahead and do so. What's more, his work establishes one point of view, that point of view needs to be referred to in the article to achieve EP:Bal for the article. You may conasider the tank ace legend view as fringe, but that is personal viewpoint. Tank Ace legend is mainstream viewpoint, and the view that tank aces don't actually exist is probably more of a fringe view. Deathlibrarian (talk) 21:37, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

I would remind people not to push their own personal viewpoints here. An opinion that Kershaw has already been established as a RS for this article is just that: a personal opinion. If you'd like Kershaw included for the discussion on the term "panzer ace", please see WP:RSN. For establishing that Tank Ace legend is mainstream viewpoint, please see WP:NPOVN. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:45, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

I very agree that people should not be pushing their own personal views here, something I suspect DL is attempting to fix. As for Kershaw, the same argument made to include Zaloga, including arguments made by you, apply to Kershaw. The difference is that Kershaw is actually a working professional in the field of military science, making his case even stronger. I don't see how we could reasonably exclude Kershaw and keep Zaloga. LargelyRecyclable (talk) 23:07, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

I agree, based on this logic, we should be looking at removing Zaloga..... he isn't an academic, and some of his work is published by Osprey, who really aren't that great. Deathlibrarian (talk) 04:56, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

• coffman, I just followed your Kershaw link, where I read that Deathlibrarian thinks that Kershaw is "qualified" because a. he took classes on the subject and despite b. not being an academic and c. not being published by an academic press. Das crazy. Zaloga seems a bit iffy as well--his article reads like a resume, though he got a master's degree, I guess that's something. I don't know exactly what the reputation of Osprey Publishing is; this is something we can look into. Drmies (talk) 23:15, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Drmies In terms of references for a wikipedia article, there is nothing in wikipedia policy that says an author has to be currently employed at a University to qualify as an expert. There are many references in Wikipedia from experts in their field....that aren't academic researchers/lexturers. If we are going to remove Kershaw, Zaloga and Forty - then there won't be any of the article left. Deathlibrarian (talk) 04:53, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

While it's been extensively discussed elsewhere, just to make it easy for people:

*Kershaw has University Honours quals in History:

*He has served in the military

*He writes articles for newspapers on the topic

*He has written a number of books on the field

*He works professionally in defence, as a consultant.

*Similiar to many people who are referenced here on this page, he is not an academic working for a university. However, if we insisted our sources all were, we would have no references for this article and it would be two lines long. Deathlibrarian (talk) 05:34, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Kershaw is a perfectly good source given that his books on armoured warfare have been professionally published, and as far as I'm aware have not received particularly negative reviews. Per WP:NPOV, we need to note the differing views in reliable sources and not try to rule some out and in. IMO, this article works best when it discusses the differing views. There was a reasonably stable version (eg, [19]) for a few months which did this fairly well, and I'm honestly bewildered as to why we're rehashing the same arguments. Many historians say that the notion of 'tank aces' is unhistorical bunkum which should be ignored, and some historians argue that the concept is legit and a useful part of looking at armoured warfare. It doesn't seem too much to tell our readers this! Nick-D (talk) 06:08, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Nick-D, I completely agree. I don't know why we are here yet again, rehashing the same old argument. Our users can look at the two sides, and the sources, and make up their own minds. Deathlibrarian (talk) 07:22, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Nick-D, Forty isn't a "historian" who "argues that the concept is legit"--for starters he's not a historian. Deathlibrarian, your "it doesn't say this or that in the Wikipedia guidelines" is nonsense. An undergraduate degree and having served doesn't make you a "historian" except for perhaps a historian of guns and shells and whatnot. That is not the same thing. If we are going to have commentary on the concept of "Panzer ace" it should be done by people who are qualified to discuss history and historiography (Deathlibrarian and Largely, I hope you understand the difference between the two); Forty is not one of those. So, his isn't a "viewpoint", since it doesn't rise to that level of theoretical sophistication. What we need cited in this article and talking on the talk page are historians, not antiquarians.

I see now that someone called HansZwiller saw fit to misappropriate some terminology to reinstate a list of Nazis who were not "Panzer aces" since the real historians claim that this term was invented by post-WW2 romantics. The very opening sentences are misleading, so that Deathlibrarian's POV tag is in fact justified--though it is justified because of the work of Deathlibrarian and editors like them. Drmies (talk) 16:37, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Given the Oxford online definition - " An expert in or student of history, especially that of a particular period, geographical region, or social phenomenon.‘a military historian’". Is certainly broad enough to include him. But whether he an is an historian or not, he is recognised as an expert in the area, and has already been said, his work professional experience, research and the fact he has published a large number of books established him as such.Deathlibrarian (talk) 23:09, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

I don't agree with the notion that we should exclude the views put forward by an author of dozens of professionally published books on military history who was also a curator and then director of a leading military history museum, as well as an army officer who specialised in this form of warfare and commanded a key training establishment (which would require a good grasp of armoured warfare theory and history given the nature of military training). I personally disagree with Forty's views here, but that's not really relevant. Nick-D (talk) 21:29, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Agreed.

• I don't even know what Forty's "views" are. No one is disputing that he knows tanks, but knowing tanks and knowing historiography and the politics of romantic heroization aren't the same thing. Drmies (talk) 23:11, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

• Zzuuzz, Bbb23, Ponyo--can you perhaps have a look at the perfect match between HansZwiller and this other user, and their use of a Scandinavian proxy? And did you note the perfect Dutch they put on their user page as a little taunt?

  Deathlibrarian, you will not be surprised to find that I reverted HansZwiller's edits. Sorry, but I think trolls follow me, and you really don't want those as friends; they're not really on your side. Drmies (talk) 16:42, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

• @Drmies: Perhaps if I read everything above, I'd know who "this other user" is, but I haven't and I don't.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:00, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

• Bbb23, CU will tell you. I don't want to act on the results since I want it to be clear to others that there is something fishy going on, that it's not just me. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 17:04, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

I do not think that the reliability of a source can be judged by "professional publishing" alone. As I also mentioned above, articles are to represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects. If a viewpoint is prominent, should be easily proven by the prominence these viewpoints receive in other works. How much books cite Kershaw's Tank Men? Did his work really have an impact? In the meantime, I may quote from two reviews of his book Tank Men: The Human Story of Tanks at War. Alexander M. Bielakowski, U.S. Army Command and General Staff College, Fort Leavenworth, Kansas describes it as an oral history of tank warfare from its origins in World War I to its apex in World War II. [...] Tank Men suffers from the same problem as all oral histories - a question of veracity. Kershaw very much wants to write a “worm’s eye view” of tank warfare, which would certainly be impossible without oral history interviews. The stories these veterans convey are certainly interesting, but how accurate are they? On the operational and strategic level, they can be verified or discounted, but at the small unit tactical level Kershaw must rely on individual accounts without the possibility of corroboration. [...] Taken as a whole, Kershaw’s book is recommended to those interested in tank warfare and will probably find an audience among the British reading public given the work’s understandable bias toward that nation. Professional historians might find this book useful to add ‘color’ to other works or for use in student lectures. (Journal of Military History (2010), pp. 619-20.) LTC Scott A. Porter, USA, Retired, Fort Leavenworth, Kansas judges: [T]he intent is to capture the human story from ordinary tank crewmembers, specifically focusing on the theme of the human implications of tank-on-tank technical inequalities in combat. [...] [T]his is not an analysis of armored warfare in a tactical or operational sense, but instead it is a human history of men who fought inside steel machines and the issues they have had from 1916 to today. (Military Review (2008), pp. 122-3.) Those reviews do not support the notion of realibilty. --Assayer (talk) 19:53, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Balance

There are wholesale balance issues with this article, with once again, the anti Panzer ace view (ie that there is no basis to them existing in reality)... being pushed, and references to historians who discuss the concept of tank aces being removed. ONCE AGAIN I will be reinserting them to make sure WP:BAL is acheived here in this article, and all viewpoints are expressed. Thanks. Deathlibrarian (talk) 21:55, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

I would remind people not to push their own personal viewpoints here, and that Wikipedia requires that all viewpoints are expressed. We write these articles for the user, not for ourselves, its up to them to make up their mind about what they think. If you want to write an article pushing one viewpoint, please do so, but it doesn't belong on wikipedia. Deathlibrarian (talk) 22:00, 23 December 2017 (UTC). ONce again, this isn't a pro nazi or anti nazi thing, it should be just an article about tank commanders/panzer aces, really what country they came from shouldn't be important. Deathlibrarian (talk) 22:18, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

• So--the one view (yours) is correct but missing, and the other is being "pushed"? You have yet to prove K.e.coffman wrong. Reliable sources please: not antiquarians and hobbyists. Try JSTOR for "Panzer ace", for instance: nothing. Not a single result. Drmies (talk) 22:42, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes, that's correct, one viewpoint has been removed, and the other viewpoint remains - so the article is biased to one side. Have you done a Google Books search for "Tank ace" or "Panzer Ace"? there are many books referring to it. Even Zaloga uses it in his books, and he apparently doesn't believe it's a valid term. Deathlibrarian (talk) 05:18, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

As the opposing views are continuously being removed by user Drmies, leaving only one side of the argument expressed here, I am inserting tags for bias and undue weight. Please do not remove while this discussion is ongoing, and until all viewpoints are expressed in this article. Deathlibrarian (talk) 23:17, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Oh go away with your "viewpoints". Your "view" has nothing but glorified Nazi romanticism, cheap biographies, and picture books to back it up. Drmies (talk)

Drmies that's your personal viewpoint, however the user needs to be able to make up their own mind. Its not up to you to tell them. That's not what wikipedia is about. If you want to write an article about why you think Panzer aces are "glorified Nazi romanticism" please go and do it somwhere else, but it doesn't belong here on wikipedia. Please go and read this : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Balance

@Death: I would ask you to leave your personal bias aside in the writing of this article. You may consider the tank ace concept as true and neutral and that tank aces don't actually exist is probably more of a fringe view. However, that is a personal viewpoint, not necessarily shared by other editors on this page. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:33, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Its not really relevant what I believe, or what you believe.IN fact, that should be put to the side. The fact is there are two viewpoints here, they should both be represented. I have no issue with Zaloga's myth viewpoint being here (its sort of interesting). I am just asking *both* viewpoints are represented, that's our job as wikipedia editors. The wikipedia user can make up their own mind, and not have it made up for them by people that choose to exclude information. Deathlibrarian (talk) 05:00, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Just look up WP:BALANCE: "Neutrality assigns weight to viewpoints in proportion to their prominence." (Emphasis added). And WP:FALSEBALANCE: "Wikipedia policy does not state or imply that every minority view or extraordinary claim needs to be presented along with commonly accepted mainstream scholarship as if they were of equal validity." --Assayer (talk) 19:56, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

As mentioned elsewhere, "significant viewpoints". You are proposing that the existence of Panzer aces is some kind of fringe theory. It's not. The term panzer ace is commonly mentioned in books, and is commonly used in all the wikipedia pages on panzer aces (eg Wittman, lafayette Pool, etc). Also, why have you decided to remove the Forte and Kershaw viewpoint, but leave in the viewpoint that you support, that is, the Zaloga reference? How does that achieve WP:BALANCE? - Deathlibrarian (talk) 23:46, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

George Forty - Tank Authority

I see no reason why people have removed George Forty reference here. He is a well recognised British expert on tanks and their history... in fact he is probably Britain's top most expert on tanks, and one of the WORLD's top experts on tanks, haveing written a number of books onthe subject. I have reinserted one of his views into the article I have not idea why an article on tanks would NOT have something writen by Forty in it! Deathlibrarian (talk) 22:13, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

• No he's not. He is an amateur historian who wrote some popular books. Drmies (talk) 22:40, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Are you serious? "Leading authority on tanks" that's from the Times https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/lieutenant-colonel-george-forty-mpgzvcnlb

"As an author he wrote over 70 books which sold worldwide and were translated into many languages including German, French and Japanese. This included the History of the Royal Tank regiment. He also was the editor of the RTR Tank Magazine for many years." http://www.tankmuseum.org/year-news/bovnews53663 Deathlibrarian (talk) 23:09, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

• You don't get it, do you? 70 popular books doesn't make one an authority. And you're citing the tank museum? That's his own museum! Your Times obit is helpful, but the seriousness of "leading authority" is undermined some by Hotlips, don't you think? Plus, obituaries are typically very friendly. Drmies (talk) 23:19, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Drmies You asked for proof he is an expert, I gave you an article from THE TIMES saying he is a leading authority. What more do you want exactly? And as for the Bovington, its one of the World's leading tank museums, don't you think they are qualified to talk about tanks???? If you want to put a reference here from someone critisizing his work, but otherwise please reinstate his references. I would ask you to leave your personal bias aside in the writing of this article. Deathlibrarian (talk) 23:26, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
    • You gave ONE single headline from an obituary. Don't accuse me of personal bias, when you're here glorifying Nazis and bending RS in order to do so. Of course his own museum is going to call him an expert--duh. It's basic things like that that make me doubt your competence. Drmies (talk) 23:28, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
      • You be been exceptionally rude since you've arrived. Please tone it down. LargelyRecyclable (talk) 23:40, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
        • Drmies I agree with LargelyRecyclable. Drmies you have very quickly become very rude on here. I just posted a note to your talk page, about you being personal on here, and there is no need for it. You need to go and read WP:Personal. People do work trying to improve this page, and you seem to be accusing them of glorifying nazism!!!! As for Forty, he was the curator of the Bovington Tank museum for some years - so of course he is going to be an expert on tanks and tank combat! It's Bovington, one of the worlds best tank musuem, if they say he was an expert, then they would probably know! And if he wasn't an expert on tanks, why would he be the curator of Bovington? If you have some evidence saying he was not an expert on tank combat, something criticising him, then I would ask that you post it here. Otherwise, I would like to see concensus on this page about his status, because at the moment it is just one person removing his work. Deathlibrarian (talk) 23:51, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

@Death: I think you are confusing being an expert on military equipment with being an expert on military operations, history and historiography. Forty is definitely qualified to talk about tanks, but that's not what this article is about. Do you have sources to suggest that he was an expert on tank combat not just tanks? For example, here are sample books by Forty:

• A photo history of armoured cars in two world wars
• Japanese Army handbook, 1939-1945
• U.S. Army handbook, 1939-1945
• The world encyclopedia of tanks & armoured fighting vehicles: over 400 vehicles and 1200 wartime and modern photographs

This suggests militaria to me. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:57, 23 December 2017 (UTC) Hello Makumbe, Nick-D, User:Altenmann we are presently trying to establish whether George Forty is a suitable expert for referencing on this page. Would be great if you could chime in. He has been referred to without issue on this page for some time, but recently user:

• K.e.coffman thanks for this, but he is an expert on tanks AND tank combat - and in any case the two are intrinsically linked. He served in tanks, spoke to tank veterans so clearly he knows about tank combat. He has written many books on tanks and tank combat.
  • "Tank Warfare in WW2"
  • "7th Armoured Division: The desert rates"
  • tank commanders: Knights of the Modern age"
  • "Pattons Third army at war"

He writes on *both*- and they are intrinsically linked. Likewise the tank museums is going to cover tanks and tank combat - sure it houses tanks, but their experts know about tank combat, and they have displays their that simulate it. Anyone applying for the job of curator at Bovnington that didn't know anyting about tank comabt wouldn't get the job. Deathlibrarian (talk) 00:12, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

I find the argument that Forty can only be qualified to talk about the actual mechanical or physical aspects of tanks to be entirely unconvincing. LargelyRecyclable (talk) 00:17, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

K.e.coffman Can I have your opinion on whether Forty is an expert on this topic and whether you think he should be used on this page? I would like to come to some sort of consensus. Deathlibrarian (talk) 00:20, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

K.e.coffman just checking again, do you see Forty as not a suitable source? YOu didn't seem to have issue with him before? Deathlibrarian (talk) 05:07, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Pinging Makumbe,Nick-D,User:Altenmann, K.e.coffman, TonyBallioni and LargelyRecyclable. We are presently trying to ascertain as to whether George Forty is seen as an expert on tanks, and his books should be able to be referred to on this page. Drmies has judged that he is not, and removed his references. Rather than start an edit war, I thought it best to discuss it with people that have been writing recently, and come to some sort of concensus. Forty has of course been used on this page for a little while, with no issue from the contributors till recently. The consensus was that Forty was ok to be used. Drmies is advocating that this should be changed and he is not. If you agree with Drmies, please state so, otherwise I guess the norm would be to revert to where the content from Forty is included. Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:02, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Forty has authored several professionally-published works on armoured warfare of this era, so I don't see any reason to exclude his views in these works. I'm not familiar with his books on armoured warfare, but the 'Handbook' series on the armed forces of World War II are pretty good popular history. Forty's books are popular history, but they've always struck me as reliable-looking. Do any professional reviews or similar raise concerns? Nick-D (talk) 03:12, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

I've never seen any negative criticism of him, I gathered he was well regarded as an expert.Deathlibrarian (talk) 04:19, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

I see that we actually have an article on him: George Forty. As well as being an author of 70 books, he served as a British Army officer specialising in armoured warfare between 1945 and 1971 including a period commanding the Royal Armoured Corps tactical school, edited the Royal Tank Regiment's in-house magazine and was a curator and later the director of The Tank Museum (one of the world's leading tank museums). I think that makes him a suitable expert on the topic of armoured warfare! While his works were popular history, it seems reasonable to assume that they were underpinned by deep expertise in this field. Nick-D (talk) 04:48, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

LargelyRecyclable Do you see Forty as a reliable source. He was included in here for sometime without issue. Have a look at his wiki page, and his Times Obit.

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Forty
• https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/lieutenant-colonel-george-forty-mpgzvcnlb

I do, for warfare and military science, and armored warfare and tanks in particular. LargelyRecyclable (talk) 06:48, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Ok, I'm not sure how consensus works, but so far we have Nick-D, LargelyRecyclable and myself who regard Forty as suitable source for this page, and only Drmies who says he is an amateur and shouldn't be used. On that basis, and considering that the content was already in there and removed without asking the contributors to the page, I'll reinstate the references from Forty. Drmies, I'd rather do this without an edit war, do you have any comments??? Deathlibrarian (talk) 07:17, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

I would wait for feedback at RSN. If Forty is RS for this article, it should be easy to demonstrate via 3rd party reviews, etc. Again, being a tank authority does not necessarily translate into being a suitable source for this article. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:34, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

So I am assuming from that, you don't see Forty as a suitable source for this article?Deathlibrarian (talk) 13:20, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

• Nick-D, thanks for weighing in here--perhaps I should explain myself more fully. If Forty says a Leopard T-1 tank typically carries fifteen shells for a thirty-aught-six or whatever, I'll believe him immediately. Same with, I don't know, the gas mileage of a Sherman or the coffee making capabilities of this or that armored vehicles. In other words, I am sure that his mechanical details etc. are correct. But what I will not accept from someone like him, whose books seem to not have been professionally reviewed, and whose books are published by a popular press where it is more than likely that there are no outside reviewers, and where he is the man who knows more than anything else, is expertise on different matters--such as historiography, which is really what this article is about.

  Forty can contribute nothing to this article; indeed, he, and writers/romantics like him, are part of the problem, as is pointed out in the (academically published) critiques of the very language that he uses. Again, this article is not about who shot what--that should be left for the individual biographies, the articles on the tanks, etc. This article is about the term and the load it carries. Deathlibrarian and others keep wanting to stick Forty and others in here to prove what? That some Nazi shot this or that many tanks, or that they did because they had such great guns and great coffee? That's completely beside the point. K.e.coffman is quite right, as is Assayer in an earlier comment. Drmies (talk) 16:29, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

• Forty is an Army officer educated at Oxford University and Royal Military Academy Sandhurst and later Staff College, Camberley (comparable to a graduate school) and later taught at Royal Armoured Corps Tactical, Signals and Gunnery Schools, not some uneducated corporal. I think he would know a thing or two about armoured warfare. And I don't think the term "Panzer Ace" is anymore loaded than "Fighter ace", both basically being heroisation terms applied to certain high performing individuals. --Nug (talk) 21:54, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

• As I've said above, we shouldn't be - and don't need to be - in the business of ruling reliable sources in and out because we don't like them. Per WP:NPOV and WP:RS, we need to note the differing views, and it's pretty difficult to dismiss Forty given his career (senior armoured warfare officer in the post WW2 period and later head of the Tank Museum) and the fact that he was widely published. The tension here seems to be that while some popular historians believe that certain tankers were 'aces', other popular historians, analysts and academics argue that the concept is bunkum. We don't need to pick sides on this though - we should simply state the differing perspectives. For instance, we can state that Smelser and Davies view the concept as part of efforts to glamorise the German military, Zaloga (an armoured warfare analyst who includes serious analysis in his mainly popular history works) believes that it's based on a misunderstanding of the nature of tank combat and is bad history, and Forty and Kershaw take the concept seriously. Nick-D (talk) 22:21, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

• Nick-D, that you would say I am discarding sources because "I don't like em" doesn't reflect well on you. The discussion of who got how many kills and why simply takes place on a different level than the one where academics discuss whether certain terminology is applicable in the first place or whether it simply glorifies Nazis. Drmies (talk) 22:47, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

So we should remove German pilots from the article List of World War II flying aces because it might glorify Nazism? --Nug (talk) 23:31, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

False equivalency: the one concept exists contemporaneously with the subject, the other does not. You're playing dumb. Drmies (talk) 15:58, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

It was tough to dig up a review of Forty's work. I found one by some Peter Brown, Dorset, England, who concludes: The appeal of this work will vary as to whether you are a veteran seeking accounts of those you served alongside or against, or as inspiration for yourself and those currently alongside you to show what may be termed ’armored spirit.’ On its own, or in conjunction with the earlier books, you will find much to provoke thought here. Enough details of campaigns and equipment is provided to set the scene, together with photographs of both those honored here and their mounts and campaigns. Enjoy this book at whatever level you relate to. (Armor 107, 4 (Jul/Aug 1998), p.61. I checked some of Forty's other publications and found them based on only few sources and more interested in pictures and oral interviews than anything else. But I am sure the "fans" will not be shaken in their beliefs by my humble impression;-) As I said earlier, however, if it's prominent, it should be easy to demonstrate its impact in the field.--Assayer (talk) 20:05, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Who is Peter Brown from Dorset? What are his qualifications, is he a military historian? --Nug (talk) 22:00, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Well, at least the Professional development Bulletin of the Armor Branch considered him to be a worthy reviewer.--Assayer (talk) 23:53, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

But is Peter Brown a military historian, or just an amateur? --Nug (talk) 00:07, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

That might depend upon your definition of "military historian" vs. "just an amateur". --Assayer (talk) 02:23, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

So far I've seen no evidence that Forty is a historian in the not so loosey-goosey sense of the word. Drmies (talk) 22:47, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Do you think that British Army officer training did not include topics in military history, tactics and personnel? --Nug (talk) 23:31, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

I do not think that any British Army officer is a proficient military historian. Neither do I think that every student of military history is an able military officer. And I do not think that every view on tank warfare during WWIII needs to be presented along with commonly accepted mainstream scholarship as if they were of equal validity, even if their proponents can look back on distinguished military careers.--Assayer (talk) 23:53, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Assayer this is the problem here, you personally regard the views opposing yours in this article as fringe theory - and apparently Forty and Kershaw are fringe theorists with no credentials. This is your personal viewpoint, but in others views they are opposing viewpoints that should be represented here, and are not fringe theory. *please* let all viewpoints appear in this article so that the user can make up their own mind. Forty and Kershaw have both published RS which should be represented here. And in terms of Forty's military training, it is that in *combination* with his years of service, decades of research, curatorship of Bovington and the fact he has written many books on the topic that established his credentials. Deathlibrarian (talk) 00:03, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

If it is a problem that I have a personal opinion, what about your personal opinion? Just because someone can look back upon a distinguished military career, does not mean that his historical publications are the gold standard of military historiography. It could be, but the point is WP:ONUS. If Forty and Kershaw are no "fringe theorists", it should be easy for anyone to support their claims by multiple mainstream sources. To be sure, there are sources which support their claims. Those are not what I would consider mainstream sources, however, but rather special interest sources by publishers like Osprey or Pen & Sword. Furthermore, you raised the issue of WP:BALANCE, but you simply maintain that Forty's and Kershaw's views should be represented without addressing the issue of their prominence. Scholarship on tank warfare during WWII does not bother to discuss "tank aces", and, yes, by "scholarship" I mean academic. --Assayer (talk) 02:23, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Assayer (1)The difference is, I have my personal opinion, but I am quite happy with BOTH opinions being in the article, I don't try to remove opposing material - it makes for a more rounded article. Both opinions should be in there, and the reader should decide. (2)The two books I have at hand by Forty and Kershaw are published by Magpie Books/Constable and Robinson(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constable_%26_Robinson) and Hodder and Stoughton(https://www.hodder.co.uk/Information/Information%20for%20press.page.) Both these are *mainstream* publishers, not specialist publishers. (3) You link to WP:BALANCE - please read it yourself - it would indicate that all viewpoints should be included.(4) Why do you selectively apply this criteria to the authors of the viewpoint that you oppose, but not the authors for the viewpoint you favour? You talk about Osprey, Zaloga has work published by them. Not only is it not an academic press, it's a specialist publishing house that you yourself criticise. Zaloga isn't employed as an academic, in fact he is a military consultant like Kershaw. At least Kershaw has served in the military, and Forty has spent decades in the military, including fighting in tanks in Korea.Deathlibrarian (talk) 11:51, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

• COMMENT* At this stage I don't see this debate going anywhere. Trying to look at this objectively, the opposing sides are those who want all sides of the debate included, and those who don't. They are not going to agree anytime soon. Deathlibrarian (talk) 03:26, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Drmies says: "...when you're here glorifying Nazis and bending RS in order to do so..." and "That some Nazi shot this or that many tanks, or that they did because they had such great guns and great coffee?". There is a problem in general in Western history either professional or of the History Channel sort in giving the WW2 German military any credit because they were BAD BAD Nazis. It really shouldn't be applicable for a neutral encyclopedia like Wikipedia purports to be. That's why building an article on the shoulders of Smelser and Davies is always going to lead to tortured and weird history because professional or not they are neocon propagandists who have ridden a wave. One of them isn't even a historian but rather a sociologist! The bizarre denigration of anything German they represent runs through many articles in Wikipedia- I even found it in an article on Claus von Stauffenberg. (... who wasn't really a hero because he was too pro German or some such...). So I think that if we want a NEUTRAL article on Panzer Aces of WW2 it can only be made better by nerds like George Forty who is an expert literally on tank warfare. Wikipedia shouldn't be a platform for OPINION which it becomes when paragraphs like "Analysis" are included. Very Soviet- very Volkischer Beobachter only with a neocon Western twist. Not neutral! So I say more Forty! Less Smelser and Davies! BTW gentlemen I appreciate your inclusion of me in the ping.Makumbe (talk) 03:29, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Makumbe I agree. I was suprised when I first came to this article about what I assumed to be tanks aces, and there was all this anti nazi vs percived Nazi political discussion going on in the talk pages. I don't think we should have an article on Nazi supermen, but equally, as you say, we shouldn't withhold credit or censor history and the facts because historical figures were German or Nazis. Deathlibrarian (talk) 05:27, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

• "There is a problem in general in Western history either professional or of the History Channel sort in giving the WW2 German military any credit because they were BAD BAD Nazis." Makumbe, you deserve an award for this, besides a topic ban for sheer incompetence and POV. (Hint: Nazis are bad, the German military furthered Nazi goals, History Channel drips with Nazi glorification, which is why historians refer to it as "Hitler Channel".) Drmies (talk) 16:01, 26 December 2017

The "Hitler Channel" reference is very old. All shows now emphasize how evil those Germans were. There is an absolute void about how incompetent and slow those Western Allies were at fighting those evil Germans. Thus we come up with guys like Zaloga who somehow have convinced themselves that Western Allies tanks and tankers were the equal of both the Soviets or Germans. Absolutely not true! Historical context is gone from this (Panzer Ace) article. The list you cannot argue with so it is gone because it shows those top Germans' amazing tank kill numbers. Closest Soviet guy- 50+ kills; closest American- L. Poole with 12 tan kills. Pathetic. Wikipedia should not be politicized in this way. You Drmies absolutely do not have a neutral POV!Makumbe (talk) 18:27, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

• Yeah, those Germans were awesome, weren't they. I am sure you enjoyed looking at it, with all the little Nazi flags. And you are still picking the wrong fights: I am not arguing that your "amazing" wonderful leather-clad Nazis were absolute bad-ass motherfuckers when it came to killing people and blowing up tanks, and that they may well have been better at it than those "pathetic" Americans, "incompetent and slow" as they were. I do have a POV, of course, in this respect: I'm happy that those Allied wimps won. But by all means, argue that I'm "politicizing" Wikipedia. Now, I just left you a warning about discretionary sanctions on your talk page for a BLP violation you dropped here: you just be very mindful. Drmies (talk) 18:40, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

@Deathlibrarian: This article is about the term Panzer ace, which some tend to conceive of as some sort of "concept". Some of the material you would like to be present in the article, does not deal with either term or concept. Your chapter Contributing Factors to Success is about tank warfare in WWII and dealing with the question why the Allied allegedly lost many more tanks than the Germans in battle. You could discuss this question very well without using the term "Panzer ace". In fact, much has been written about tank warfare in WWII without the "Ace"-terminology. It seems that you insist on Forsyth and Forty not because they have written the best analyses, but because they happen to use the term "ace". They do not oppose or discuss the analysis of the term/concept as provided by Zaloga, however, they are simply talking about something else. (Btw, if you read through my prior contributions on this talk page, you will find that I do not endorse Zaloga at all.) There is another problem with all this ace-talk: It obfuscates the character of tank warfare in WWII. Tank warfare was not about dogfights between individual tanks, it was about combined arms warfare or "Blitzkrieg", if you will. What we know about individual tank commanders and their "successes" is the product of wartime propaganda (see e.g. on Wittmann: Jochen Lehnhardt: Die Waffen-SS: Geburt einer Legende. Himmlers Krieger in der NS-Propaganda, Paderborn: Schöningh, 2017, p. 474) and military pulp literature by authors like Franz Kurowski. This personalizing approach to tank warfare fashioned a certain ahistorical image. So it does not come as much of a surprise that you attempt to depoliticize this approach by talking about censorship, all the while you skip over the problems of propaganda. RS have shown both that "kill numbers" may have been overblown and that it was virtually impossible to ascribe a certain kill to a certain tank commander.--Assayer (talk) 20:56, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

HI - @Assayer:Assayer - I agree, some of the material I had included in the article is more general, however that material is not currently in that article. And yes, of course, much has been written about tank warfare, that doesn't relate to tank aces. However, there is material that other people and I have added here that *directly* discusses the concept of Tank aces, that has been removed and it shouldn't have, as it is pertinent to a well rounded article on the topic. Of course, there was propaganda published about tank aces, but at the same time, the history of what tank aces did is obvious and the facts remain with us that some tank commanders did destroy a lot of tanks, more so than their peers, and tank commanders from other countries forces, in comparison. To say that Tank commanders are *only* a construct of propaganda is naive - they were still tank commanders that were documented as destroying a lot of tanks, were promoted for doing this, and in many cases, actually survived the war. And yes, we don't know the exact number, because of exaggeration, but this is a matter of degree - no one argues that tank commanders weren't successful in destroying a good number of tanks. So you can see, you have your opinion on panzer aces, which is fine, but other viewpoints exist and I am only asking that they are included, for reasons of WP:bal. Do you not agree? Deathlibrarian (talk) 21:40, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

I do not argue that tank commanders were a construct of propaganda. I argue that "Panzer aces" are a construct of propaganda and romantication. For my argument it is essential not to lump these two things together. I'll try to illustrate my point once again. Kurt Knispel is supposed to be the most successfull "tank ace" of all times. He scored many of his alleged kills while serving as a gunner. Why weren't these kills acribed to his respective commander? Why were Wittmann's alleged kills not ascribed to his gunner? And if we don't know the exact numbers, what's the use of a list featuring precisely this: Supposedly exact numbers? Tank warfare is not that kind of man-to-man combat that the Ace-concept wants us to believe. --Assayer (talk) 01:38, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Assayer That's your opinion, which is fine. I could chew up my time and space here by arguing otherwise, but after 12 years of working on wikipedia, I've learnt that pages and pages of detailed arguments about how thick the Tiger 1 mantle is will get little done. My question to you, again is, you have your opinion (which is expressed in the article), *but* will you support the opposing viewpoint being expressed in this article as per WP:Bal policy?, or are you going to continue to support them being removed? Deathlibrarian (talk) 03:32, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

My opinion is that Forty and Kershaw do not present "opposing viewpoints" to Zaloga regarding the Panzer Ace as a "concept", but are simply talking about something else, namely tank warfare. I would suggest to merge this article into Ace (military), which is an article about the term Ace in military contexts. The focus should be on the term as a "lens" through which the topic tank warfare is seen, but the topic tank warfare itself should not be covered.--Assayer (talk) 19:36, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Forty's book, "Tank Commanders:Knights of the Modern age" is essentially a book about tank aces/commanders. Kershaw's book "Tank Men" is about the crew. They both use the phrase "panzer ace" or "tank ace". Yes, they of course discuss tanks, and tank warfare as part of this, as its interlinked - it would be difficult and probably nonsensical to discuss one without the other.Forty's other books, especially "Tank Warfare in WW2" discuss tank warfare more specifically. Deathlibrarian (talk) 01:29, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Clarification on RS policy

Just to be clear, there seems to be confusion by some parties commenting here that a reliable source must be a "historian". Historians are good, and anyone who is identified as such much be reliably sourced as an historian, or self evidently qualified to be called such, with a PhD or equivalent in the field, and/or a working historian at that level, i.e. teaching or producing scholarship at the equivalent level at an accredited university. But reliable sources may not need to be historians if they are recognized experts in the field in question, i.e. high ranking military officers, museum curators, non-Ph.D holding professionals such as physicians or lawyers, recognized journalists, archivists, and some government officials. The litmus for inclusion is not a Ph.D in history. LargelyRecyclable (talk)

Indeed, this is one of the major issues here, people are applying their own criteria, rather than wikipedia criteria. Also the fact that this test has not been applied equally, some viewpoints have been removed because they weren't University academics, but others not.Deathlibrarian (talk) 22:38, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Nontheless, Wikipedia policy does not state or imply that every reliable source needs to be presented along with commonly accepted mainstream scholarship as if they were of equal validity.--Assayer (talk) 01:38, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy does state that all viewpoints should be included in an article. This is why there is an Undue weight tag on the article currently.Deathlibrarian (talk) 03:32, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

That is not correct. See WP:DUE for Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. Fancruft builds up in many topics and can create the illusion of a valid viewpoint that should be included in an encyclopedia. Disagreements are resolved by relying on the best secondary sources. Johnuniq (talk) 04:55, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Johnuniq Yes, that is correct, "all significant viewpoints" should be included. Fancruft and fringe theory should not. But the opposing viewpoint has been established by two RS, one of whom is a leading authority on tanks, it is neither Fancruft nor fringe theory. Many editors on this page support its inclusion. Deathlibrarian (talk) 06:33, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

The internet has a lot of people who focus on Nazi memorabilia and associated paraphernalia. Someone who knows all about tanks may not have time or interest to investigate historical sources. Whether a viewpoint is "significant" is determined by the best secondary sources. Johnuniq (talk) 06:41, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

As far as I can see, Sönke Neitzel, Buckley and Zaloga are advocating the Panzer ace Myth, and Kowalski, Kershaw and Forty go someway to explaining their profeciency through skill. Editors have their own opinions on this page, but that's all those are. As far as I am aware, there is no secondary body of work that firmly establishes one as a mainstream view and one as a fringe view. This is of course the issue, one significant viewpoint has been left in the article, and those that support it have deleted the other significant viewpoint. Both viewpoints *had* been in the article in a relatively stable version of the article, until the one viewpoint was removed recently. Deathlibrarian (talk) 08:54, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Only Zaloga debunks the "Panzer ace"-myth. Neitzel and Buckley do not care to discuss this as a "concept". They rather question the reliabilty of kill numbers ascribed to single tank commanders.--Assayer (talk) 19:36, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

So in your own words, we have only Zaloga that attempts to debunk the term. ON the other hand, we have Kershaw and Forty who discuss the term, the term is used by wikipedia in its articles on tank aces, the term gets 232,000 hits on wikipedia, and is mentioned in 1760 books in Google books?. So how can you justify the viewpoint you support staying, and the viewpoint that you oppose being deleted? If, as a wikipedia editor, you are supposed to have a neutral point of view? Assayer??? Deathlibrarian (talk) 00:11, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

If there are not many authors who discuss the term (which is different from using it), I conclude that this term does not merit a stand-alone article because of a lack of RS. If the term, of which RS say it's a POV term, is uncritically used 200,000+ times on Wikipedia, I conclude that Wikipedia has a serious issue with violations of NPOV. If it is mentioned in 1500+ books (according to Google books), I would like to know in which context and by whom. You claim that Kershaw and Forty discuss the term, please quote, because as far as I know they uncritically employ the term and discuss the reasons for the alledged successes of (mostly) German tank commanders. That is different from a discussion of the term. By a rule of thumb: If you could substitute the word ace with tank commander without any significant loss of information or understanding, the discussion is not about the term. -Assayer (talk) 01:27, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

I correct myself: Robert Kershaw does indeed discuss the "concept" and thus somehow the term "tank ace", but in a different context as has been suggested. Kershaw has been quoted on this talk page at length by user Duskinvo at 10:34, 4 October 2017, so I might not need to quote again. Suffice to say that Kershaw argues that the concept "was certainly utilised by German propaganda", and that he continues: "Some ‘tank aces’ encapsulated what cumulative skill could achieve", naming Wittmann. If I have not overlooked a certain version, it seems that Kershaw's view has not been fully represented. In the latest version that Deathlibrarian may consider to be "balanced" [20] Kershaw is contrasted with Buckley's argument that Wittmann was "part of a propaganda campaign". This is not an accurate representation of Kershaw's argument, since you are singling out just one of his remarks and leaving out what he has to say about propaganda. Even worse, it is suggested that Forty "like Kershaw" noted "the expertise and bravery of tank aces", which reinforces the misrepresentation. Kershaw's book is thus used in a way as if he emphasized individual bravery, whereas in fact he noted that "German crews were results conscious". If that's true is another matter. Google results are not very convincing. Those include findings like A gigantic great white shark lunged out of the tank! Ace reeled back from Ace Ventura. Most of the literature using the ace-terminology has been written and published by the usual suspects of militaria literature. Also included are critical remakrs like Yet even in World War II Germany the tank ace did not gain traction, and in fact most of the romance of the tank ace is a late 20th-century fabrication. by Oscar E. Gilbert, Romain Cansiere: Tanks: A Century of Tank Warfare (Oxford: Casemate, 2017) p. 7.----Assayer (talk) 03:20, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

There's 232,000 references to "tank ace" in Google, ignoring say 30,000 that are actually talking about Ace Venture ( :-) ) - that is 200,000 references to the concept, whether they are talking about it in depth or not. Why is that not enough to validate a concept as being in mainstream use? If 1700 books refer to the concept, why is that not enough to validate a concept as being in mainstream use... even if not all of these books are RS, that is still a lot of books using the term?. And if various authors on Wikipedia are using the concept, isn't there a chance they are correct in using it (because general web results and Google Book authors also corraborate it as a mainstream concept)... and that in fact, you are the one that is wrong? Assayer. Are you alone going to decide the term actually isn't in mainstream use, and go and remove it from every page it is used on in Wikipedia? I am beginning to think no matter what evidence we present here, you are not interested in listening, and we are wasting our time in trying to convince you. Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:55, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

As for Kershaw saying that Panzer Aces were used for propaganda reasons, that is already included in the article by other authors. It doesn't detract from the fact he thinks Panzer Aces were actually skilled tank commanders... he just says they were used for propaganda, which everyone knows. I'd be happy to include that in the article as well to round out his viewpoint, ..... *except* that Kershaw has been disputed by you and you have *supported removing all his references*. Deathlibrarian (talk) 03:05, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

It does not matter how many times Google happens to find the phrase "tank ace". Many of these results are referring to computer games, forums, blogs and other unreliable sources. Besides, I do not dispute that the term exists, but I dispute that there is sufficient encyclopedic information by RS to warrant a stand-alone article. Because articles on words must contain encyclopedic information. That is, such articles must go beyond what would be found in a dictionary entry (definition, pronunciation, etymology, use information, etc.), and include information on the social or historical significance of the term.. On the other hand, the use of the term Ace in military contexts has been analyzed by historians. As Peter Fritzsche of University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign has noted: "The ace in combat is an immediately recognizable image. [...] To this day, myths opposing the individual, distinctive combat of the aces to the industrial mass war on the ground remain deeply embedded in Western folklore." Thus the term ace does not represent nonjudgmental language as Wikipedia requires. It is a violation of WP:NPOV to write confirmingly and without any source attribution that Wittmann [w]as a high profile tank Ace and had success as a panzer ace. Once again, Kershaw does not say that Panzer Aces were used for propaganda reasons, he says that [t]he concept of the "tank ace" was certainly utilised by German propaganda. That's not the same thing, because he identifies the whole Ace-thing as propaganda. Note his use of quotation marks with which he distances himself from the term. If I remember correctly, some editors have repeatedly claimed that [t]he exposition on the propaganda uses of the term is follow-on material that quite clearly exceeds what is reasonable in a list article, not to mention substantially UNDO and so forth. Thus I find it lightheartedly to argue that we could leave this out, because it is something which everyone knows. --Assayer (talk) 20:04, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm not going to debate with you about the 260,000 hits for "tank ace" on google - its common with Wikipedia editors (mainly on AFD) to check the mainstream use of the term by running it on Google, I have never seen anyone try to challenge it like this. If you want to believe that all the hits relate to Ace Venture and video games, go right ahead, but most reasonable editors would accept that as mainstream use. There has been dispute about the *validity* of the term, where in fact it is being used in the mainstream, and so it is not fringe theory, but a valid term in mainstream use. As for there not being enough material on it to substantiate an article - I'm not sure how you can say this, there *was* a perfectly good article, with references, but some of those references have been attacked and removed - some of us are trying to get the references back in here to make the article more balanced. Thanks to you, we've spent most of our Christmas here trying to put the article back together. Kershaw saying [t]he concept of the "tank ace" was certainly utilised by German propaganda doesn't identify the whole tank ace concept as propaganda at all! - he is simply saying that tank aces existed, they were skilled and did destroy numbers of tanks - but were *also* used for propaganda. He is not saying that a tank ace can't exist without propaganda, you're putting those words into his mouth. As you said, he then goes on to say "Some ‘tank aces’ encapsulated what cumulative skill could achieve", naming Wittmann. Deathlibrarian (talk) 23:23, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Clarification re: its common with Wikipedia editors (mainly on AFD) to check the mainstream use of the term by running it on Google. This is not the case. There's even AfD advice on the topic: WP:HITS. --K.e.coffman (talk) 23:51, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

It is easy enough to filter out references to Ace Venture and other spurious data by using the appropriate search terms in Google, for example[21], which returns around 1500 book hits for "tank ace". So usage is firmly established. Obviously "tank ace" is a relatively recent term that came into predominant usage around 1975, as Google ngram reveals[22]. The fact that it wasn't used during WW2 doesn't matter, "tank ace" was a new term coined in the mid-1970's to identify particularly effective tank commanders. --Nug (talk) 00:41, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

...And we have come full circle. Yes, this article is about the term as it originated in war-time propaganda and post-war popular literature. It does not need a list of purported "Tank Aces" and their "contributing factors to success". Hallelujah! K.e.coffman (talk) 01:03, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

How could it have originated in war-time propaganda when Assayer has told us: Both during WW I and WW II the Germans did not use the term "Panzerass" or even the term "Fliegerass". That whole "ace"-terminology is prevalent only in English literature? --Nug (talk) 01:36, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

@Deathlibrarian: Speaking of putting words in someone's mouth: Kershaw wrote: Some ‘tank aces’ encapsulated what cumulative skill could achieve; one example was the German tank killer Michael Wittmann, i.e. he uses quotation marks for "tank ace", thus referring to the concept, and calls Wittmann a "tank killer" - which is close to Herbert Reinecker's propaganda piece about the "Panzertöter". If you can come up with a quote, in which Kershaw explicitly states that tank aces existed, with no quotation marks or whatever, I would like to see that quote. You keep ignoring the connotations. Simple question: Do you consider tank ace to be a neutral term, worthy of being uncritically used throughout an encylopedia?--Assayer (talk) 01:37, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

@Nug: I have also told you that the term "ace" in relation to individual military success, so to speak, originated with French military propaganda of WW I. The as de l'aviation, (the flying ace) was used for fighter pilots who had shot down a certain number of enemy aircraft (usually more than five). It has been picked up particularly by the US Air Service and its propaganda. (On that see Linda R. Robertson: The Dream of Civilized Warfare: World War I Flying Aces and the American Imagination. University of Minneapolis Press, Minneapolis 2003, esp. pp. 87-113. Hope that clarifies.--Assayer (talk) 01:47, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for verifying that the term "ace" (and by extension "tank ace") is rooted French and later American rather than German propaganda. I think an article on "Tank ace" would be a valid sub-article to Ace (military). Since the definition of an "Ace" is a successful military professional who has accumulated a meaningfully measurable statistic, then it seems competitions like the Tank biathlon and the more recent Stong Europe Tank Challenge seek to embrace that concept. --Nug (talk) 02:41, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

So you would support a merge of this article to Ace (military)?--Assayer (talk) 16:18, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Kowalski / Kurowski

Who is Kowalski? Mentioned here: ...Kowalski, Kershaw and Forty go someway to explaining their profeciency through skill. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:49, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Apologies, I meant Franz Kurowski.Deathlibrarian (talk) 04:09, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Putting Franz Kurowski in the same bucket as Kershaw and Forty does not strengthen the argument for the "Tank Ace" being a mainstream viewpoint. Kurowski is a hack writer with a strong revisionist bend. He is best known for producing apologist and semi-fictional works on the history of the war, including the Landser-pulp series Panzer Aces and Infantry Aces. Please see the linked article for more info. --K.e.coffman (talk) 23:56, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

I wouldn't use Kurowski for anything remotely controversial or interpretive. For everything else there should be better sources available. While he's done mountains of research and interviews he has no professional training, his works are riddled with errors, and he's known to make sweeping and demonstrably incorrect assertions based off nothing more than having been told so by interviewees. He's particularly guilty of glossing over or outright denying the occurrence of war crimes committed by German soldiers and SS men. I'd recommend some of his stuff for personal reading to the interested due to his unrivaled access to many German veterans but I'd never use him as a reference. LargelyRecyclable (talk) 00:34, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

However historians Smelser and Davis do acknowledge that Kurowski does have a "painfully accurate knowledge of the details of the Wehrmacht, ranging from vehicles to uniforms to medals", so he is at least good for that aspect. --Nug (talk) 04:51, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

George Forty's work as RS?

Just FYI for anyone interested, I've opened up a query as to whether his works are RS and able to be used here or not. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#George_Forty_-_Authority_or_Tanks_or_amateur — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deathlibrarian (talk • contribs) 03:33, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Please note - Forty's work was looked at by RS and the editors there decided it was indeed RS. Deathlibrarian (talk) 05:01, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

WP Bal tags removed and reinstated

User:Buckshot06 - Just writing this to stop an edit war - I have reinstated the tags on this page while the discussion is going on about the removal of the opposing viewpoints from this page. With the opposing viewpoints removed, this page does not meet WP:Bal, so a number of us are trying to get the opposing viewpoints back in. Buckshot, could you please refrain from removing them while it is in discussion? Please see the ongoing discussions above (Forty and Kershaw). I've also left a note on your talk page with a bit more info for you. Cheers. Deathlibrarian (talk) 01:07, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

So the list is gone?

This article is back to being completely useless. It needs the list. It doesn't need neocon Western- bias BS. Opinion. Not a WP:Neutral POV. Back to being an editorial.Makumbe (talk) 03:43, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Makumbe I will put the list back in (for the fourth time!). I just need to buy some more material so I can read it and substantiate the list. It's really quite stupid having an article on tank aces, with no information about tank aces in it! The average user would expect to come here and read about tank aces, and what they did... but it would seem the average user's needs take second place to some people's personal poltical views, which is unfortunate. Deathlibrarian (talk) 04:20, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

As noted in the above discussion (which Makumbe may wish to read, along with the edit summary where this table was removed by another editor, rather than start multiple threads on the same topic), I would rather that you didn't do this given the problems with referencing in the material you added. Nick-D (talk) 04:31, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Nick-D I'm certainly happy to leave it for the moment, until a consensus is established.Deathlibrarian (talk) 05:30, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Removal of material

Leaving the discussion of sources aside above, it might be more productive to consider the material in question. With the proviso that I added some of this material, largely to summarise material added by other editors, it seems unobjectionable. Indeed, the main problem with it is that it's somewhat repetitive:

• "In contrast, British historian Robert Kershaw argues that the large number of tanks destroyed by some German commanders can be attributed to the skills they gained through years of combat." - factual summary of his views, and complements the material on the views of the other historians noted in this para
• "Kershaw in his book "Tank Men" refers to a "Tank Ace" being the minority of tank commanders that accounted for the most amount of destroyed enemy armour, saying it is roughly analogous with Flying ace" - perfectly good summary of the definition used by this author in a professionally published book, and also complements the definition used by someone who barely deserves to be described as a historian noted in the same para
• "In contrast to this, military historian Robert Kershaw says some tank aces like Wittmann encapsulate what cumulative skills from years of combat in multiple campaigns may achieve" - as above: this simply states what his views are, clearly contrasting them to the views of other historians. The notion that some soldiers get better at fighting after longer periods in combat is not controversial (the same thing holds true for all professions)
• "British expert George Forty advocates that some German tanks (in particular the Tiger 1) were often better armoured and armed than their allied counterparts, which often helped the survivability of crews, enabling them to either win engagements or at least survive encounters so as to be able to fight again. However, like Kershaw, Forty notes that the expertise and bravery of tank aces who had achieved high numbers of "kills", like for instance Michael Wittmann, was also a factor. Forty also points out that there were tank commanders, like Buck Kite and Laffeyete Pool, who still had success in their tanks despite them being inferior to the tanks they opposed. - clearly attributed as these authors' views. The article already notes that other historians, such as Stephen Zaloga, agree with the first point on the importance of tank quality. Zaloga has also noted that Laffeyete Pool was among the most successful US tankers, though he has argued in various books that American tanks weren't necessarily worse than German ones (in short, as the Sherman was 'good enough').

It's important to note that in each case the views are being clearly attributed to the historians: like the other material in these sections, it is presented as viewpoints rather than undisputable facts. As such, I'd argue that there isn't a reason to exclude the material in question here, though it could be better integrated into the article to be more concise and provide readers with clearer and better-rounded descriptions. Nick-D (talk) 04:11, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. Deathlibrarian (talk) 04:20, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Agree, definitely a more sane approach. --Nug (talk) 05:59, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I think attribution like this would be a good idea to ensure this information is presented clearly as an assertion (not in Wikipedia's voice). Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 06:35, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Attribution is certainly a good idea. But to introduce an author like Robert Kershaw as "military historian", thereby dealing with him in the same manner as with a full time professor of military history like Sönke Neitzel, is not in line with NPOV. Neither does attribution help with the problem of due weight in respect to "British expert George Forty".--Assayer (talk) 01:14, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

So German military historians are naturally superior to British military historians? --Nug (talk) 01:53, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Barring the introduction of reliable sources from academia explicitly identifying Forty as an historian I'm not comfortable calling him such as he doesn't hold a professorship or a PhD in History. I'm more than satisfied calling him a "tank" or "armored warfare" expert. I'd also be fine identifying him by his retired rank and title as Director of the Tank Museum, such as "Lt Col. George Forty, former Director of the Tank Museum..." LargelyRecyclable (talk) 02:09, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

LargelyRecyclable, I don't deny that the man is an expert on tanks--I never have. Nug's comment is just a sneer, but it begs the question of whether Forty's rank is relevant: we wouldn't want to suggest that rank is automatically a factor in determining someone's expertise on other matters: I argue that his rank isn't important, but his position as director of that museum is. The real question is still whether the concept for which this article is named is valid or not. And I don't quite understand why an American tank commander ("https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Panzer_ace&diff=prev&oldid=817179330 "incompetent and slow" and "pathetic"] as the allies may have been) should be referred to with a German name like "Panzer ace", never mind Zvika Greengold, for whom I can find no trustworthy sources describing him as one. Elsewhere the comparison with "flying ace" is drawn--that's a red herring, since the term is applied by reliable sources, William P. Driscoll being just one example. Drmies (talk) 05:23, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

IMHO Kershaw and Zaloga are "military historians", Sönke Neitzel should be differentiated by "History Professor", or "History Academic". Forty is a "leading authority", "expert" and/or former Director of the Tank Museum. Deathlibrarian (talk) 06:26, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm not hung up on the rank, but it's indicative of the context of his credentials, readers can follow his link for more info. In the past, editors have made the argument that the list should be called "Tank aces" or "notable tank commanders", etc. Others wanted to the article to become a sounding board for the term "Panzer ace", which wouldn't work with the name change. It may be something worth taking the temperature on. LargelyRecyclable (talk) 07:13, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

With four editors agreeing on the reinclusion, and no dissenters (in this talk topic at least), is this a consensus to reinclude the material? Is anyone against the material being included?Deathlibrarian (talk) 01:35, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes, me, because it's off-topic (see my argument at George Forty - Tank Authority, above).--Assayer (talk) 01:47, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Does a consensus have to be unanimous? Or with Assayer dissenting, are we at an impasse and have to move on to the next step? I'm concious of the fact a lot of time has been put into fixing this page, and it appears we are going nowhere. Deathlibrarian (talk) 04:28, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Ok with the majority agreeing, and with only one person (Assayer) disagreeing, it looks like under (WP:CON) the material can be reinserted with a rough consensus, as made by an admin. If more people disagree, I assume we will then be at an impasse, and we will have to look at the moving on to the next step for resolving the dispute. I'm concious of the fact we are all volunteers here, and since these changes were made, many of us have spent many hours on here (and probably during our xmas time) debating the issue. Deathlibrarian (talk) 04:36, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Even a superficial reading of this talk page, whose threads have admittedly become convoluted, should make clear that I am not the only person who has objected the inclusion of this material in the form it has been presented.--Assayer (talk) 18:42, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Edit break

• Oppose per WP:UNDUE / WP:FALSEBALANCE. The discussions on this page are presumably about achieving WP:Bal, but the OP Death's viewpoint does not appear to be neutral. For example, it includes statements such as this one at the Michael Wittmann article: "This article is Not neutral at all (...) he is by most people, and many writers, as the world's greatest tanks ace!", at which point, Death was advised by EnigmaMcmxc to stop reading Agte et al: "NPOV". It also includes creating a POV-fork section in this article: Notable Panzer Aces#Michael Wittman (sic).

I believe that the current version of the article to be satisfactory, as it's and more aligned to the version of the article that came out of the AfD: October 2016 version. I don't see a sufficient need to deviate from the consensus achieved then. For more background, please see: Talk:Panzer ace#Prior discussions. --K.e.coffman (talk) 16:11, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Could you articulate precisely what is this viewpoint being introduced by this text and and why is it undue? Forty discusses factors that contribute to tank crew's success, such as equipment quality and training. How is that controversial and undue? --Nug (talk) 20:54, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

See for example: Talk:Panzer_ace#Kershaw. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:18, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

K.e.coffman I am not the OP for this post. This particular post was put up by Nick-D. Secondly, everyone has their own opinions, and you have yours. The point is I am trying to establish NPOV by having both viewpoints in this article, wherease you are going breaking NPOV article policy by supporting the removal of one of the oppposing viewpoints. Deathlibrarian (talk) 22:09, 28 December 2017 (UTC). As was mentioned by 135.23.202.24 below: "..... one should not voluntarily try to influence an article's POV by ignoring sources which disagree with their own personal POVs."

I made the correction; sorry! establish[ing] NPOV by having both viewpoints is not what WP:NPOV is about; see:WP:FALSEBALANCE. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:15, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

"Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources" Neutral point of view You are supporting the removal of a significant viewpoint, supported by reliable sources, to favour your own viewpoint. Deathlibrarian (talk) 22:20, 28 December 2017 (UTC) for you to establish WP:FALSEBALANCE you would have to prove that Kershaw and Forty's viewpoints are basically fringe viewpoints or (minority view or extraordinary claim). While Zaloga's viewpoints, which you are happy to remain in the article, are not. There are no secondary sources indicating that the existence of Panzer aces is fringe theory, its just you saying it here on this page. In fact the reference to Miohael Wittman as a Panzer ace is common, including on his own wikipedia page. Deathlibrarian (talk) 22:26, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

There's a broad agreement that as the entire concept of a "panzer ace" is disputed it should not be presented as fact. I believe that editor Assayer makes a convincing case for Kershaw and Forty being minority viewpoints by presenting reviews of their work; see discussions above. Also, please don't put words in my mouth: its just you saying it here on this page. Likewise, you are here saying Tank Ace legend is mainstream viewpoint -- what is the evidence of that? K.e.coffman (talk) 23:30, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

K.e.coffman There are *two* opinions here. One that panzer aces/tank aces is disputed as a concept, and one that it is a valid concept. Some writers dispute it, but plenty of writers who are writing books on tanks and tank aces use the term, including Zaloga himself. Its a mainstream term, and as I said, its even used in wikipedia itself....all the articles on the top tank aces use the term Lafayette_G._Pool, Michael Wittmann Sydney Valpy Radley-Walters and Dmitry Lavrinenko. If its a fringe term, why is wikipedia itself using it? A search on Google gets me 232,000 results for "tank ace". A search specifically on Google Books gets me 1,760 books that use the term. And you say this is a fringe concept? Where's your proof? Deathlibrarian (talk) 00:03, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Deathlibrarian, it is a mystery to me how you can still misunderstand the matter, with your ahistorical ascription of "concept". The contention, brought forward by historians in reliable academic publications, is that it was not a term used in wartime etc., but rather a concept invented post-war, focused almost exclusively on ze German war machine and used retroactively by authors like Forty. It is clearly not a mainstream term used to describe successful tank commanders, which wouldn't make any sense anyway since half the word is German. "If its [sic] a fringe term, why is wikipedia itself using it?" is likewise conceptually wrong--"wikipedia" isn't some god who writes articles, and Wikipedia isn't a source for Wikipedia. Finally, Google hits mean very little (someone here certainly knows the WP bluelink for some essay or guideline), and "tank ace" in Google books: seriously? As in seriously? Most of those belong to the kind of adolescent boys' literature written by Forty and authors like that. OK, seriously? The very first page contains a. a hit for the Wikipedia article; b. this catalog; c. this book, in which a guy called Ace drops a grenade into a tank; d. another catalog. So 4 out of 11 are false positives. That's why real researchers don't count Google hits. Drmies (talk) 01:49, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Don't play dumb. It is easy enough to filter out references to Ace Ventura and other spurious data by using the appropriate search terms in Google, for example[23], which returns around 1500 book hits for "tank ace" in relation to armoured warfare. So what if the concept was invented post war? What does it matter? Could it be that in the post war period staff members of the Royal Armoured Corps gunnery school, like George Forty, analysed why Michael Wittmann was able to inflict such heavy losses on the British at the Battle of Villers-Bocage, and recognised Wittman as a "tank ace"? Or do you believe this Oxford University educated graduate of the Royal Military Academy Sandhurst is less competent than you when it comes to identifying populist Nazi-glorifying pulp fiction? --Nug (talk) 03:35, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

I also don't know why it is important the commentary about tank aces was written in 1943 pre war or 1946 post war? Why do people keep bringing that up?. If there is a body of writing substantiating a topic, we make an article about it, I don't see whether it was written about during the war or after the war as important. The Majority of books written about Stalingrad were written after the war, but we have an article on that! Drmies For you to say Google Hits mean very little makes me wonder how long you've been working on wikipedia. Google hits are a general indicator of whether a term is in mainstram use. If you've ever done any work on AFD you would know that - very few Google hits can be decisive in getting an article *deleted*, but numerous hits substantiating a something as a mainstream concept (perhaps with other proof) will *keep* an article. And no....saying they are all about Ace Ventura is not a suffecient counter! As for yor number, if 4 out of ll are false positives, on..260,000 hits, that is still 150,000 hits or so! Deathlibrarian (talk) 08:18, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Deathl, I've been here plenty long, and if I had to guess I'd say I got a couple of thousand AfD edits. You may want to have a look at Wikipedia:Search engine test, and you may want to consider that--again--you are showing your stripes by pointing at 260,000 hits. I was talking about books, since, you know, encyclopedia and reliable sources. And if you don't understand why it matters when something was written, then maybe you should not write about topics that incorporate history. Nug, I never even pointed at Ace Ventura, so I think you're the one who's playing dumb (though you might want to explain this to your colleague, the one with the 260,000 hits; he doesn't seem to understand "false positive"). My point is that these Google hits basically all point to the same boys' literature about Tanks and Tank Heroes! that we've been talking about--not to reliable books about the concept. This is the problem with the title of the article. Your Oxford graduate is actually writing such literature, churning them out like romance novels. That was the point. Now, if you both can stop chattering and start writing up that list of tank kills, that would be a great improvement. Have fun, Drmies (talk) 04:28, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Major Terry A. Blakely, editor of ARMOR (the professional journal of the U.S. Army’s Armor Branch), highly recommends George Forty's book "Tank Action: From the Great War to the Gulf" to aspiring tank commanders, (see page 25) [24]. But I guess what would the the US Army know about the history and science of armoured warfare that they don't see Forty as "unreliable" like some editors here. --Nug (talk) 10:44, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

File:Finnish StuG III Tienhaara 1944 Recolored.jpg

Look, another Panzer knight! Colour by Commons user Ruffneck88 (gee, I wonder what "88" means in this context). K.e.coffman (talk) 21:45, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

If Google hits were so important, then why did the article on Tank Aces, including the list of said aces, get deleted in 2016?

There were 7 delete and 2 merge votes. The arguments for keeping the material were not convincing and they do not convince now.

BTW, I have listed the image on the right for discussion at Commons; editors are welcome to vote. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:50, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

The *Tank Aces* article wasn't deleted because there was no substantiation for a tank ace article. It was deleted because it was seen as a FORK..it was seen that there was already a tank ace article, the "Panzer aces in popular fiction" article.. it was deleted on the grounds that it was a fork of that. It wasn't substantiated that there was enough difference between panzer ace and tank ace to have two articles. Apart from that, the whole issue was mired in politics, with people involved in it because they were pushing some anti nazi agenda (I gather, there was a lot of history to this page which I was not aware of at the time). (Also, nice picture, a Finnish Stug.) Deathlibrarian (talk) 00:26, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

I would support a rename to Tank ace per the WP:RM#CM process, as it would take a lot of heat out of the topic in my view. --Nug (talk) 07:06, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Edit break 2

@K.e.coffman, I looked at the discussion you pointed to at Talk:Panzer_ace#Kershaw, but that discussion is mainly about reliability of Forty and Kershaw as "historians". But now you are saying it is an issue of WP:UNDUE / WP:FALSEBALANCE, so I ask again for the benefit of our understanding, could you please paraphrase the viewpoint Forty is introducing and explain why it is undue. --Nug (talk) 02:06, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

There have been scores written on the topic on this page. For some of the comments that align with my thinking, please search the page for the ones by Buckshot06 and Johnuniq, and the comment from Assayer, starting with: "It should be clear by now that the use of the term...". Hope this helps! K.e.coffman (talk) 02:23, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Okay, found the comment by Assayer, I take it that you are referring to this:

"It should be clear by now that the use of the term "ace" in military contexts communicates a certain POV. Much of the text defended by LareglyRecyclable is not really a list, but an affirmation of the term, mainly based upon a work by George Forty. The term is used uncritically and thus this POV is being adopted. While various military historians have argued that it is virtually impossible to determine how many tanks were actually destroyed during a battle and by whom exactly, the article was about to feature a whole chapter dedicated to Contributing Factors to Success as if such "success" was self-evident and claimed that numerous factors [were] established by writers in the field, that contribute to the success of a tank ace. If there is no such thing like a "tank ace", there is nothing which could contribute to its "success"."

So the core of the issue is the belief that the concept of "tank ace" is somewhat fictional, and George Forty's POV only reinforces that fiction? Is that a fair summary of your objection? --Nug (talk) 04:42, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

K.e.coffman - just wondering if you are going to respond to this? Deathlibrarian (talk) 00:11, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

It seems I'm the most important editor on this page with my opinion so urgently and so persistently sought (j/k). But yes, the above sums it up nicely. To illustrate, I've attempted to search for the discussion on the "tank ace" myself. This gaming publication has 11 mentions of "tank ace", for example: Bolt Action: Tank War, by Warlord Games. A number of similar militaria / specialty sources come up. They use the term, but do not discuss the concept. However, a brief discussion here is relevant:

A Panzer knight and his mount. "To a man, veteran tank crewmen (...) scoff at the idea." K.e.coffman (talk) 21:45, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

• "Late in WWII the image of tank warfare was highjacked. Eager to boost flagging morale, Nazi propagandists seized upon the idea of the tank ace. Tank commanders like Wittmann and Carius became celebrities, with the Nazi press emphasising battlefield scores and publishing idealised portraits of Germany's new knights. (...)

"To a man, veteran tank crewmen (some of whom would qualify as 'tank aces') interviewed by the author scoff at the idea."

—Tanks: A Century of Tank Warfare, by Oscar E. Gilbert (Gilbert is a former artilleryman and a military history writer: [25]).

It looks to me that what's being attempted with the "List of Panzer aces" and the material proposed in this thread is to recreate the mythical "Tank Ace" of the WW2 propaganda publications. These efforts have been ongoing ever since the list was removed in the course of the 2016 AfD and Tank Ace likewise deleted (see AfD:German tank aces and AfD:Tank Aces). Hence my objection to the material being proposed. I would be interested in other editors' take on the Gilbert material. --K.e.coffman (talk) 16:36, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Gilbert seems to be saying the notion of the tank ace has mostly been written/romanticised post war. I certainly have no problem with the fact it has mostly been *written* about post war.... anyone checking the dates of published works could prove that. But it doesn't make the concept any less valid for an article. He also seems to contradict himself. He says "Tank commanders like Otto Carious and Michael Wittman became celebrities" during the war, but the concept didn't get traction. If they became celebrities as tank aces (which they did), then surely the concept did get traction (at least in Germany)?Deathlibrarian (talk) 23:38, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

K.e.coffman I understand your concern, but I don't read George Forty as reinforcing the concept of the mythical "tank ace", but rather undermining that concept by saying that the apparent success of these individuals isn't due to some mythical quality but is better explained by the more mundane fact of better training and equipment. While maybe it could be sightly reworded, I don't see why you would oppose this:

"British expert George Forty advocates that some German tanks (in particular the Tiger 1) were often better armoured and armed than their allied counterparts, which often helped the survivability of crews, enabling them to either win engagements or at least survive encounters so as to be able to fight again. However, like Kershaw, Forty notes that the expertise and bravery of tank aces who had achieved high numbers of "kills", like for instance Michael Wittmann, was also a factor. . Forty also points out that there were tank commanders, like Buck Kite and Laffeyete Pool, who still had success in their tanks despite them being inferior to the tanks they opposed. "

Or this:

"There are numerous factors established by writers in the field, that contribute to the success of a tank ace (and tank crews generally), though not all of them agree. Training was one issue, with writers establishing the difference in quality of training depending on the country. George Forty concludes that German tank training had the edge on other nation's training, at least partially because they had started training programs before the other countries, though he notes they still had their problems. . In comparison, he notes that Russian training was seen by some as inadequate, as it was too short.. He noted that for instance, Russian crews drove on the peaks of hills to avoid rough terrain, however this made them more visible targets. They continued to do this throughout the war, with no training or experience correcting this. "

You were happy to use text citing Forty here in regard to German propaganda, but claim Forty is an unreliable source in this case. --Nug (talk) 01:08, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

References

@Nug: Could you please quote directly from Forty's book, where he discusses that concept by saying that the apparent success of these individuals isn't due to some mythical quality but is better explained by the more mundane fact of better training and equipment? That would give us a better impression of his argument.--Assayer (talk) 01:40, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

I could, but the issue here is why do you explicitly oppose those two pieces of text introduced by Deathlibrarian, who I trust made a good-faith summary of Forty's viewpoint. --Nug (talk) 02:27, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

From Deathlibrarian's version I did not get the impression that Forty was explicitly debunking the "myth" of the "tank ace", but rather that he was accepting the ace-talk uncritically, thereby reinforcing it. Maybe it's a question of wording, so that it would certainly help if you could provide a verbatim quote of Forty tackling the "myth". --Assayer (talk) 16:13, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Forty wrote a whole book about tank commanders, and he includes tank aces amongst them: "Tank Commanders:knights of the Modern Age" - He writes - "I have also included some of the 'Aces" whose prowess as individual tank commanders deserves recognition".(p4) His section on Wittman in that book is called "A Tiger Ace"(p110). Additionally he wrote an entire book on Tank Aces specifically, "Tank Aces: from Blitzkreig to the Gulf War". So... no I don't think he thinks they are a myth! Deathlibrarian (talk) 08:37, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

To describe Tank Commanders as Knights of the Modern Age communicates excactly that kind of celebration of "chivalry" that historiography has described as characteristic of the Ace-concept. (Instructive on that is Stefan Goebel: The Great War and Medieval Memory: War, Remembrance and Medievalism in in Britain and Germany, 1914-1940. Cambridge UP 2007.) The review by Major Terry A. Blakely, quoted by User:Nug above reinforces my impression that Forty does not undermine the concept of the mythical "tank ace", as Nug himself suggested. Or, in Blakely's words: Dirty boot stuff, loud noises, and extraordinary behavior are what Forty wants us to understand and appreciate. He lets the men who peer at the outside world through narrow slits and small periscopes, and who pull their triggers from inside armored vehicles, tell the tales of mounted warfare through their deeds. Extraordinary tank commanders are treated as such, no matter on which side they fought. We see in graphic detail the deeds of heroic men, (and one woman!), tankers all, who single-handedly made a difference at a critical time and a critical point on the battlefield [...] We find out through individual actions just what qualities these men — the famous and not so famous — possessed to make them perform so admirably. We see what it means to be technically and tactically proficient. We appreciate keenly the sacrifice it sometimes takes to get your cannon to the spot on the battlefield that can create an effect totally out of line with normal force ratio computations. This proves that Forty's work is strongly opinionated. Thus it may only be used in certain contexts using WP:INTEXT, but not for a affirmative section like Contributing Factors to Success. Blakely recommends this book to: Every reader who is, was, or ever wanted to be a tank commander, which is not what Wikipedia is about.--Assayer (talk) 13:14, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

- Assayer - Sources and references in Wikipedia are allowed to be biased and opinionated - "However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective" - please see WP:BIASED. You are not allowed to exclude Forty simply because he has an opinion....most people do!!! Indeed, we could exclude Zaloga for the same reason. The point is, you need multiple opinions in the article, not just from one viewpoint, and that would include the contributing factors to success section. I any case, you are currently blocking Forty from being included *at all*... because he has an opinion on the topic is not justification for him not being used here. Deathlibrarian (talk) 00:14, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Assayer, Forty's view isn't just his personal opinion, it is an opinion obviously endorsed by the British military given Forty's role in teaching armoured warfare, and the US military given the positive endorsement of Forty's book to aspiring tank commanders, so it is a significant viewpoint. --Nug (talk) 08:00, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

@Deathlibrarian: You should read my comments more thoroughly. If Wikipedia is to feature an article celebrating tank commanders, Forty's work would be upfront. In an article discussing the Panzer ace as a concept, "tales of mounted warfare" told through deeds are inappropriate. @Nug. Leaving aside whether the British military really did "obviously endorse" each and every of Forty's opinions and whether Major Terry A. Blakely really speaks for the US military as a whole, I appreciate that you would like to address the aspriring tank commanders among Wikipedia users by providing them with "dirty boot stuff" and the perspective "at the outside world through narrow slits and small periscopes", but that is not what Wikipedia articles are about.--Assayer (talk) 19:37, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Assayer Well I can't be blamed for being confused, On the one hand you are blocking Forty and saying he isn't an RS, or an authority - and now you are saying he should be included in Wikipedia? Also, we have a difference of opinions, I see the panzer ace article also discussing tank aces. So any RS on the deeds of a tank ace would be appropriate, if it fits the context. I don't see an article on "tank commanders" replacing "tank aces". Deathlibrarian (talk) 23:34, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

So you are seriously suggesting that Wikipedia should have an article celebrating certain tank commanders as "tank aces"?--Assayer (talk) 23:39, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

No more than the article Flying ace celebrates certain pilots. The term "Tank ace" is in common usage[26] since around 1975[27], so an article is warranted. Moving this article to Tank ace would allow the listing of other nationalities and make this topic less of an attraction to Nazi fan boys, IMHO. --Nug (talk) 00:23, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Nug. I did introduce tank aces from other nationalities, and they were in the list, the title of which was changed from panzer aces to tank aces to accommodate for this. And I've mentioned before I think changing this to tank aces from Panzer ace will take the edge off the whole nazi thing.Deathlibrarian (talk) 22:28, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Two wrongs don't make a right. That's why I am continously arguing, that all military Ace-articles should be merged to Ace (military). Celebration of certain "aces" is a violation of WP:NPOV. The term ace as it is being used in military contexts is the opposite of non-judgmental language and should thus be avoided when writing Wikipedia articles. As a side effect all these tedious chapters about which factors may have contributed to the totals of certain "aces" are rendered superflous. They are most often based upon sources of dubious quality anyway. So would you support my approach, or do you insist on celebrating "tank aces"? --Assayer (talk) 02:01, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Assayer I think we have now veered off track from what this thread is about...It is about the inclusion of material that presents one side of the story, that has been removed. If you want to delete this article, or combine it with fighter aces, you should start another thread, and that can be debated there, that would make the discussion clearer. As it is, this debate has been going on for weeks now, with no conclusion in sight. Its' just confusing matters and blocking any discussion of the UNDuE weight issue, so we can get that tag off the article. In any case, I don't see anyone supporting the combination of this article with fighter aces, but you are free to discuss it of course, it may have bearing on other things. Deathlibrarian (talk) 22:32, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

@Nug: “After retiring from the army in 1971, [Forty] pursued a writing career, and in 1981 he was appointed as director of the Tank Museum” [28]. So, the British military endorsed the books Forty wrote while in retirement? Please clarify. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:28, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

I haven't looked at British Army publications, but certainly one of Forty's books was described as a superb text by the Editor-in-chief of the US Army Armor Center's professional development journal and recommended reading for current and future tank commanders. --Nug (talk) 08:38, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Edit break 3

This debate about the removal of material/Undue weight has been going on for long enough, and I think it's now at the stage where it should naturally go to mediation. If the conversation was doing some good, it would be worth continuing here, but really I can see some of the arguments just going on forever, with neither side giving ground. It needs the help of a third party. Some of the arguments are now even getting farcical. Personally I would just like to see this resolved one way or another, I've got other things to do with my life. Deathlibrarian (talk) 08:35, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Edit break 4 - Request for Mediation Process started

As this has been going on for weeks now, with no one budging from their point of view, and the issues raised in this post by Nick-D (the removal of material) still not addressed, I've put in a request for mediation. I've put in the following names,Nug, K.e.coffman, Assayer, LargelyRecyclable, Drmies as I know you will all want to say your say, and these are the users who predominantly have been active here in the discussion. Clearly there are times when the talk page is going nowhere, and an objective viewpoint is needed - this is one of those times! I've filed it from my point of view, but by all means, people will not agree with that, so there is opportunity to put your point of view there in the as well. If there is an issue not represented, please follow the link below and add it in to the "Additional issues (added by other parties)" field.

• Please see Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Panzer_Ace for more details.Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:16, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Edit break 5

Looks like this has been going on for long enough for people to have their say, original post was three weeks ago - and the discussion has been going on for long enough without really getting anywhere (unfortunately). From the vote count, it looks like Nick D's move to have these inclusions put back in is carried. Nick-D(nominating the re-inclusion of the material), 5 are for it AustralianRupert, Nug, Myself, LargelyRecyclable(??I think?) are for. Two are against K.e.coffman and Assayer against.Deathlibrarian (talk) 22:39, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

I am for, yes. Thank you for all the work you've done on this. LargelyRecyclable (talk) 00:10, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

See WP:VOTE. Consensus is not judged by noise or perseverance. Johnuniq (talk) 02:46, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

I also think that there's sufficient support to reinstate this material. I also note that per WP:BRD, the default is to return to stable versions of articles early in cases like this so it should have happened earlier, though obviously a lot of water has since passed under the bridge. Nick-D (talk) 00:33, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Fair enough - I think this is the last stable version,before the sweeping changes were made [[29]]????. Nick-D I think you and Assayer said the list should come out because it wasn't referenced properly - We can take it out and someone can re build if they wish. Deathlibrarian (talk) 09:15, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, that's the version I was thinking of. Nick-D (talk) 09:42, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Ok, I'll revert her to that and remove the list. Deathlibrarian (talk) 11:08, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

I think that the last stable version is this one, i.e. before Deathlibrarian started adding his material. It is that material which is controversial and these "information" have been challenged on multiple counts, notwithstanding that Deathlibrarian still misrepresents those objections. --Assayer (talk) 14:39, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

If you would like to remove the "Contributing factors to success section" I think you will need consensus on here to do so, I think there are editors here who think its relevant to the article. Certainly it would be good if people look at it and improve it.Assayer why don't you start a new thread, so we can discuss it specifically? It would be great if people could contribute to it Deathlibrarian (talk) 19:47, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Would you deny that this article has been stable until you started your edits which quickly made you the major contributor with the largest share of added text, and that it is this text which is controversial? After I nominated the original article for deletion, consensus was that while this is indeed a concept invented by popular writers post WWII, it is notable as such, but the article should be edited to reflect this. You keep ignoring that an article about an invented concept does not deal with contributing factors to success. But ignorance does not take the ONUS from you to establish consensus for challenged material to be included (TonyBallioni, 19. December 2017). After thousands of bytes of discussion you can hardly claim that. Besides, by filing Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Panzer Ace#Issues to be mediated you even acknowledged that you don't have consensus for the inclusion of your material. --Assayer (talk) 20:45, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Assayer I think this article was relatively stable until DRmies came in and removed half of it, that resulted in a completely unbalanced article, and the resulting chaos - Please don't try to shift that action to me. As for the "invented concept" - once again, that's your opinion. Article writing on wikipedia is not about getting the balanced view of a concept. There are those that view tank aces as invented concepts, and those that don't. All I've ever wanted is for an article to show BOTH sides of the story. Whereas you have consistently removed opposing viewpoints, leaving your own sources in the article. Deathlibrarian (talk) 12:39, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

I think that the "Contributing factors to success section" should be removed, largely as it repeats material already covered in previous sections. There's some different material and different perspectives on some of the issues covered earlier which should be merged, but this is basically the same topic as what the 'Analysis' section covers (the two section titles are even pretty much the same thing). I agree that a new thread should be started though, as this one covers what seems to be a now-resolved matter. Nick-D (talk) 22:03, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Actually they are different, Nick-D. The Analysis section seems to argue the validity of the term, carrying on the Myth vs Panzer ace as valid aspect (that was what this article was all about previously), including Zaloga's comments on this. I wrote the "contributing factors" section specifically to discuss what factors are involved in a tank ace's success. There's some crossover, but different intent in the sections. But you are right, it needs fixing to get rid of the duplication. Deathlibrarian (talk) 12:32, 21 January 2018 (UTC)