Talk:Kampfgeschwader 55/Archive 1

Archive 1

Just Started

I have just started this page, there is more to follow shortly.Dapi89 10:31, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Completion and citing sources

As soon as I have finished the main body I will cite the sources A.S.A.P.Dapi89 20:33, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

What is significant and what isn't.

I've noticed a few terse comments in some recent edit descriptions, suggesting that the destruction of two major aircraft factories in the UK was not significant. I completely disagree with you DAPI89. I might be persuaded that the reference to Itchen Ferry village could be omitted, but successful attacks on two major aircraft factories in England are about as significant as it gets, particularly the Sept 1940 raid which destroyed the factory where the Spitfire design team and some production capacity was based. If you try to argue that those raids aren't significant, then you can't really justify including details of where individual members of Kampfgeschwader55 were shot down.

The other issue is that once we've got a documentary source that pins Kampfgeschwader55 to specific raids those details need to be added to Wikipedia, which we must remember is an Encyclopedia. I don't think it is wise to try to portray Kampfgeschwader 55 in any particular way, either as villains or as heroes, I'm really not trying to do that. What happened, happened. I know their actions killed a lot of people. I also know the squadron was wiped out. I fully agree it was all very tragic for everybody concerned, but it is important not have this Encyclopedia article coloured by Rose-tinted spectacles.

Lets just document the facts that we can find sources for, in a neutral point of view, as per Wikipedia policy.Hethurs (talk) 18:52, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, some corrections: KG 55 was not "wiped out", and I am not removing your edits because I fear for this units reputation. If I cared about that, I wouldn't have started the article in the first place. Spitfire production was safely dispersed, and was not interupted. So what difference does it make, and how significant was it (that raid)? Does it matter to the overall history? KG 55 killed a load more Russians than it did Brits. My reverts hand nothing to do with "coloured by Rose-tinted spectacles". What has bias got to with this?Dapi89 (talk) 14:30, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

OK. Good. We're not that far apart. The only other thing I am obliged to comment upon is that the subject matter is surrounded by death and destruction. Phrases like "so what", which appeared in a recent edit description and "so what difference does it make ?", which appears above, would really offend anybody who lost relatives in those raids, if they happen to read this article on Wikipedia. It matters greatly to them, if not to you. As it happens, I didn't lose anybody, but I went to school with some that did lose relatives in the Supermarine raid and I know it is still a sensitive area 60 years on - which is perhaps why I'm a bit prickly to some of your comments and the cavalier manner in which contributions were deleted. I wouldn't dare say "so what" living where I do, close to where the Supermarine raid took place. It is something any military historian worthy of the job-title has simply got to be sensitive about. But don't get me wrong. This is a good article, giving a lot of information about people and an organisation I previously knew nothing about. I've learnt things from it. As such, it is a valuable contribution to Wikipedia. Moving on. I have found information on other raids that KG55 were involved in, during the Battle of Britain. What if we put those details into a simple table in the Battle of Britain section ? Hethurs (talk) 21:46, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I think 68 years on we should be able to take a less dispassionate view of things, after all I think that would by NPOV, would it not? As it happens, I had relatives working in Spitfire factories, that continued to work dispite raids - this one of many reasons why I became interested in Airpower. I would oppose any kind of table, but if they were significant (if they caused a heavy amount of damage or loss of life) then I would agree to it being put into the text. If we were to include all casualties inflcited during the Battle of Britain, then I would have to include more on the Russian front - and given that it inflicted far more fatalities there, it would be a lengthy task for me! I also think that paragraphs should reflect the campaign itself. It would look odd to me that the BoB section could be bigger than the Russian Front section, (4.5 months v 4 years), however thats my personal opinion. Dapi89 (talk) 12:18, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Good. I see the article has progressed to "Start" category today. That's also pleasing. Personally, I wouldn't be too concerned about the relative length of the BofB and Russian front sections. I understand what you are saying, but if we've got the information lets include it in the Encyclopedia. That's what the Encyclopedia is for. The length of the sections can reasonably be determined by the information that we've got rather than be dictated by the relative length of the campaigns. My reason for suggesting a table is that it will sit neatly on the right of the BoB section, it can be listed in chronological order and it will thus be easy to see where KG55 are recorded to have been active on any particular day. I don't propose to list the casualties, just which towns/cities KG55 were asked to attack on what dates. As I've already found with Itchen Ferry village, reports of casualties aren't always consistent between different publications. But I do think a table of "known action" is potentially as valuable as the table of RitterKreuz recipients. I haven't got details for every day of the BofB, but I could certainly add details of some substantail raids that are documented in the Shores book and elsewhere.

I did not agree to adding a table, but have helped with it, just to stretch it across the BoB and CF sections so the look was not too bad. I have a complete list of KG 55 raids (including what raids were carried out by which particular unit of KG 55 - I./kg, II./KG etc) over Britain (which also were between the dates you have given), but I am not adding them. There is just too many to do.Dapi89 (talk) 12:09, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Citations

Hi, you have had a bit of a mess where citations are concerned. Having checked the books in question, it seems you have put in the publishers name down in place of the authors. For example, The author "Ted Smart" does not exist, thats the publisher! Could you please correct them as per the rest of the inline cites (Author, date and page no.) and then but the full titles (I noticed you had not ut down the full book titles either!) in the "Ref" section, which is the appropriate place. Putting titles in the main text creates clutter. Thanks. Dapi89 (talk) 17:38, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes. You're right. I had got the publisher and author mixed up. I'd spotted it myself over my evening cuppa. I take the view that so long as the citations are in the article in some shape or form, I'm not that concerned about the format. If I do it your way on this page, it'll be wrong on some other page, in fact it has been wrong on other Wikipedia pages: one can't win ! Having said that, I've now tried to follow your style on this page. An interesting point on a couple of the books is that they didn't have ISBNs printed inside them. I think that is because they were acquired through Book clubs rather than bought over the counter. I hadn't noticed that before, but I don't think it makes the books any less valid. The Hough/Richards book seems to have been published previously by Hodder and Stoughton. The Christopher Shores Book is a special edition, with some fancy artwork, the text of which seems to have been published previously as Duel for the Sky, by Blandford press. No idea what we do about that ISBN problem, other than note it here !

I've managed to find the missing ISBNs via http://www.isbndb.com, using the "previously published" information in the Book club editions that I am actually looking at. No doubt the page numbers will be inconsistent between different versions of the same book, but I can't do much about that.Hethurs (talk) 19:28, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I will see if I can help. Dapi89 (talk) 09:40, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Cheers.Hethurs (talk) 16:58, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Neutral POV

Eliminating good faith edits with the edit summary "reverted all edits by coffman is not a sufficient reason justification for a revert.

The edit addressed POV language; the resulting version is more neutral. Please discuss on Talk page. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:34, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes it is. Your history of baseless accusations make it so. For another example see below. Dapi89 (talk) 11:40, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Here are the examples of the changes implemented by the revert:

1. KG 55 bombed Polish Air Force airfields on 3 September. --> KG 55 flew attacks against Polish Air Force airfields on 3 September (euphemistic language)
2. KG 55 bombed communication targets --> KG 55 were involved in attacking communication targets (euphemistic language)
3. The offensive was successful for the German side' --> The offensive was successful (full stop). (POV language)
4. included air raids on Nancy, Toul and Epinal --> would include missions over Nancy, Toul and Epinal (euphemistic language)
5. KG 55 bombed 38 airfields --> KG 55 flew attacks against 38 airfields (euphemistic language)
6. attacked targets in central, southern, and eastern France -->were engaged against targets in central, southern, and eastern France (unneeded passive voice)
7. a mass bombing operation against industrial targets --> a mass attack against industrial targets
8. The unit further dropped five SC500 and 2,412 incendiaries --> A further five SC500 and 2,412 incendiaries were dropped (unneeded passive voice)
9. The attack destroyed a large part of the city centre and was considered a successful operation by the German command. --> The attack was a success and a large part of the city centre was destroyed. (POV language)
10. began a last minute withdrawal to occupied Poland --> began a last minute withdrawal to the Eastern borders of the Reich (POV use of Reich)
11. Kharkov --> Charkow ('alternate geography')
12. marked their 10,000 mission --> celebrated their 10,000 mission (POV language)
13. The unit lost nine aircraft but flew over 5,000 missions before disbanding on 27 April 1945. --> The unit lost nine aircraft but flew over 5,000 missions before disbanding on 27 April 1945. (maintenance tag removed)

I would appreciate an explanation of how the language on the right is superior to the versions on the left. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:59, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Air raid is not euphemistic nor is sortie. Dapi89 (talk)

Dubious statement

I remove the statement pertaining to and including "Two of the men were found at the local Commissar's house" as uncited since Dec 2016 & dubious (there was no recognised rank of "Commissar" in civilian administration). I'm preserving this material by providing this link: link. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:40, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

That had a citation attached to it, and your actions are vandalism. Execution of airmen captured were routine, on both sides. If you have a question about these murders, in general, or specific examples, please ask. Don't annihilate sources and content you don't like.Dapi89 (talk) 11:39, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

The material has been tagged as "citation needed". Which citation was it in? K.e.coffman (talk) 22:45, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

What are you talking about? It had a citation. Why don't you look? Dapi89 (talk) 20:13, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

What makes KG55 : 'Greif' Geschwader - The Photographic History of the Famous Luftwaffe Bomber Unit a reliable source for this claim? Per link, "The story of KG55 is recounted through photographs and stories largely collected from the veterans who flew with this bomber unit". What are the authors citing this information to? K.e.coffman (talk) 20:50, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

What makes it unreliable? Bergstrom also has information recording the regular shoot of POWs on both sides. I'm sure you'll go out of your way to discredit the source, so go right ahead. You don't get to decide what is, and what isn't reliable anyway. Dapi89 (talk) 09:04, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

The onus to demonstrate reliability is on the editor who wishes to use the source. The question then remains, what makes this a reliable source? An opinion of one editor? K.e.coffman (talk) 22:22, 12 March 2017 (UTC)