Talk:Manfred von Richthofen

Origin of “flying circus”

Everything I have read about the Flying Circus has said that the name arises from the way the unit’s mobility. It is a common misconception that it is based on the colours of the aircraft. But I don’t have a reference for this. Perhaps someone else knows. Humphrey Tribble (talk) 06:23, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Actually both explanations are common - not hard to find references for either. This is already covered in the lede to the article. One might speculate (naughty word) that from the German side the way the squadron was shunted about seems more likely - but from the British side (to whom this was probably not known) the bright colours were the obvious reason. The two explanations are very far from being mutually exclusive anyway. Nothing whatever to prevent them both being true. -Soundofmusicals (talk) 13:42, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Red Baron

I’m curious. Soundofmusicals regularly reverts editors moving Red Baron to what would seem its obvious position in the lead per WP:ALTNAME/MOS:BOLDALTNAMES/MOS:FIRST as they last did here. I had a look through the archive and couldn’t spot any discussion on this or any consensus to not follow usual practice. Could Soundofmusicals please explain their idiosyncratic objection to what would I think be a WP norm. DeCausa (talk) 00:19, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

The nickname "Red Baron" already has adequate (some might even say excessive) emphasis - including a detailed explanation - in the very first section after the lead - where it can be fully explained without distraction from more fundamental information. This is a VERY long standing consensus, although attempts to change it are made from time to time. There HAS been a good deal of discussion about this - at the very least to the point that it is the change that needs justification rather that the retention of a perfectly satisfactory status quo. In any case, moving the emphasis on "Red Baron" would really require integrating information in the specific section "Name and nicknames" into the lede, to maintain the current sense of the article. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 03:05, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Could you point to the thread where this was discussed and agreed? I couldn’t find it in the archive. Or do you mean WP:EDITCONSENSUS? It’s very easy to establish that it’s a widely used (the most widely used) ALTNAME. Alternative names don’t require any explanation in the lead. They are just there in the first sentence. So I’m puzzled by why you think it should only be mentioned “where it can be fully explained without distraction”. That’s not the way ALTNAME’s are normally positioned. It’s a pretty basic and straightforward MOS principle. Aside from that obvious point, the reason why a major ALTNAME should be in the first sentence is that a casual reader can readily and speedily confirm that they’ve arrived at the right article if they are more familar with the ALTNAME. I think there’s a strong case for saying that most English-speakers only know him by the name Red Baron. DeCausa (talk) 08:30, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

But searching Wikipedia on Red Baron has always gone direct to this article! And as I have pointed out, this "nickname" is actually a description (he WAS a baron (sort of), and he DID paint (at least some of) his aeroplanes red). In the context of an encyclopedia article most of the matter in the lede probably comes sequentially before this - like who was he?. Anyone who knows the words "red baron" and nothing else in connection with him will probably benefit from a bit of preliminary background. Now there is quite a lot of previous discussion over a good number of archive files (some of them very long and tortuous) I think that if you are sincere on this one it is really up to you to dredge through all of this - decide what is relevant, and refute the consensus so patiently, not to say painfully, built up over the years. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 14:34, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

So, I’ve just checked through the archives and found only one discussion on this - in 2010 (archive 2) when you and one other person had an inconclusive discussion. You may be getting mixed with a couple of move requests to Red Baron, but that’s a different issue. Or you may be thinking of the times you reverted multiple editors who wanted to include “Red Baron” in the first sentence. I don’t see anything supporting its exclusion other than your policing of the issue and the resulting default WP:EDITCONSENSUS. DeCausa (talk) 18:12, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

@Soundofmusicals: I see you’ve once again reverted someone for adding Red Baron to the lead. Not only has this not been discussed on the talk pages but only you have been making these reverts…of multiple other editors. It seems to me that this is a one person crusade, aka WP:OWN. Time for an RfC I think. DeCausa (talk) 09:45, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Try totally rewriting the lede then! No need whatever to repeat this - especially when the very old and much discussed consensus puts it in the next section! Or do you want to cut the "Name and nicknames" section altogether? We could in theory "mention the Red Baron" any number of times - but while it certainly needs to be there it is already quite prominent enough, AND fully explained. This is probably overall a rather long article but the lede is certainly already long enough. -Soundofmusicals (talk)

There is no “very old and much discussed consensus”. It’s not discussed in the archive as you claim - it’s just you reverting multiple other editors. The names and nicknames section is irrelevant. Per WP:LEAD the lead is a summary of what’s in the body including that section. Everything in the lead is in the following sections (or should be). I’ve reverted you because it’s inclusion now has WP:EDITCONSENSUS. Consensus is needed to remove it, per WP:BRD. DeCausa (talk) 20:51, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

OK, but cut the speculative (and irrelevant?) remark about relative "popularity". --Soundofmusicals (talk) 06:59, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

No problem. Resolved, thanks. DeCausa (talk) 11:52, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Age

The age at death does not add up to the difference between birth year and death year. I don’t know which of the three numbers is in error. 2600:100A:B11F:7E42:71E0:E375:B15F:3289 (talk) 05:01, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

He died 2 weeks before his 26th birthday. May 1892 - April 1918. The numbers I see match. 2600:1700:B9C1:20C0:2870:9614:9F89:A045 (talk) 18:12, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

There was no autopsy

See my revision minutes ago. Autopsy: "thorough Physical examination of a corpse by dissection to determine the cause, mode, and manner of death."

Review of all documents concerning post mortem examinations: https://net.lib.byu.edu/~rdh7/wwi/comment/richt.htm "The orderly told me that the cons. surgeon used a bit of fencing wire which he had pushed along the track of the wound through over the heart. I used the same bit of wire for the same purpose so you see the medical examination was not a thorough one and not a post mortem exam in the ordinary sense of the term. Peter K Burian (talk) 14:24, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Calling the R's "post-mortem examination" an "autopsy" is certainly pushing the conventional definition, but on the other hand, "rough and ready" as it was, it leaves no serious historical (as opposed to judicial) doubt about the precise cause of death. -Soundofmusicals (talk) 23:45, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

The Red Baron displaying any connections to Jewish People

The act of laying a stone on the grave of a deceased person is of Jewish Origin. It's a beautiful tradition really, and the stones they lay are called "Visitation stones." It's a bereavement practice. A show of sadness, and solemnity for the dead. So, whether the Red Baron was even aware of the origin of this practice, or of their Jewish ancestry, no matter how much, is truly irrelevant. The fact remains that coincidence or not, the practice is Jewish. Therefore there is a Jewish connection to The Red Baron. Furthermore, finding definitive proof of their Jewish ancestry would prove exceedingly difficult given that between the time of their death, and now there was that whole 3rd Reich thing. As we all know during that period records of Jewish ancestry would oftentimes be destroyed, and no this wasn't done out of affection or respect for The Red Baron. No more was it out of respect that they dug him out of his grave to put him in a huge ugly monument with nothing but their family name on the monument to Nazi appropriation of Manfred Albrecht Freiherr von Richthofen. The are tens of thousands of records out there of individuals with the name Richthofen! It's a testament to how little the 3rd Reich actually cared about one of Germany's most exceptional deceased heroes. They didn't care, and in fact probably disdained the young lost pilot. It was nothing more than an attempt to take advantage of them for propaganda purposes. It wasn't out of respect that they distorted his very likeness either! Painting their red hair blonde, and their green and oftentimes changing hazel eyes to blue was not respectful in the slightest! They used The Red Baron as a tool, and nothing more, just to spread that strange blonde blue eyed obsession of Hitlers. The last discussion got exceptionally antisemitic, and it says more about many posters & their latent antisemitism that the very idea of The Red Baron having even a fraction of Jewish ancestry would cause such aggressive, angry, and exaggerated incredulity. The citations about The Red Baron having Jewish connections were solid enough to have left the Jewish mentions in the article, and it's telling that not even solid sources were good enough to get people to accept even the notion. 2600:4040:79C7:C100:B467:AE3F:255B:D6E3 (talk) 13:12, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

No relevance to this article. Confusion with another site altogether? OK, Looked up the archives, and apparently there WAS a thread about claims of (alleged) Jewish ancestry of R in 2007! Nothing since. Nothing about it in the article due to irrelevance and total lack of any remotely credible reference. -Soundofmusicals (talk) 00:36, 10 March 2023 (UTC)