Wikipedia:Featured article review/archive/December 2019

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was kept by Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 6:50, 7 December 2019 (UTC) [1].

Tôn Thất Đính

Notified:

WikiProject Military History, WikiProject Vietnam

I do not think this article is doomed in its current state, and I think sufficient work can be done in the course of a standard FAR, but some work does need to be done; in particular, I think his early (pre-military) life should be something more than merely "A native of central Vietnam," and " Born into a nominally Buddhist family, Đính had converted to Catholicism in the hope of advancing his career.", and his later life should be somewhat more than a paragraph and should mention his death in the prose. (In some fairness to the death thing, this article was promoted in 2009 before his death, but it should still be updated.) – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 20:25, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@WP:FAR coordinators: This FAR has been up for almost three weeks and nothing has been done in regards to either the review, the article itself, or its talk page. Is this normal, and if not for how much longer does this stay in the FAR stage and what happens in this case? – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 02:44, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's not unusual. If comments remain unaddressed, the review will be moved to the FARC phase. DrKay (talk) 08:10, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

Issues raised in the review section include comprehensiveness. DrKay (talk) 15:41, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delist none of the concerns raised above have been addressed, and indeed very little work has been done on the article at all since the review began. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 20:25, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• I noticed that Bumbubookworm has done significant work on the article since this FARC has begun. Such work is commendable, but there are still a few questions I have on the man:

  I feel like more could be said of the circumstances of his early life. It's great to know his specific birthplace, but his birthdate is still unsourced and still not more is said of his family than that it was "nominally Buddhist". Is there any sourcing of how he and Cần met?

  His conversion to Catholicism seems important, and it could stand to be expanded and better sourced.

  Under the III Corps were the 5th and the 25th Divisions. The 5th Division is brought up twice more in the article, and the 25th never again. What exactly were the significance of these two divisions in particular?

That's all for now, I'll have a closer look later. Other than that, great job! – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 04:25, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@John M Wolfson: Have you had an opportunity for a closer look? Do you now feel the article warrants retaining its status? Nikkimaria (talk) 23:39, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I'm still not the biggest fan that his conversion is glossed over, but it seems fairly minor and the article is much improved from when I nominated it for review. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 23:57, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This removal candidate has been kept, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please leave the {{featured article review}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:50, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was delisted by Casliber via FACBot (talk) 1:38, 9 December 2019 (UTC) [2].

Albert Kesselring

Notified: WikiProject Biography, WikiProject Germany, WikiProject Italy, WikiProject History, WikiProject Military History, WikiProject Law, WikiProject Politics,WikiProject Jewish History, Hawkeye7

Review section

Nomination statement

The article was promoted to FA status in 2009; it does not reflect the most recent scholarship nor FA best practices. The criteria that are the focus of this nomination are: (1.b) comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context; (1.c) well-researched: it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature; claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources; (1.d) neutral: it presents views fairly and without bias; and (2.a) lead: prepares the reader for the detail in the subsequent sections.

FAs are expected to maintain required standards and this article has not kept up with the times.^[1] To start with, the lead contains material that is not expanded on in the article, such as: Nicknamed 'Smiling Albert' by the Allies and 'Uncle Albert' by his troops, he was one of the most popular generals of World War II with the rank and file. This is not discussed further in the article, and is also a selective reading of Kerstin von Lingen, Kesselring's Last Battle, 2009, p. 16, which goes on to state:

The omission of Lingen's conclusion results in a non-neutral presentation starting with the lead. Some of the sources used are dated and / or questionable. Specifically, the article utilises Kesselring's memoirs published in 1955 (30+ citations); this source is not independent, not secondary, and in several important respects not reliable. In another example, a 1954 review of Kesselring's memoirs is used to claim that "the memoirs formed a valuable resource, informing military historians on topics such as the background to the invasion of the Soviet Union". This is neither neutral nor comprehensive, as the article neglects later evaluations that connect Kesselring's works to the myth of the clean Wehrmacht (e.g. here: Reckonings: Legacies of Nazi Persecution). In any case, the source is being used selectively & some of the content fails verification. To start with, the review is more sarcastic than glowing, and it opens thus:

Note that the generic "military historians" in the article is actually "U.S. Army historians", from the US Army Historical Division that employed former Wehrmacht generals after the war; the review does not mention the attack on the Soviet Union either. This appears to be OR based on FA nominator's reading of the memoirs.

Further, the article's portrayal of Kesselring's does not align with recent scholarship. For example, the article states: Kesselring became one of Nazi Germany's most skilful commanders. Compare with

Citino, Wehrmacht's Last Stand, 2017, debunks or contextualises this narrative:

• Citino begins by discussing Kesselring's intelligence failures ahead of Diadem: "More generally, Kesselring completely missed the dramatic redeployment of the Allied forces in Italy"; Wehrmacht was "caught napping", pp. 99-100
• Details a bungled response: "Throughout it all, we cannot say that Kesselring was particularly active in arranging countermeasures. His initial reaction to Diadem was disbelief."
• In re: Kesselring blaming a subordinate for the predicament that the Wehrmacht had found itself in: "In fact, nothing would have helped", p. 103.
• Citino offers a more nuanced analysis of Mark Clark's dash to Rome, describing it as a "non-event of 'Clark's blunder'," because the Germans did not seem to have noticed it at all.

Citino writes about Kesselring's account: he "spends much of his memoirs criticising operational decisions on both sides (except his own, which he deems to be invariably correct)." Kesselring's writings themselves have become an object of historiographical analysis; this is not reflected in the article, not meeting the requirement for being comprehensive and placing the subject in proper context. Parts of the article reproduce the Wehrmacht myth, and Kesselring's self-portrayal brings to mind tenets of the Lost Cause of the Confederacy:

• It left the burden of preventing the Allied evacuation of Dunkirk to the air force...^[4]
• Kesselring felt that much more could have been accomplished if he had had ...^[5]
• Kesselring was well aware that while this force was large enough to stop the Allies from simply marching in[to Italy]...^[6]

No, a war that one starts is not a "burden" and Kesselring was not protecting hearth and home in Italy either; it was an occupied country. Citino 2012, The Wehrmacht Retreats, p. 281 cautions: "We need to write the history of the war year 1943 with a complete absence of romance. The Wehrmacht was not defending the fatherland. It was fighting to hold far-flung conquests it had made in a brutal war of aggression--the very definition of ill-gotten gains."

Where the article does make use of recent scholarship, cherrypicked citations and OR sometimes result in a distorted representation; see the 'Smiling Al' example from the lead above. Another example, in re: the German

• 2016: Talk:Albert Kesselring#Third-party sources needed
• 2018: Talk:Albert Kesselring#Featured article review
• 2019: Talk:Albert Kesselring#Feb 2019 edit

I have attempted to resolve the issues by editing the article to add sources and remove Kesselring's self-serving POV. However, most of my edits were reverted on the grounds that "Tweaking the wording is not acceptable. The wording has been carefully reviewed...". Based on the inability to resolve the issues of sourcing, neutrality, and context, and after discussing with the FA nominator [3], I'm bringing the article to community review. --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:08, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Featured article review

I do not agree that the article does not reflect the most recent scholarship nor FA best practices, but am willing to workshop the issues you raise. I choose to start with the part about Operation Diadem. This issue here is how good a general Kesselring was. I have not read Citino's books; I was under the impression that he wrote popular histories and did not discuss logistics. I have asked the university library to acquire Wehrmacht's Last Stand. In the meantime, I do have a copy of the most recent book on Kesselring, Andrew Sangster's Field-Marshal Kesselring: Great Commander or War Criminal? (2015), based on his PhD thesis (which I also have). In a nutshell, Sangster's thesis is that it is not that Kesselring was so great, but that his opponents, Alexander and Clark, were such poor generals. Neither enjoys a great reputation. Germany and the Second World War (Vol VIII, pp. 1150-1151) does not support the claim of a German intelligence failure, and this seems unlikely when everyone knew that after two attempts, the Allies would make a third the break the Gustav Line. On the other hand, there is no doubt that Kesselring was caught off-balance by the landings at Anzio, having committed his reserves to the Garigliano front, which was precisely what Clark wanted him to do. Germany and the Second World War notes that Kesselring was caught off-guard by the rapid French advance through difficult terrain. It also says: " The American general [Clark]'s ego-centric coup saved the German Tenth Army, at least temporarily" (p. 1153), citing both German and British sources. The text therefore aligns with the current consensus among historians. It could be expanded though. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:49, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Szzuk

Comment. The article contains a significant amount of POV which downplays his status as a war criminal.

Von Lingen describes the post-war situation very persuasively like this "After the war the Federal government bought the release of their war criminals including Kesselring".^[1] "In return for Kesselring's death sentence being commuted and release on "health grounds", the Federal government received enough support within Germany to begin making a military contribution to the defence of Western Europe".^[2] Veterans began using Kesselring to determine a new narrative of the past that absolved Kesselring of responsibility for his war crimes".^[2] The British government, concerned with the growing Cold War, released Kesselring in order to encourage the Federal government to join the European Defence Council and NATO.^[3] The British decided releasing a few "iconic" war criminals was a price worth paying for the support of West Germany.^[3]

The article using exactly the same source instead says this;

The death verdict against Kesselring unleashed a storm of protest in the United Kingdom. Former British Prime Minister Winston Churchill immediately branded it as too harsh and intervened in favour of Kesselring. Field Marshal Alexander, then Governor General of Canada, sent a telegram to Prime Minister Clement Attlee in which he expressed his hope that Kesselring's sentence would be commuted. "As his old opponent on the battlefield", he stated, "I have no complaints against him. Kesselring and his soldiers fought against us hard but clean."^[4] Alexander had expressed his admiration for Kesselring as a military commander as early as 1943. In his 1961 memoirs Alexander paid tribute to Kesselring as a commander who "showed great skill in extricating himself from the desperate situations into which his faulty intelligence had led him".^[5] Alexander's sentiments were echoed by Lieutenant General Sir Oliver Leese, who had commanded the British Eighth Army in the Italian campaign. In a May 1947 interview, Leese said he was "very sad" to hear of what he considered "British victor's justice" being imposed on Kesselring, an "extremely gallant soldier who had fought his battles fairly and squarely".^[6] Lord de L'Isle, who had been awarded the Victoria Cross for gallantry at Anzio, raised the issue in the House of Lords.^[7] Szzuk (talk) 10:09, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The two passages are talking about very different things. The latter is about the imposition of the death penalty; the former is about Kesselring's release from prison. The latter is entirely about the British POV; the former is where it intersects the German one. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:40, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Nom's comment: The perception that
  Robert Citino writes popular histories is not correct. Citino specialises in the operational history of the Wehrmacht; he has held a number of academic positions and is a practising military historian who publishes with a university publisher, University Press of Kansas, same as Lingen. To anyone interested in Citino's work, I can recommend his lectures on Youtube, such as on Wehrmacht's campaigns in 1943: "Fighting a Lost War"
  . His writing style is equally engaging.

• I've obtained copies of the two books of his in question. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:27, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

On Szzuk observation, I also found that Lingen is used selectively and with an apologist bend; the book does not leave this impression at all. I already cited two examples: "Smiling Albert" in the lead and the treatment of the 1943 disarmament of the Italian army, Operation Axis (see #Nomination statement). Another example from the article:

The language in the article suggests that there was something improper about the trials or that perhaps they were illegitimate. Lingen details several challenges and questions to be resolved (pp. 73-74), but page 73 does not leave the impression of the trial being on a "shaky legal basis". The source is again being misread. --K.e.coffman (talk) 03:34, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Von Lingen says:

I think the article fairly summaries the text. It also makes it clear that crimes were committed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:03, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Smiling Albert" was a name given by the Allies on account of the fact that he was always smiling in the pictures they had of him. (Regrettably, he isn't smiling in any of the pictures in the article.) Given the circumstances, I don't think it was intended as a complement, and likely played to the wartime stereotype of the arrogant German general. You're quite right that it should also be in the body of the article; it will be an action item. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:03, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kesselring was only responsible for the 1943 disarmament in southern Italy. All I could find in his area was the shooting of Ferrante Gonzaga; but if you have another incident, it can be included. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:03, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. The POV is being supported by the 20+ primary refs and a misreading of Lingen. There are eulogies such as the block quote beginning "Furthermore, we knew that in command of these forces was Field Marshal Albert Kesselring, one of the ablest officers in the Hitler armies." Szzuk (talk) 15:27, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  It was not a eulogy, it was written by his opponent, Mark W. Clark, and was written in 1950, while Kesselring was not only still alive, but still in prison. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:19, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. In 1937 he was in charge of the Luftwaffe and he cancelled the long range ural bomber program. The lack of a strategic bomber was a major fiasco. This isn't noted, instead the article argues he wasn't really responsible. Szzuk (talk) 10:07, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Have you got a good source for this? I originally wrote: Like many ex-Army officers, he tended to see air power in the tactical role, providing support to land operations. He rejected strategic bombing and cancelled the Ural bomber. The current text was written by Dapi89, who knows more about the subject of Luftwaffe doctrine. In what way was the bomber program a fiasco, and what was Kesselrinmg's role? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:20, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Unfortunately my institution does not have access to this source but it looks relevant to this discussion: https://brill.com/view/book/edcoll/9789004363762/B9789004363762_016.xml AugusteBlanqui (talk) 12:12, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Nor mine, but I have asked them to consider purchasing it. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:27, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• They got it for me! Looks very interesting. I will be reading it this week. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:15, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Sourcing a controversial figure to his own memoirs has given rise to POV. Should we also use Mein Kampf to source the Adolf Hitler article? Szzuk (talk) 14:38, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Drmies

A few comments

I see serious problems with neutrality, some problems with the writing, and in the few cases where I checked the sources, more problems.

• "At the age of 48, he...", this is essentially self-praise translated into Wikipedia's voice. Drmies (talk) 00:46, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Well, we made a big thing about it in the articles on Ernie King, Bill Halsey and John McCain Sr. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:57, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• "Like many ex-Army officers..." contains way too much irrelevant stuff (and extraneous detail is found in other place; this is possibly accretion since 2009, I don't know). Drmies (talk) 00:46, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm always loath to remove additions that other editors think are important. In this case, I think it is relevant; it talks of the dictrine of the Luftwaffe, how it differed from that of English-speaking Air Forces, and the influence that ex-Army officers like Kesselring had. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:01, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Kesselring himself "would be shot down"? The war is over y'all: he "was shot down". Drmies (talk) 00:46, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Corrected this one - I was leaving the big ticket items for later in the review. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:57, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• "Kesselring was able to fly solo over the front in his Focke-Wulf Fw 189." -- it sounds like Cary Grant going out on the town, in Monte Carlo or so
• "Flying his Fieseler Fi 156 Storch to a meeting," Oh! he got a new set of wheels
• "For the Battle of Gazala, Rommel divided his command in two..." paragraph doesn't become relevant to Kesselring until halfway through. Drmies (talk) 00:46, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, the article has lots of bits where the importance becomes clear later. Otherwise I would have to jump back and forth in the chronology. The bits mentioned above about his replacement of Mackensen with Lemelsen, and Allied attitudes towards the Italians pertain to later in the article. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:57, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• "The Allied invasion of Sicily..." is way too full of insignificant military detail about what plane killed what boat or whatever. Drmies (talk) 00:46, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  This can be trimmed back. Will mark as an action item. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:57, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• "Kesselring returned to Sicily by flying boat on 16 July..." more new wheels!
• "On the Greek island of Kefalonia – outside Kesselring's command – some 5,000 Italian troops of the 33 Mountain Infantry Division Acqui were massacred." Why is this in here? if it is outside of his command, why mention it? Or is it here to suggest that some other dude was much worse than this dude, who so far has only had one Italian commander shot? Drmies (talk) 00:46, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't think this is a well-known incident, and goes to what k.e.coffman was talking about. I didn't want to soft-peddle

  Operation Axis. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:57, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• "The Luftwaffe scored a notable success ..." (in the bombing by those Stukas of that port): why is that in here? Drmies (talk) 00:46, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Three things: (1) another reminder that Kesselring is an Air Force field marshal; (2) a refute of the claim that he fought a purely defensive campaign; and (3) demonstrates that his intelligence wasn't always bad. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:57, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• The entire "Actions affecting population and cultural objects" section reads like hagiography. In fact, it reads as if the Nazis are concerned to a great extent with preserving Italy's treasures, while the Allies just go in and bomb the shit out of Rome. I don't doubt they bombed Rome fifty times, but the little footnote, note 5 (which, sad to say, actually constitutes editorial commentary), indicates that the whole "open city" thing (which isn't even ascribed to Kesselring other than by "he supported it") can be seen as a ruse as well. (and there is way too much material on the events in Italy in 1943). Drmies (talk) 00:46, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's not all, though, in that paragraph. I wondered about the source of the approbatory "...as far as he was able, attempted...", whether it came out of his memoirs. The note is to Fisher's Casino to the Alps. Whether that source is completely acceptable (it is, after all, a publication by the US Armed Forces, and even an impressive editorial board doesn't mean that one can't question to which extent they participated in the well-known myth making) or not is one thing, but surely any editor can see that the paragraph I just pointed at is not found on p. 290 of that book: the only thing there is the destruction of buildings on either side of the Ponte Vecchio. And this is not unimportant, given content and tenor of these paragraphs. Drmies (talk) 00:46, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    This is indeed a major issue, with multiple aspects. The German record on preserving cultural artefacts has to include the theft of artworks by Göring and others. Failure to adequately protect cultural objects is a war crime. It is also true that several times as many deaths were caused by Allied bombing as by German and Italian reprisals. I deliberately didn't mention this, but I guess we need to. (Kesselring denied knowledge of the theft of artworks, but not of the final solution; his mention of often flying over Dachau was removed by another editor as non-neutral.) This goes again to the treatment of Italy as not being an Ally, which is how Kesselring escaped being executed. I'll admit the open city footnote is a bit of an editorial by my Italian collaborator, but it was a war crime to bombard an undefended city. Kesselring was accused of this, and it also goes to the argument about other bombings. The American defence was that there were armament factories in Rome. I will mark removal of the editorial as an action item. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:57, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Open City was a sincere initiative that was pushed by the Pope Pius XII, but the concept is not widely understood. It allows for troops to pass through the city. (The Allies were happy about this, as they expected to occupy Rome.) The Americans were very sensitive about Rome, and there was an Allied agreement at Quebec in May 1943 that it should not be bombed without mutual consent, but the British were opposed to the concept from the start. Of course, the British were far more enthusiastic about the idea of knocking Italy out of the war. After Badoglio unilaterally declared Rome an Open City on 14 September 1943, Eisenhower ordered all bombing to halt while the Combined Chiefs considered the matter. The Americans and British could not agree. I have incorporated more material on this into the article. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:10, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I think I've seen enough: non-neutral and sometimes tendentious writing and at least some examples of poor sourcing. But the kicker is this: Hawkeye7, who should know better, restores the "jolly uncle Albert" to the lead, when the "Later life" section basically shows an unrepentant Nazi who wipes his behind with the orders of the government nextdoor, continues to support the myth of a clean German army, and on top of it defends the Marzabotto massacre. That OUR article calls him happy popular Uncle Albert, touring Europe in an assortment of airplances, and leaves the fact that he was, in fact, an unrepentant Nazi in the very bottom of the article, that is clear enough. I do not think this qualifies as an FA, but one could make some immediate improvement by undoing Hawkeye's unwise revert, to return some sense of neutrality to the lead. Drmies (talk) 00:46, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If that's the impression you got from reading the article, I think I did pretty well. The term "smiling Albert" is commonly used for Kesselring; almost every reference I have refers to it. (Some mistakenly thought that it was a German monicker rather than an Allied one, so I was asked to correct that impression.) I tried to refute the "clean hands" myth by including details of massacres committed by each branch. Kesselring's administrative authority really only extended to the Heer and the Luftwaffe; the SS and the Herman Göring Division were outside his control. However, he was loath to admit that, and the Yamashita case makes it uncertain in any case. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:57, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The impression that I got was indeed that it's not an FA. Is that what you succeeded in? What a strange comment. Here's the thing: no. I am sure that every reference you have also refers to him as a killer, guilty of mass murder. It was your choice to put "Uncle Albert" in the lead, in the very first paragraph. One of the hallmarks of POV is to present a fact out of context at the expense of others, with the goal to skew the reader's perception. You have done so successfully. And I think I have indicated well enough that throughout the article there are bits and pieces whose purpose seems to be to deflect blame in various ways. Certainly it's enough for a POV tag. Drmies (talk) 03:05, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Smiling Albert" was in the very first paragraph of the lead long before I started editing Wikipedia. [4] I corrected it by adding the Uncle Albert reference. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:49, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. The article uses the nickname the allies gave him, "Smiling Albert", to convey the meaning he was a jovial character. He was given that nickname because he had a nervous tic that turned the corners of his mouth up uncontrollably. It was an insult, and using an insult to present to the reader the exact opposite is egregious POV. The article is full of it. No work has been done since the start of this FAR. Szzuk (talk) 20:50, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Patience. I am working on it. There has been a search for new material, and I have read through Citino's books, as recommended by Koffman. I will be making a series of changes over the next two weeks. My internet access is limited at the moment. The article does not use the nickname to convey that he was a jovial character (not that it would make a difference if he was). There was no intention to convey that it was not intended as an insult. I'm really running out of patience with writers who have misunderstood the nickname as being one applied by his own troops instead of the American media. The text needs to be and will be strengthened. Also: a citation for the nervous tic would be greatly appreciated. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:44, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  The sentence "Nicknamed "Smiling Albert" by the Allies and "Uncle Albert" by his troops, he was one of the most popular generals of World War II with the rank and file." implies a relationship between being a popular general and being called "Smiling Albert", which the note clarifying that one was used by the Allies and the other by the Germans does nothing to dispel. I don't think Szzuk's inference is unwarranted or uncharitable; that's certainly how it reads to me too in the context of the article. —Nizolan ^(talk) 14:42, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Sure. I will re-work it. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:39, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Response

I was originally asked to work on an improve this article as part of an overall push to improve the articles on key German military figures of the Second World War. This was in 2007, and I was new to Wikipedia. (This is what the article looked like at the time) As you can probably guess, the push completely failed and only this article got improved. The reader interest in the subject was demonstrated though; when it ran as RFA, it got nearly 100,000 page views—more than any other featured article article I've worked on. This was in my early days on Wikipedia. It discussed it at a Wikipedia meet up at the National Library, and expressed my concern that the topic was too controversial for Wikipedia. They disagreed, and said that shouldn't come into it. So I took the assignment on. My assessment was correct, as was my belief that it was uneconomical for me to work on it.

At the time, there were only two real sources in English: Kesselring's memoirs and Macksey's book. Contrary to what Drmies says, sources in English published between 1954 and 2004 do not characterise Kesselring as a war criminal but largely omit this, and uniformly laud him as a great general. Fortunately, I found Kerstin von Lingen's book in German. The whole article largely follows her narrative, although her book is not a biography per se (no one is better qualified to write one though). She informed me that an English translation was under way, so I commenced work on the article. An artefact of my early Wikipedia engagement can be seen in the formatting of the footnotes. To me, it is also visible in the way that errors in the sources are handled. Rather than single out people for their mistakes, which is of no value to the reader, I quietly corrected them. The "Smiling Albert" nickname, for example, is in some sources speculated to have been given to him by his post-war captors, but I found that it was in use as early as 1940. I have tried to address the concerns expressed by this review, and have incorporated additional works and scholarship. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:09, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note: Can we get an update of where things are at with this nomination? K.e.coffman what concerns remain? Nikkimaria (talk) 17:49, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

August 2019 update

The concerns expressed during this FAR (#Nomination statement & #A few comments) remain largely unaddressed. They include:

1. Content failing verification
2. Use of an unreliable & dated primary source, including presenting subject’s self-serving narratives in Wikipedia’s voice
3. Failure to reflect recent scholarship
4. POV writing
5. Omission of relevant context
6. Selective reading of sources w/ cherry-picked citations

--K.e.coffman (talk) 20:39, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

None of this is true.

1. All of the content in the article is fully referenced
2. The use of the subject's memoirs has been handled carefully and in accord with best practice.
3. Recent scholarship has been incorporated into the article. Starting with Kirsten von Lingen's book and articles, which have formed the backbone of the article. When an editor suggested a newly-published source I acquired it, and incorporated it into the article
4. The article reflects the consensus of opinion among historians and not the
   WP:FRINGE
   views of POV-pushers
5. I have repeatedly refuted attempts to misquote and misrepresent the sources.

I have worked on the article in good faith. I recommend that the review be closed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 12:36, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I concur - valid concerns were raised above but Hawkeye has since made edits/provided reasoned arguments to address these. As an example, mention was made to Citino as examples of more recent scholarship and his books are now cited as a source. I note that a couple of comments were made in respect of Kesselring's role in strategic bombing and his nervous tic but the reviewer hasn't substantiated that despite Hawkeye's request to do so. Some comments struck me as being more a case of "I don't like it" and application of a higher standard for this article compared to other Featured Articles. Assessing the comments above in full, there are still a few minor things that could be tidied up but these aren't on a scale that would its affect its FA status IMHO. Zawed (talk) 09:22, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I share Drmies' concerns expressed above. The first paragraph of the lede characterizes him as an avuncular figure, popular with his men, and an accomplished general. That may well be true; no doubt many of Hitler's followers were loyal to him, as, no doubt, were Eva Braun and Blondi. But mention of Kesselring's war crimes is deferred to the last paragraph of the lede. Those crimes, and the enormity of those crimes, should be mentioned first.

I estimate to bring this article up to current FAC standards would require a 20% rewrite from circa 400 edits. Merely to remove the POV would require a 5% rewrite from 100 edits. Since the start of this FAR the edits have been low in number and tangential to concerns expressed. Szzuk (talk) 21:43, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Since the start of there process there have been 60 edits adding 20,000 bytes of new material, increasing the article size from 110,000 to 130,000 bytes. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:42, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• FYI--I've cross-posted the review at NPOVN: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Albert Kesselring featured article review. K.e.coffman (talk) 12:09, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• @Nikkimaria: in view of the unresolved issues and the strong criticisms from uninvolved editors (Drmies, Kablammo, Szzuk), I believe this needs to be moved to the second phase now. I note especially Drmies' comment, which would have looked even stronger if shown as a whole, rather than broken up by Hawkeye's insertions. Bishonen | talk 20:07, 13 August 2019 (UTC).[reply]
• I am not sure what the next step in this process is, but I agree that there should be a next step. I still find it hard to believe that this tripe about these two nicknames is in the first paragraph of the lead, for starters--and that this wouldn't be addressed after it was pointed out. Drmies (talk) 22:17, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I may have misunderstood you. You feel that the nickname should not be in the lead? I left it there because it is a common appellation that appears in most sources, that nicknames usually appear in the lead and the infobox, and it has been there since January 2004 - over 15 years - so it had an implied consensus for inclusion. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:42, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by PM

Having read the article through a couple of times now, I have a few questions and comments regarding it meeting the FA criteria:

• I added in that he was a war criminal into the first sentence, this was a significant flaw in the lead, but it seems to have taken.

  It wasn't there because being a war criminal was not on the notability list in

  WP:PERPETRATOR. As I said above, for half a century this aspect was not considered worth more than a footnote (or even noteworthy at all) in the sources. Interest in the post-World War II war crimes trials revived in the early 2000s as a result of the wars in the Balkans and Iraq. Most of the literature was from legal sources, and was very negative, focusing on the dodgy rules of evidence in military trials, and the Americans' use of torture to extract confessions. However, von Lingen was one of the historians who pushed back, with her work in Europe and later in Australia, and it provided us with a new source on Kesselring, with a lot of material gathered from non-English sources. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:29, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  Notability guidelines aren't relevant for what is included in the

  first sentence, they relate to whether there should be an article on him in the first place. The first sentence should establish notability, he is known for being a senior German commander and for his involvement in killing of civilians, the latter being well-represented in the literature by 2009, so it should have been there then. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:31, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• I can see the argument for the use of Kesselring's memoirs for straightforward biographical material or for his opinion on something, although I have concerns about it being used to support material written in Wikipedia's voice, which is the way it is currently used. I think the answer to this is to introduce what is being referred to as Kesselring, The Memoirs of Field Marshal Kesselring (BTW is this Gedanken zum Zweiten Weltkrieg or Soldat bis zum letzten Tag? The citation is unclear) when it is first used, something along the lines of "In his 1955/1970 memoirs, Kesselring wrote that..." and then from that point on, especially when anything he says is possibly controversial or self-serving, using something like "Kesselring wrote that..." "According to Kesselring..." "Kesselring later claimed that..." etc. This would largely resolve my concerns with the use of the memoirs

  The The Memoirs of Field Marshal Kesselring is the English translation of Soldat bis zum letzten Tag. Gedanken zum Zweiten Weltkrieg has never been translated into English. For the record, nearly every source makes some use of Kesselring's memoirs. I think you'll find that the memoirs are used for some biographical material in the early years, and sparingly thereafter. There is a couple of "According to his memoirs" in the article. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:29, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  The citations remain unclear, because the citations to Soldier to the Last Day shouldn't say The Memoirs of Field Marshal Kesselring, they should say Soldier to the Last Day so the reader knows what book in the References is being referred to. The lack of in-text attribution is a major hurdle in my opinion. Just because historians have used Kesselring's memoirs doesn't mean we should use them directly and in Wikipedia's voice. Historians are expected to analyse the memoirs and sift through the self-serving stuff, check facts etc. Kesselring's words are primary and not independent of the subject, so they need to be attributed except when used for basic biographical information. Nearly all of the Poland section relies directly on his memoirs, there are numerous examples of where his word is taken as gospel for what happened. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:01, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  The citations are all to the English translation and not to the original German. I have corrected the reference. Soldat bis zum letzten Tag was published in 1953, and an English translation appeared that year. It was reprinted in 1988 and 2007 as The Memoirs of Field Marshal Kesselring. As far as I can tell, all the English editions have the same page numbers. Saying "in his 1953 memoirs" is fine. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:14, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  I have now attributed in-text all the material from Kesselring's memoirs that I consider needs to be. If this sticks, I will be voting "keep". Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:27, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Kesselring was in charge of the bombing of Warsaw in September 1939, but nothing is really said about what was an example of terror bombing like Rotterdam and Belgrade

  Although described as such at the time, the modern consensus is that this was unintended, and that the accuracy of bombing of was grossly over-estimated in those days. I expanded on this in the Rotterdam section, using the recent work of Dutch and German historians. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:29, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'll do a light c/e and provide some more comments as they come to mind. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:46, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• it is a little unclear when he went back into uniform, as he was promoted to Generalmajor in 1934 but the Luftwaffe wasn't created until 1935?

  That's all I have, I'm afraid. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:29, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• the two paras beginning "Like many ex-Army officers" interrupt the narrative and would probably be better in a Legacy section

  re-thought this, created a new section at the same point in the article to encompass this material Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:38, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• the Poland section needs a better narrative flow, perhaps by inserting the second para after "Fedor von Bock" and making the new second para the rest of the first para plus the sentence about the Knight's Cross award

  Have done this also. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:39, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd like to get an idea of the losses incurred by his Luftflotten over Britain and the Soviet Union

  Between 22 June and 5 December 1941, the seven Luftwaffe fighter wings lost 382 aircraft. Soviet sources give their losses as 21,200, of which at least 10,000 were destroyed in air combat. Added this. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:29, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Down to Allied invasion of Sicily. Maybe more to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:17, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• "Thus, Kesselring's conviction became "a legal prerequisite if perpetrators of war crimes were to be found guilty by Italian courts"" doesn't make sense to me. What is meant by that?

  I'm not sure, although it is a correct quote. I have removed. it. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 07:28, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• what happened to Krummhaar?

  Typo there. Corrected. It was Waldemar Krumhaar. He was sentenced to five years and released in 1950. Unfortunately, I can't find a RS to add this. [5] I wanted to refute the "clean hands" myth so I deliberately selected names from the Heer, Luftwaffe, Kriegsmarine and SS. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 07:28, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'm done with the c/e. I'll implement some of the above. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:48, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Sturmvogel_66

• This needs to go unless it can be confirmed by a RS: According to Kesselring, while he was flying his
  ground attack aircraft
  . His strike was successful; the British force suffered heavy losses and was forced to pull back.

  I have removed this, and re-sourced the paragraphs to Germany and the Second World War. Because one of Kesselring's contentions is now backed up by Stumpf (who cites and quotes radio messages, not the memoirs) I have removed one "According to Kesselring". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:10, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• including General der Infantrie Enno von Rintelen, the German liaison officer at the Italian Commando Supremo, who spoke fluent Italian Why is this important?

  Removed "who spoke fluent Italian". I think I included this titbit to show how close von Rintelen was to the Italians. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:10, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete the info about his nicknames from the lede. It's enough that they're covered in the main body.

  Removed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:10, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:05, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by K.e.coffmand

Lead through the Poland section

• "...became one of
  Robert Citino for a different opinion. --K.e.coffman (talk) 23:58, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  So I did. This is what he has to say:

• So this is his summation of the consensus among historians. The historians Citino refers to are

  Dominick Graham, Shelford Bidwell and Douglas Porch

  . Citino's own verdict: "Kesselring handled the campaign skilfully, giving a bravara performance." (p. 274)

• No, this is not a consensus among historians. Citino disagrees with characterisation of Kesselring as a defensive genius; The Wehrmacht Retreats, 2012, p. 272: "Kesselring presided over the loss of 415,000 men (...). Even as a limited campaign of delay and attrition, the German defence of Italy was an utter failure." So does Sangster. These books are recent scholarship, so this should be reflected. At the very least, should be phrased as "some historians, such as ..., consider Kesselring ..., while other historians, such as ..., hold the opinion that ..." etc. When sourced disagree, both positions should be reflected. --K.e.coffman (talk) 18:13, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Awkward construction: "He won the respect of his Allied opponents for his military accomplishments, but his record was marred..." (italics mine) --K.e.coffman (talk) 23:58, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• "He was one of only three officers with the rank of Generalfeldmarschall to publish his memoirs..." --
  WP:OR and trivia. --K.e.coffman (talk) 23:58, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  Not trivia, because it goes to notability, but it does border on

  WP:OR, so removed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:58, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• Thank you. --K.e.coffman (talk) 18:13, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Lead is missing information on Kesselring's later career as detailed in the Albert Kesselring#Later life section. --K.e.coffman (talk) 23:58, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Added his leadership of veterans' organizations. His book is already there. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:58, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• This change to the lead is not exactly what I had in mind: [6]. Recitation of orgs that Kesselring headed does not add to our understanding of the subject. Lingen and Sangster both devote a chapter each to this period of Kesselring's life, focusing on his public persona. E.g. "Kesselring himself fritted away the goodwill he initially enjoyed as a WWII military icon"; "Kesselring's demand [that war criminals be released] soon caused an unwelcome spotlight to be shown on the British clemency program" (Lingen, pp. 238-239).

• "Kesselring wrote that as chief of administration, he had to assemble his new staff from scratch. He was involved in the re-establishment of the aviation industry and the construction of secret factories, forging alliances with industrialists and aviation engineers."^[1] -- unnecessary self-congratulations. --K.e.coffman (talk) 23:58, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  I think this is a reasobale summation of what he did. O will have a look at what Boog has to say... Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:58, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• "In his memoirs, he stated that first-hand knowledge of all aspects of aviation was essential to being able to command airmen, although he was well aware that latecomers like himself did not impress the old pioneers or the young aviators."^[1] -- unnecessary Kesselring's POV. --K.e.coffman (talk) 23:58, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  The issue of non-rated officers is a controversial one in many navies and air forces. In the US there area actually laws about it, so it is of interest to the reader. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:58, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• This article is a biography of Kesselring, not about Kesselring's opinion that may or may not be relevant to a controversy that readers may not even know exists. --K.e.coffman (talk) 18:13, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• "Kesselring wrote that he gave a high priority to attacks on airfields, barracks and naval installations, while strategic targets like armament factories were not attacked because it was anticipated that the campaign would be a short one in which Polish production would not have a significant impact.^[2] (...) The Polish Air Force earned his respect.^[2] Kesselring considered that Polish pilots and aircraft were not inferior,..."^[2] -- unnecessary & POV. From other literature, we know that German air operations involved bombing of undefended localities, strafing of civilians, and so on. In this context, A paragraph of Kesselring's claims of prioritising military installations and his musings on the abilities of Polish airmen strike me as POV. --K.e.coffman (talk) 23:58, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Refuting the myth that the Polish air force was destroyed on the ground, or the pilots and aircraft were inferior. If you have a good source for the air war over Poland, it could be used. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:58, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Again, this is a bio of Kesselring; it's not necessary to "refute" a myth that readers may not know exists. In any case, my point was about the ommission of indiscriminate bombing of civilian targets, strafing of refugees, etc. Through ommission and giving undue weight to Kesselring's apologia, this is POV writing. --K.e.coffman (talk) 18:13, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• "According to his memoirs, Kesselring strove to provide the best possible close air support to the ground forces and used the flexibility of air power to concentrate all available air strength at critical points, such as during the Battle of the Bzura. He attempted to cut the Polish communications by making a series of air attacks against Warsaw, but found that even 1,000 kg (2,200 lb) bombs could not ensure that bridges would be destroyed..^[2] -- POV and unnecessary self-congratulations. --K.e.coffman (talk) 23:58, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  That he failed to accomplish what he set out to do? Hardly. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:58, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Again, my point is not being addressed. "strove to provide the best..." is self-congratulations, cited to Kesselring's vainglorious memoirs. --K.e.coffman (talk) 18:13, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• The article does not mention Kesselring's support for National Socialism, his silence on the ejection of Jewish soldiers from the armed forces, and loyalty to Hitler; see Lingen pp. 23, 24 & 27, respectively. --K.e.coffman (talk) 23:58, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Von Lingen cites Kesselring's memoirs, and I can't find this. I could be only in the German. Do you have a copy of Soldat?

• Why is Kesselring's memoir needed here when this is covered in Lingen? I even provided the pages. Please help me understand why we would look for this info in Soldat. --K.e.coffman (talk) 18:13, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Loyalty to Hitler is covered in many places, including his response to the bomb plot, and informing Hitler of the surrender negotiations in Italy. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:58, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• No, it is not. The world "loyalty" appears in re: 1944 bomb plot. I was referring to Kesselring's support for Hitler's policies in the 1930s. This is covered in Lingen p. 27 & should be reflected in the article. Instead, we get the image of Kesselring as an apolitical technocrat; the image he himself cultivated in his memoirs. --K.e.coffman (talk) 18:13, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Western Europe

• (A bit more on the lead): Suggest removing: "...one of the most highly decorated, being one of only 27 soldiers awarded the Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross with Oak Leaves, Swords and Diamonds." It's routine for field marshals to be highly decorated or to receive rare awards, while this statement -- prominently placed in the 1st para -- reads like a panegyric.

• "Kesselring's Luftflotte 1 (...) remained in the east on garrison duty, establishing new airbases and an air raid precautions network in occupied Poland. (...) Kesselring flew to his new headquarters at Münster the very next day, 13 January 1940. As Felmy's chief of staff, Generalmajor Josef Kammhuber, had also been relieved, Kesselring brought his own chief of staff, Generalmajor Wilhelm Speidel, with him."^[1] -- A self-sourced paragraph with excessive & POV details about "establishing new airbases and an air raid precautions network", Kesselring flying out "the very next day", and a mention of a nn chief of staff.

• "Arriving in the west, Kesselring found Luftflotte 2 operating in support of von Bock's
  Fortress Holland" area. The paratroopers were from General der Flieger Kurt Student's airborne forces, which depended on a quick link-up with the mechanised forces. To facilitate this, Kesselring promised von Bock the fullest possible close air support. Air and ground operations, however, were to commence simultaneously, so there would be no time to suppress the defending Royal Netherlands Air Force.^[2]
  " -- Yet another self-sourced paragraph (second in a row), about the burdens that Kesselring had to bear ("inherited a complex air plan requiring precise timing over several hours...") and striving to provide "the fullest possible close air support".

• "The
  Battle of the Netherlands commenced on 10 May 1940. Initial air operations went well, and the German fighters and bombers soon gained the upper hand against the small Dutch air force.^[3]
  " -- POV language of "Initial air operations went well". Went well for whom?

• "After the surrender of the
  in Belgium while still providing support for the fast-moving ground troops. The Battle of France was going well, (...).^[3]
  -- Yet more of self-sourced achievements & the battle "going well", full stop.

• "In his memoirs, Kesselring described that decision as a "fatal error", because it left the burden of preventing the Allied evacuation of Dunkirk to the air force, hampered by poor flying weather and staunch opposition from the Royal Air Force."^[4] -- More POV self-citations about the literal "burden" that was forced upon Kesselring.

• More Kesselring's self-sourced musings, now with a prominent quote box:

I've counted 50+ total citations to Kesselring's memoirs. It should be remembered that this source is not independent, not secondary, and in several important respects not reliable. Who knows what he's omitted, obfuscated, or lied about? The use of this source is excessive and not in line with

WP:PRIMARY, let alone in an FA. --K.e.coffman (talk) 14:15, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Soviet Union to Tunisia

• The sourcing in the Soviet Union section is especially poor. Nine out of 10 citations are to primary, dated and non-independent sources. They are Kesselring (again) and Hermann Plocher, a former Luftwaffe general working for the US Air Force Historical Division; the working link is this: [7]. This section is truly stuck in the 1950s, with sources from the earlier stages of the Cold War. In contrast, Germany and the Second World War, Vol. IV, has a different take on Kesselring's performance in this campaign.

• The library's copy of the book was lost in the great flood of 2018, but I have obtained a copy. Kesselring is mentioned eleven times, on pages 335, 359, 363, 366, 664, 765, 770, 774, 783, 811, 822. Page 335 notes Kesselring's doubts about whether invading the Soviet Union was a sensible idea (sourced to his memoirs); 359 notes how he arranged for additional transport the Luftwaffe to follow the panzers (sourced to his memoirs); 363 is an org chart; 366 merely notes that he was in command of Luftlotte 2; 765 is Kesselring's comment of the Soviet air opposition (sourced to his memoirs); 770 is his comment of the battle of Smolensk (sourced to his memoirs); 774 is probably what you were thinking of, his "high-handed" decision to support the II Army advance, which Boog says "proved to be correct"; 783 is his thoughts on the advance on Moscow (sourced to his memoirs); 811 is about Kesselring ordering air attacks on Moscow "half-heartedly", which Boog again agrees with; and 822 is about Kesselring attitude towards cooperation with the Army (sourced to his memoirs). Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:26, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Sourcing is better in the sections on Mediterranean and North Africa and then on Tunisia, but there's still Kesselring's self-sourced POV ("as Kesselring later wrote..."; "Kesselring strove...", "He succeeded...", "Kesselring managed to..." etc), plus POV writing, i.e. "Things went well at first" -- went well for whom? Douglas Porch's The Path to Victory has two dozen entries in the index for Kesselring in re: this period; it's recent scholarship and Kesselring's 1950s memoirs are simply not needed when secondary sources are available.

  I don't have that book, but I do have two recent works: Gooderstein, A Hard Way to Make a War (2008) and Holland, Italy's Sorrow (2008). Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:26, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• This is problematic: "...but was known as "Uncle Albert" by his troops. He was one of the most popular generals of World War II with the German rank and file. His popularity was enhanced by frequent, often unannounced, visits to the front line."^[1]

Lingen is misplaced in the Tunisia section, as she does not refer to a particular period, but makes a general observation. Further, Lingen is cited selectively and out of context, as she continues in the same para to describe the Kesselring myth, contrasting the manufactured image of an affable general with his actions in Italy:

As we have noted, von Lingen is in error on this point, the sobriquet "Smiling Al" is not a post-war construct. I put the observation (which applies to the whole war) in the Tunisian section with another comment to that effect. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:26, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I did not notice that Lingen is in error. Instead she writes that Kesselring was called "Uncle Albert" by his troops and "Smiling Al" by the Allies, i.e. during the war. She notes that it was that early image, upon which memorists seized later on. (p. 16)--Assayer (talk) 11:41, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I provided the very same quote box in my #Nomination statement; I see that the content got relocated from the lead into the body, but the problems with it still remain. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:44, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Assayer

In recent years Kesselring’s biography has been thoroughly analyzed in three main respects.

1. How Kesselring shaped the way war was waged in Italy.
2. How the Allies dealt with war crimes after the war.
3. How the Kesselring case shaped the ways in which the war was remembered in post-war Germany.

Reviewing the article, I think that it falls seriously short of addressing these issues and that it does not make full use of the available sources. (Lingen, Raiber, Sangster, to name only recent monographs dealing exclusively with Kesselring)

• The nature and consequences of Kesselring’s anti-partisan policies are not fully analyzed. Historians like Lutz Klinkhammer, Gerhard Schreiber, Ben Sheperd, and Kerstin von Lingen have all made clear that Kesselring was responsible for escalating the war in Italy during the summer of 1944. The severity of Kesselring’s order of June 1944 went against the more restrained Merkblatt 69/2 issued by the OKW in May 1944. I do not think that the real point is, that “subsequently” massacres were carried out, but that, as Ben Sheperd has argued, frontline units made full use of the license given to them by Kesselring. “Many of the actions committed by the Germans were not reprisals for specific partisan actions, but terror measures aimed at purportedly ‘pro-bandit’ populations.” (Hitler’s Soldiers, p. 412.) The article fails to provide a sufficient account of German warfare against “partisans”, which has been covered extensively by Klinkhammer, Schreiber and Carlo Gentile, to name only a few historians, particularly given the many words spent on the Italian campaign in general and Kesselring’s “defensive genius”. It is not only that the name of Kesselring, whose signature appeared on posters and printed orders announcing draconian measures adopted by the German occupation, had become synonymous with the oppression and terror that had characterised the German occupation. He was not simply blamed. Instead, historians do indeed argue, that Kesselring prescribed mass terror. Thus it is misleading to have a lead section that states He won the respect of his Allied opponents for his military accomplishments, but his record was marred by massacres committed by his troops in Italy, as if he had nothing to do with the terror and as if the terror was not a central part of his defensive strategy. Btw, Sangster argues that Kesselring’s reputation grew “because he faced inadequate opponents”, in other words, the Allied commanders spoke highly of Kesselring to cover up their own blunders and poor leadership. (p.91) That should be adressed.

• The writing also has a strange tone throughout. The article notes, e.g., that Kesselring rescinded his order … deploring incidents that had "damaged the German Wehrmacht's reputation and discipline and which no longer have anything to do with reprisal operations", and launched investigations into specific cases that Mussolini cited. Did Kesselring really deplore his orders? Lingen writes that Kesselring reacted towards Mussolini’s complaints and merely acknowledged such incidents. Kesselring also went on record by saying “I loved the Italians too much. Now I hate them.” Anyway, the investigations, Lingen notes, were halted inconclusively. She also discusses the figures of casualties given, asking whether the term “partisans” referred to all casualties including women and children. (p. 47) I consider it of vital importance that German numbers of casualties are not accepted at face value. It is to be regretted that these numbers are taken from Lingen, whereas her critical analysis is somehow skipped over. Given the sizable literature on German atrocities in Italy (see above) the references (Trial Proceedings, Haaretz, Mitcham) are poor. Instead the section on war crimes concludes with exhortations of Kesselring’s “defensive success”. Conservative estimates give the number of Italian civilians being killed between March and November 1944 alone as 7,500 men, women, and children. (Sheperd, Hitler's Soldiers, p. 412)

• Kesselring’s subsequent trial has been discussed with considerable detail by Lingen and others. The article, however, does not really discuss these issues. I find that to be disproportionate compared, e.g., to the lengthy quotes of favorable statements by Churchill and Alexander. Besides, the judgement implied that reprisal killings were not justified during wartime. Thus, the court did not leave that question open. It was the Judge Advocate who maintained that the legality of that was not clear cut. Court proceedings should not be interpreted by Wikipedians, particularly when rich secondary sources are available. (see also Michele Battini, The Missing Italian Nuremburg, 2007.) Richard Raiber’s book bears the title Anatomy of Perjury, but we do not learn much abut Kesselring’s lies in the article.

• Lingen argues persuasively, I think, that after 1945 Kesselring became an effective proponent of the wrong notion that the Wehrmacht had fought a clean war in Italy. Wikipedia, however, uses a Time article from 1954 to have Kesselring protesting the "unjustly smirched reputation of the German soldier" and so forth. I find that particularly weak.

• Given that there is secondary literature which made use of Kesselring’s memoirs I do not really see the point why Wikipedians have to make use of it themselves. It should be clear from the outset that memoirs are not reliable sources and that Kesselring’s views have to be contrasted with other sources. I would say, e.g., that the information that Kesselring was able to fly unescorted over the front in his Focke-Wulf Fw 189 reconnaissance aircraft, is intricate detail. What is the encyclopedic value of information like he stated that first-hand knowledge of all aspects of aviation was essential to being able to command airmen, although he was well aware that latecomers like himself did not impress the old pioneers or the young aviators? Sometimes it even becomes funny: In his post-war memoirs, Kesselring claimed he envisioned making a start on the rehabilitation of Germany following the end of the war.[192] Instead, he was arrested. What are we to make out of that information? Was Germany saved from Kesselring's rehabilitating efforts or deceived of it?

--Assayer (talk) 20:12, 23 August 2019 (UTC) Addendum: I take notice that Hawkeye7 argues that Kesselring's take on the issue of non-rated officers is important, because it is a controversial one in many navies and air forces. In the US there area actually laws about it, so it is of interest to the reader. It is implausible, that Albert Kesselring's private opinions on that issue, stated in his memoirs, are of any interest for and sought after by any navy and air force. Who would care to look for that information in an article about such an individual?Assayer (talk) 01:31, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This addendum is typical of Assayer's criticisms, and closely matches K.e.coffman's. They both have demonstrated over an extended period significant deficiencies in understanding what is a relevant piece of information for a military biography (the lack of military biography FAs to which they have contributed is a further indication of this), and both constantly harp on about useful and interesting information that has been included in good faith in the interests of our readers. With these two editors, this only occurs in the cases of Nazis, and they show no interest in removing similar information from articles about people who are not Nazis, despite the fact that such information is common in articles about non-Nazis. Explaining that Kesselring felt it was necessary for him to be able to fly an aircraft in order to command people who were flying aircraft is directly relevant to his biography, and their opposition to its inclusion is frankly ridiculous. Kesselring's decision in this respect reflects a common feeling amongst military leaders that they must show that they are capable of doing the things that they are asking their men to do. It is integral to military leadership, and is ingrained through training and by example. All this comment does is underline the editor's lack of understanding about such matters. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:46, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yours is an argumentum ad hominem, suggesting both incompetence and an ideological agenda while sidestepping my main arguments. If that particular information is directly relevant to his biography, it should be easy to provide references from secondary literature. It is easy to provide multiple references that Kesselring escalated the war in Italy through terror and therefore that information is integral to Kesselring’s biography. I maintain that memoirs should not be used by Wikipedians as they are notoriously unreliable sources, and I do not see it as problematic to focus on my expertise, namely German history 1933 to 1945. --Assayer (talk) 11:12, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a personal attack to point out a pattern of editing behaviour and a demonstrated lack of experience or knowledge in these matters. My comment was not directed at your earlier points, only the addendum regarding Kesselring's flying, so I am sidestepping nothing. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:42, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is. It's called

WP:ASPERSIONS and has been dealt with by ArbCom. You are invited to comment on content, not to allege deficiencies.--Assayer (talk) 19:26, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

• The article covers the war against partisans. The main point is Kesselring's culpability for incitement, one of the charges that he was sentenced top death for. Going into who was actually responsible for what area, and the degree of authority Kesselring exercised over what units would obscure what is his clear guilt when it came to incitement. (Alexander's own guilt with regard to incitement and escalation goes a long way to explaining his own attitude and pushing of the "clean war" myth.)
• The partisan war is covered in the article. We carefully selected incidents to demonstrate the effect, to refute the "clean war myth", and that SS units were the only ones responsible, which was not the case. There is also another myth, in Italy, that partisans were primarily responsible for the ejection of the Germans from Italy, which is not accepted by military historians. The figures for German casualties indicate that they are low compared to the number of civilian casulaties.
• The article devotes considerable space to Kesselring's trial. We could go into the legal questions and issues regarding the the taking of hostages and killings in reprisals.
• We could add a "reputation" section, but it will read like the quote from Citino, citing notable historians praising him as a genius, noting the minority view of Sangster, and von Lingen's assessment of his reputation in Germany.
• As to who would care to look for that information in an article about such an individual; It's been done.

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:03, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The article does indeed deal with the war against partisans. But the question is: Does it deal with it sufficiently? I maintain that it is somewhat ill conceived to select “incidents”, i.e. massacres, when the point is terror against the population (see references above). This is also not about Kesselring’s authority over certain units. Sheperd makes clear that “Kesselring’s order gave his units free rein, but each unit’s particular condition and characteristics determined how to use it.” (Hitler’s soldiers, p. 412) If it is well established that Kesselring "incited" and ordered his troops to kill civilians, why delegate that to the bottom of the lead as part of the war crimes trial? War crime trials may for some smack of victor’s justice, challenging the legitimacy of the judgement. If the discussion of Kesselring’s responsibility is to rest with his conviction, however, it is even more necessary to make use of the trial proceedings, e.g. to note, that during the trial it was confirmed that the SS was in fact subordinated to the Wehrmacht in the operations against the partisans. (Battini, Missing Italian Nuremburg, p. 88). Instead the article informs the readers, that the court "left open the question of the legality of killing innocent persons in reprisals" and uses somewhat elusive wordings like "his record was marred by massacres committed by his troops in Italy".

I find Lingen’s treatment of casualty figures much more sophisticated than that to be found in the article, where its is claimed that “some 9,520 partisans were killed”, a label called into question by Lingen by asking whether it included women and children. It does not make much sense to have a section on “reputation”, but it does make sense to note a change in historiographical judgement. Lingen and Sangster represent recent scholarship. The question is not whether they are in the minority, but whether they have refashioned Kesselring’s image. I found an interesting review of Macksey’s bio by Stephen G. Fritz from 1997.[8] Without going into detail here I find that review to offer a more balanced approach than that provided by Wikipedia. For example, Fritz argues that Kesselring's “stubborn refusal to see the obvious in North Africa and recommend to Hitler, with whom he had considerable influence, a timely withdrawal from the Tunisian pocket led to the destruction and capture of some of the finest troops in the German army”. Wikipedia only claims: “In return, Kesselring had, however, held up the Allies in Tunisia for six months, forcing a postponement of the Allied invasion of Northern France from the middle of 1943 to the middle of 1944.” I have not been able, however, to back up that claim with the reference given, namely Howe, p. 666. Instead Howe writes on p. 677:

The decision to gamble on occupying French North Africa ahead of the Axis forces led to a failure in December which could not be remedied before May 1943. One may well doubt that this failure alone caused deferment of a cross-Channel attack until 1944, in view of the many other considerations involved. But one important conclusion concerning the relation of the decision to occupy French North Africa to the fundamental Allied strategy seems beyond question. Even if the Allies had succeeded in establishing a bridge-head in Normandy in 1943, their experience in Tunisia demonstrated that they would have been unprepared for breaking out of this bridgehead and thrusting far toward the heart of Nazi Germany. This experience they gained by meeting the enemy at the outer periphery of the area to be liberated at a time when the Eastern Front continued to absorb the bulk of Axis military power.

As to Kesselring learning to fly – that information can be found, e.g., with Sangster, p. 44, so there is no need to make recourse to his memoirs.--Assayer (talk) 19:12, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have added the bit from Sangster, and have rewritten the conclusion to the North African campaign per Howe, with which I agree completely. People have written whole books on an Allied landing in northern France in 1943, but the consensus is that it was doomed once the commitment was made to North Africa in 1942. I have some more details on the casualty figures for partisans, which I will add. The assessment of Macksey's biography you found is interesting. His errors are indeed numerous and and include important details, and as the article points out, Macksey is frequently more upbeat than Kesselring's own account. I note that the article doesn't mention Kesselring's war criminal status, which I think any 21st century account would, a sign of the major change in historiographical judgement. And I will try and get my hands on a copy of Battini. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:41, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

Issues raised in the review section include neutrality and coverage. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:52, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delist. The article has a hat-full of problems. The worst of which is POV. I see no prospect of anything much changing. Szzuk (talk) 08:49, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Article has extensive material about Kesselring's authorization of reprisals against partisans. The lead even mentions the atrocities committed and the Ardeatine massacre - this is definitely not burying it. Kges1901 (talk) 13:10, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Partly on the strength of this summary by Hawkeye, which, so far as I can tell from reading the article and following the history, is accurate. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:12, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I came back to this to see what the decision was, realised that it was still open, and so read the delist (only) comments below to see if there was anything which might cause me to change my mind. The only one which gave me pause was Assayer's on the weight given to a 1954 Time Magazine article. This does not seem appropriate. Otherwise, as a moderately active FAC reviewer (over 50 reviews so far this year), I find nothing weighty enough to cause what seems an entirely FA-worthy article to be delisted. I do not wish to put words in the mouths of those favouring delist, but they seem to either attach undue weight to their favoured sources, or wish to have well sourced facts removed or reduced in prominence. I find neither convincing, nor grounds for delisting. The valid grounds initially identified for reviewing this article seem to me to have been satisfactorily addressed, and there seems to be an ongoing commitment to maintaining the article. Gog the Mild (talk) 07:54, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delist. Clear POV which has not been adequately addressed. Why do we lead off an article on a war criminal, who adamantly denied culpability for his actions, with panygerics such as "most skilful", "highly decorated", mention of a Nazi military award, and "most popular"? And (to address a comment made above) there is no such thing as an "an implied consensus for inclusion". It doesn't matter if it was added yesterday, or by some fanboy 15 years ago (and I have not checked on who added it, or when) — the content is what matters. The slanted point of view here is contested and must be addressed, and the refusal to do so is troubling.
  Kablammo (talk) 16:19, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment coming to this late, I will review the article in the next few days, post any concerns on talk and then decide which way I'm leaning. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:16, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Nothing here that can't be fixed by stepwise editing. Guy (Help!) 23:21, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:06, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@JzG and Sturmvogel 66: While I appreciate your engagement here, a more complete evaluation of this article relative to the FA criteria would be more helpful at this point than a simple keep/delist. What issues remain that can be fixed by stepwise editing? Do you agree with some of the concerns above and just think they're fixable, or do you disagree that what's been raised above is of concern? Nikkimaria (talk) 19:05, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I just don't see this as an article-on-fire situation. Guy (Help!) 19:28, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - as I have previously noted above, some valid concerns were raised at the start of this FAR but edits have been made to address these. Zawed (talk) 22:14, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Issues were raised in some detail about the neutrality and comprehensiveness of this article. After reading through the concerns and checking the changes made, it is clear that the issues have been addressed. Some further improvements could perhaps be made -- I am sure that all of those involved here would be happy to work together on that -- but that does not require nor justify delisting. MPS1992 (talk) 03:26, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. There are two votes on the talk page from established editors. Both call this a "Pro Nazi" article or similar. Szzuk (talk) 07:57, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Of what relevance is that? Were they made after this FAR process? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:19, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  @Peacemaker67: One was made in 2017, and I'm not able to find the other one at this moment. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 20:35, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments.
  • There are some portrait pictures of him smiling on commons that might be appropriate to illustrate the "Tunisia" section.
  • There is one image, File:De_nieuwe_generaal-veldmaarschalken_van_de_Luftwaffe.jpg, that is nominated for deletion. I don't think there is a need to rush to remove it since it will either be kept if unproblematic or deleted if ineligible. DrKay (talk) 20:28, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't think its removal will affect the article, which has plenty of illustrations. It has been listed for months now. But I don't want to add any more from the same source until the matter is resolved. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:06, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Should "LXXXX" in the "Tunisia" section be "XC"? DrKay (talk) 20:28, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    In German, LXXXX is used, but the American source cited uses XC, so changed to that. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:06, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • My main concern are some parts that could benefit from further work to improve neutrality:
    • The aircraft losses for Barbarossa contradict those given (cited to the same source as this article) in the article on the operation. What seems to have happened here is a selective comparison of specific Axis losses against total Soviet losses: this is an unfair comparison. Either the total Soviet losses of 21,200 should be compared to the total German losses of 2,827; or the same selective algorithm should be applied to both sides, not just to the German one. DrKay (talk) 20:28, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

      I cannot explain the figure given in the Barbarossa article. I have the cited source before me, and it says total German losses were 2,093. Used that. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:06, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    • "Kesselring managed to delay the Allies in Sicily for another month; the Allied conquest of Sicily was not complete until 17 August." Five weeks to take Sicily is not actually that slow, and "conquest" seems a loaded term. Recommend: "Kesselring managed to delay the Allies in Sicily for another month until 17 August...He was able to evacuate 40,000 men, plus 96,605 vehicles..." DrKay (talk) 20:28, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

      The US official history uses the term repeatedly. See pp. 25, 53, 261. It is also the title of Alexander's official despatch. [9] Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:06, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    • In the section on the "Allied invasion of Sicily", it is not clear to me why we are told about Gonzaga, 184 Airborne Division or F Recce Squadron. This should be related to Kesselring. DrKay (talk) 20:28, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

      I was trying to convey the chaotic response in Italy, but it perhaps drifted too far. Removed this. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:06, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    • In the "Cassino and Anzio" section, the statement "The consequences for the Italian population [of Operation Strangle] were severe; between June 1940 and April 1945, 59,796 Italian civilians and 4,558 Italian servicemen died in Allied air raids" is unconvincing and logically flawed. The paragraph is about 2 months in 1944, but the casualty figure is for the entire war. Clearly, there were many Allied air raids when Italy was an Axis power. If the figure cannot be reduced to only those who died during that specific bombing campaign, then the claim should be removed. DrKay (talk) 20:28, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

      The air raids were few before May 1943 because Italy was out of range. The raids steadily incresed in number and intensity through 1944. In 1943, when the US Army Air Forces assumed responsibility for most Italian operations, the American bombers dropped 46,448 tons of bombs on Italy. In 1944, the Allies dropped 166,494 tons of bombs. Between January and early May 1945, an additional 63,370 tons of bombs were dropped. The restraints on bombing in France to limit civilian casualties were not in effect in Italy as it was not an Allied country. I did have some figures with a breakdown of civilian casualties, but they have been lost, and archive.org did not archive them. Removed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:06, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • (Minor point: Some references end in a period, while others don't. They should be consistent.) DrKay (talk) 20:28, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Corrected this. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:06, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Keep. Individual comments have either led to changes in the article or been answered with counter-arguments. FAR isn't dispute resolution. The delist arguments are unconvincing when they complain about things such as a lack of coverage of the Italian terror campaign, even though the lead contains explicit statements such as "his record was marred by massacres committed by his troops in Italy" and "Kesselring was tried for war crimes and sentenced to death for ordering the murder of 335 Italian civilians, and for inciting and ordering his troops to kill civilians in reprisals". DrKay (talk) 11:23, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Nom's comment. @JzG and Sturmvogel 66: The concern is that normal editing has not worked in the past. I had attempted to reduce Kesselring's self-serving POV cited to his memoirs: diff, Feb 2019, but that was reverted with the rationale that "tweaking the wording is not acceptable; the wording has been carefully reviewed...": [10].

After TP discussion which was not productive: Talk:Albert_Kesselring#Feb 2019 edit, I reached out to FA nom and suggested collaboratively editing the article, with a view of avoiding the FAR: [11]. This was also rejected: [12]. I could try editing the article again and see what happens. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:17, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Any substantial editing is going to cause friction. It is easier to follow the discussion when there is a list of specific points like the one in my review, where each point can be answered in turn. Having said that, I don't think it will be useful to re-visit points made and discussed in the past (such as whether to use the memoirs) as the consensus appears to be that they can be used if suitably attributed and balanced with any counter-evidence. DrKay (talk) 07:52, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments moved to #Comments by K.e.coffmand. --K.e.coffman (talk) 14:11, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should all agree with User:K.e.coffman that his improvements of articles regarding topics like these, are something that will be continued, long into the future. The reality is that numerous editors with knowledge of the subject have now assessed the arguments made regarding this specific article, and it's time to make a decision. Careful assessment of the article, indicates that it should remain as a Featured Article. MPS1992 (talk) 22:55, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I've been through the article in detail and have made some changes and suggested others which have been addressed, and I just do not see the alleged issues with neutrality and coverage that some see, or accept K.e.coffman's perennial argument about what constitutes trivia in military history biographies. His memoirs provide a valuable insight into his thinking at different stages along with his motivations and they are now properly attributed throughout. The final thing I will say is that the laudatory comment in the lead about his skilful command should probably read "most skilful defensive commanders" as he really had no offensive record to speak of, and defensive operations are a very different beast to offensive operations. Otherwise, there has been significant improvement during the FAR, and while I'm sure there are tweaks here and there that can be addressed piecemeal, I don't consider that justifies delisting what is now an excellent article. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:11, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist. As I have argued above[13], the article neglects major facts and details, it is not well researched, and it is not a representative survey of the relevant literature. Thus, as of today it fails
  WP:FA?.--Assayer (talk) 20:15, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• @
  WP:TAGTEAM partner? --Pudeo (talk) 08:49, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• reply.--Assayer (talk) 02:28, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I am not quite sure how to proceed. Researching critical parts of the article I do not find them to be in line with recent research. For example, Kesselring's role in saving Rome as an “open city” is much more controversial than the article, which features Kesselring as a scrupulous leader and the Allies as being ruthless, makes us to believe. For example, on 4 February 1944 Kesselring proposed, among other things, the demolition of all bridges across the Tiber. Hitler himself may have forbidden their destruction for their historical and artistic merit. (Fisher, Cassino to the Alps, p. 203.) A report from Weizsäcker to the Vatican suggests that Kesselring regretted the bad shape of the roads around Rome, so that there had to be transports through the city. (Helmut Goetz, Das Attentat in Rom und die Fosse Ardeatine (1944). Eine vorläufige Bilanz. In: Innsbrucker Historische Studien 6, 1983, pp. 161-178, here p. 164.) Goetz argues that Rome was neither de jure nor de facto an open city, but that the notion of an open city was a fiction. (Ibid.) Lingen writes, the open city status of Rome and Florence was rendered meaningless in practice by both sides. (p. 37)

As to the Ardeatine massacre, researchers have argued that it is doubtful that an order by Hitler existed, most certainly not a second order, possibly not even a first order. See Kurt Mälzer#Military Commander of Rome with references.

It had been claimed that Kesselring used the Jews of Rome as labour for the construction of fortifications, and resisted their deportation, but Hitler transferred responsibility to the SS. I have used literature which made use of the new evidence made accessible by the US National Archives in 2000 to clarify that story. “Resistance” is a much-discussed concept in the historiography of Nazi Germany, and while Kesselring for whatever reasons might have helped to obstruct the deportations for some time, there are no sources that claim he “resisted”.

I do not see that such issues are to be addressed within short notice, nor do I see a particular willingness to engage with sources such as I have provided.--Assayer (talk) 17:39, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We just need to find the right word. I'm not happy with "obstruct". As you point out, some people might construe "resist" to mean the "resistance" (although I think that's unlikely given the context), whereas "obstruct" may connote an intent that was not there. 20:38, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

You've written: Historian Andrew Sangster argues that while Kesselring was undoubtedly

Holocaust

. Despite his denials Kesselring must have known of these crimes and his guilt lies "in his unquestioning support of Hitler who had made the Holocaust a priority."

That is indeed what Sangster says, but here's an obvious contradiction here between the article saying that "he never played an active role in the Holocaust" and placing him in Category:Holocaust perpetrators in Italy. My argument has been that the use of Jews for slave labour was part of the Holocaust. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:38, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I purposely did not use the word obstruct, when I rewrote that passage in the article, but simply recounted what is known. For Breitman the newly available sources implied that Möllhausen was only about to reach out to Kesselring on 6 October. Breitman is highly critical of Katz, who sort of tends to believe Kappler's post-war defence. Katz follows a different chronology outlined by Möllhausen himself. For NPOV reasons I considered articles by both authors. The sources do not warrant, however, to draw further conclusions about Kesselring's actions and motivations. In fact, Kesselring's role seems to have been marginal. It should furthermore be clear, that no Jewish slave labor was actually used on German fortifications around Rome. That was just an idea proposed by Möllhausen to block the imminent deportation. I found Sangster's assessment useful as a historian's comment. I did not spend much thought on the issue of Wikipedia categories. --Assayer (talk) 00:05, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delist per the comprehensive recent review by Assayer, which proves this isn't going to be a simple matter. I find it troublesome that editors make comments such as "keep" per this comment, which essentially says the entire FA critique is a lie. That comment by Hawkeye is practically blockworthy already, and that someone would find that amusing and worth citing is pretty revolting. And it's odd--if Hawkeye thinks it's all a lie, why is he spending so much time following up on these comments? But, in the end, Assayer's comments are already good enough to sway me. Drmies (talk) 01:28, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not seeing anything blockworthy in the comment in that diff nor a sense that it is amusing? I personally perhaps wouldn't have characterised K.e.coffman's list as untrue but instead incorrect, at least partially; for example, point 3 alleges failure to reflect recent scholarship but Lingen, cited by other reviewers as recent scholarship, is used. Another source, Citino, also referred to by reviewers, was incorporated as a consequence of the review. As for your comment "if Hawkeye thinks it's all a lie, why is he spending so much time following up on these comments?", it seems to me that his followup is good faith engagement with the review process. Finally, from the tone of your comments here and earlier in the review, I wouldn't have thought you needed any swaying towards delisting. Zawed (talk) 07:39, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Drmies you need to take a deep breath and step back, if you think any of Hawkeye7's comments during this FAR are blockworthy. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:50, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• User:Peacemaker67, I am too old to be patronized by you. Be mindful of manners, please, and drop the personal attacks--you may recall there was an ArbCom case where making things personal was cited as one of the disruptive things. You will note that I commented on comments, not on the person, unlike you. If you do not understand that difference, don't comment at all. "This is untrue" is first of all an accusation of lying and thus a serious denial of AGF--this is not news. Second, if the complaints are untrue, and the editor seriously believes that, then the editor shouldn't act upon them as if they were true.

  Zawed, if you characterize a list as incorrect, that's fine (in this case you're wrong, as this review proves)--but if you call something a bunch of lies, and then you go on to correct the things that you thus claimed were true, you are also admitting that they weren't lies. Drmies (talk) 15:28, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I've made no personal attacks, I've made observations on the editing behaviour of two editors based on long experience, which I can back up with many diffs, many of which I used in the ArbCom case, particularly with respect to K.e.coffman. Hawkeye7's response is not an accusation of lying or a failure to assume good faith, it is a difference of opinion about substantive matters which, last time I checked, editors were allowed to have on Wikipedia. K.e.coffman's comments are not automatically true or even germane just because he is the one making them. These questions are determined by consensus, such as what is happening here regarding the keeping or delisting of this article, and they are not determined by threats. Your mention of a block was a clear attempt to intimidate Hawkeye7 into making changes he does not agree with, and you should withdraw it because it was completely inappropriate. That is why you need to take a deep breath and step back. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:38, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I have to agree that some of your comments were ad hominem. I have great respect for Hawkeye7 and I think he just got carried away. Why not we all focus on the content not the contributors and not whether they "lie" or "don't have experience with military history." Please. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 14:13, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:AGF. Drmies (talk) 01:09, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Delist. Deeply flawed as per Assayer, and POV wording noted above concerning a convicted war criminal is deeply disturbing. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 15:10, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I added further comments to the #Western Europe section. I'm planning to do Soviet Union and Mediterranean next. --K.e.coffman (talk) 14:18, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per the arguments presented by Hawkeye7 and Gog the Mild. Applodion (talk) 15:42, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: In the course of the review, I reached out to the historian David Stahel. For background, he was one of the historians who had provided a statement during ARBGWE. Stahel gave me permission to publish this statement as part of the discussion (links have been added by me):

@Nikkimaria: I hope you would consider this statement when it comes to closing the discussion. --K.e.coffman (talk) 14:47, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Coord note: In case anyone is unaware, there is a
  FA criteria and explain specifically how this article does or does not meet them. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:36, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Delist as the article still contains serious neutrality violations. I'm currently reading the article, and I found a particularly egregious example in the very first case where I looked at the sources in detail (now corrected as best as I can). Specifically, this is about whether Kesselring's 1940 bombardment of Rotterdam was a war crime:

• The van den Doel source (pg 389-90) discusses four ways that the bombing may have violated the laws of war, (articles 25, 26, and 27, as well as the preamble). It dismisses article 25 but describes ambiguity for all of the others. (For article 26, the issue is in the reference to "two hours," since that isn't sufficient notice to evacuate the city.) However, the article simply stated that there was no issue with regards to article 25 (not an open city), and said nothing about the parts that may have actually been violated, implying pretty strongly (in contradiction to the source) that the bombardment was not a war crime.
• This was then followed by a several-sentence quote stating that the bombing should not be considered a terror attack (i.e. that it served a legitimate military objective). However, I pretty shortly found another source (Sangster pg 56), already in use elsewhere in the article, which directly states that historians are actually divided on this question. In fact, the vd Doel source itself states (top of pg 389) that its viewpoint is not universal, but the article does not acknowledge this.
• The sentence containing the quote (paraphrased) said According to X, using the term Y would be "Z. This is simply not the case" - which seems like a pretty clear statement that person X thinks using term Y is incorrect or invalid. However, this is directly opposed by the quote's context:

1. The historian (vd Doel) does not, in fact, reject the term Y ("terror bombing"), instead only calling it "less apt". (Technically it is also possible to interpret "Z" in the correct way, i.e. the way the source intended, but even then it is obscured by the sentence structure and manner of quotation.)
2. The quote then cut off mid-sentence in a way that altered the meaning: specifically, the rest of it is "...neither for Schmidt nor for Göring". The context is a discussion about Schmidt and Göring, and the claim in the source is that Schmidt and Göring weren't intending to directly target civilians in Rotterdam. However, in the article it was put into a description of Kesselring's actions. He's the only person mentioned in the paragraph (aside from the quote's attribution), and he was the one that the quote appeared to be about.

When also considering the comments above, I think the article needs to be checked source by source for verification. There are also major issues with undue weight, with a particular theme of taking information that would put Kesselring in a bad light and wording it in a way that makes it seem positive, or else minimizing it behind relatively unimportant details. To take an example on the same topic, the bombing of Rotterdam is introduced by emphasizing that Kesselring was "responding to a request for assistance," with the sentence ordered to make it the first thing the reader learns about the subject, before even describing what actually happened! While this can be legitimate, it's a pattern that repeats rather consistently; and if anyone doesn't find that particular type of phrasing to be a problem, the same theme occurs in plenty of other forms. (And as an aside, that description is also arguable at best. Certainly there's no mention that, as described in the same source, it was part of a German threat to deliberately destroy the city if the Dutch didn't surrender. Yes, there was some kind of miscommunication where the deadline was supposed to be pushed back, but "request for assistance" sounds like a very odd way to describe the situation.) Since this is the state of the article after this much effort has already been spent, I don't think it will be able to meet FA standards any time soon. Sunrise (talk) 08:46, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• More comments at: Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/Albert_Kesselring/archive1#Soviet Union to Tunisia. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:46, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

comment I think some aspects of David Stahl's remarks need to be challenged. In what way does this article obfuscate Kesselring's role in the Second World War? Specifically, what role are we discussing here? The military failures or the murders he ordered? Wikipedia is not an academic forum, and editors do their best with the sources under the limitations imposed on them by the guidelines — and most editors are not academics. We should not being making the assumption they have been deliberately misused. I am also interested in what Robert Citino has to say about Kesselring and where. Dapi89 (talk) 07:05, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Citino discusses Kesselring in his books The Wehrmacht Retreats: Fighting a Lost War, 1943 (2012) and The Wehrmacht's Last Stand: The German Campaigns of 1944-1945 (2017). He notes the opinions of

Dominick Graham and others that Kesselring was a great general, but notes that Kesselring fought a defensive battle in Italy on ground of his chosing, whereas Model and Manstein had to fight Soviet armies under more adverse conditions. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:43, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

FYI, I agree that the subject's memoirs should be disregarded unless they are used to state basic information, such as name, birth date etc. The information provided by his memoirs in this article can be found in reliable sources. Dapi89 (talk) 10:42, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I have read this article in detail and have followed the discussions on this page. Actionable statements have been met with good faith edits (or rebuttals as necessary) that I feel have satisfied the goal of this article remaining at Featured quality. Additional vague remarks about POV or comprehensiveness are not convincing to me, as they are not accompanied by reasonable or actionable examples. This is not a dispute resolution forum. --Laser brain (talk) 14:03, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• keep. I don't see a conspiracy to idolise Kesselring. I think the article currently marks him out as a delusional, unapologetic, opportunistic, murdering careerist. His release by the Allied authorities is yet another disgraceful episode in treatment of German war criminals, which is also covered. I personally would like to see more on military analysis now. I'm tired of reading about these so-called geniuses on the internet and on television. It's one myth that needs to tackled across the board. Dapi89 (talk) 09:27, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing comments so here we are at 6 months in and there is still a POV tag at the top of the article. We alos have multiple editors still not apply with it. Hence there is no consensus to keep the article. I am sorry about this as alot of work has gone into it.Hence
• Closing note: This removal candidate has been delisted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please leave the {{featured article review}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:38, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was delisted by Casliber via FACBot (talk) 8:57, 9 December 2019 (UTC) [14].

Donkey Kong (video game)

WP:URFA nomination. Notified: WikiProject Video games. Original nominator

retired in 2008.

• Ref 5 (Chris Crawford) needs a page number.
• Ref 6 (Space Panic) needs to be finished (author, accessdate, etc.)
• Ref 9 (John Sellers) needs page numbers.
• Ref 10 (De Maria) needs page numbers.
• Ref 11 needs timestamps or other reference to indicate where in the film these points are stated.
• Ref 13 (Sheri Graner) needs page numbers.
• Refs 16 and 17 (Commerce Clearing and Game Developer Research) are incomplete.
• Ref 18 has a {{page needed}} tag.
• Ref 20 (Sheff) needs page numbers.
• Ref 25 (Nikkei) is incomplete.
• Refs 30 and 31 are unofficial YouTube uploads of commercials and thus not reputable.
• Ref 66 is also a YouTube upload.
• Ref 69 is incomplete.
• And so on; I didn't pick through every source.
• The four books cited at the bottom (Consalvo, Fox, Mingo, Schodt) are cited in the footnotes, but do not appear to be used in the article. Why are they here?

Content

• Under "Ports": the paragraph beginning "in 1983, Atari released several computer versions..." is unsourced, as is the one under it.
• "Both Donkey Kong and its sequel, Donkey Kong Jr., are included in the 1988 NES compilation Donkey Kong Classics." -- unsourced
• "Game Boy" header is unsourced.
• "Licensing" is unsourced and still had a pothole to
  1982 in video gaming
  , which is something I thought we stopped doing years ago.
• "In popular culture" is very vague -- says various other sources have referenced the game but doesn't go into detail, and is also unsourced.

tl;dr: the article does need a massive overhaul. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:52, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

John M Wolfson Just a basic run through the lead:

• Donkey Kong is one of the most important games from the golden age of arcade video games as well as one of the most popular arcade games of all time. seems very
  TRUE
  (which I don't disbelieve). There should be something like "considered to be..." in there.
• Although Nintendo's American staff was initially apprehensive, Donkey Kong succeeded commercially... Apprehensive about what? I presume about the release or the game in some fashion, but that should be made more explicit.
• "licensed" is too common a word to be linked here, IMO, but one could perhaps make an argument to the contrary.
• "(later Universal Studios)" is irrelevant and shouldn't be there.

I'm sure I'll come up with more throughout the body, but this does need some work. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 18:32, 15 October 2019 (UTC) EDIT: Additionally, originally named Mr. Video appears nowhere else in the article and is uncited. I'll have to look at more stuff later. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 18:38, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Maybe
  czar, who got some other Donkey Kong games promoted, would want to look over this? The issues seem to be solvable, much of it is just formatting. FunkMonk (talk) 20:42, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  ty Wouldn't be able to get to this for a while though czar 19:48, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

Issues raised in the review section include referencing and comprehensiveness. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:59, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delist. Issues unaddressed. DrKay (talk) 14:48, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist. In addition to the other issues brought up that remain unaddressed, Fox and Consalvo need ISBNs. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 15:33, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Closing note: This removal candidate has been delisted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please leave the {{featured article review}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Casliber (talk) 18:57, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.