Manstein on wikipedia

[julian]

If one wanted to know what is wrong with wikipedia, one needs only to look at the article about Manstein. At a certain point in time an individual decided to do a hatchet job on Manstein and rewrote the article to make it an anti-manstein pamphlet.
The individual did not even hide his bias as he explains it at length on the talk page of the article. Attempts by more than individual at putting the article straight, for example on the subject of what Manstein actually wrote in Lost victories, failed because a senior editor systematically removes any changes. It seems that you can get away with anything on wikipedia as long as you get in first ,refuse any changes and have a senior editor who takes your side.
The detail of what is wrong with the article is set out at length on the talk page of the article. Not that it helped. The selfappointed protector of the article wipes it all off the table using generalisations which betray that he has no proper knowledge of the subject.
Visting the article and giving it a negative rating is certainly usefull. Trying to change it is unfortunately an exercise in futility.

[michael kenny]

Biter bit eh?
Anyway I wonder why anyone bothers with Wiki. The mods are clearly chosen for their stupidity and the gold standard is a 'published' source. Arguing with the buffoons only makes them feel important.
No matter how wild your claims are if you can find a book that agrees with you then it is in.
The pages are a doorway to future research and nothing more.

[Dutto1]

If one wanted to know what is wrong with wikipedia, one needs only to look at the article about Manstein. At a certain point in time an individual decided to do a hatchet job on Manstein and rewrote the article to make it an anti-manstein pamphlet.
The individual did not even hide his bias as he explains it at length on the talk page of the article. Attempts by more than individual at putting the article straight, for example on the subject of what Manstein actually wrote in Lost victories, failed because a senior editor systematically removes any changes. It seems that you can get away with anything on wikipedia as long as you get in first ,refuse any changes and have a senior editor who takes your side.
The detail of what is wrong with the article is set out at length on the talk page of the article. Not that it helped. The selfappointed protector of the article wipes it all off the table using generalisations which betray that he has no proper knowledge of the subject.
Visting the article and giving it a negative rating is certainly usefull. Trying to change it is unfortunately an exercise in futility.

I suggest if you want an honest opinion of Manstein you should read the following book.

Manstein,Hitler's Greatest General,by Mungo Melvin.

Regards

Ron

[Dutto1]

Here it is-

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Manstein-Hitler ... 353&sr=8-2

Regards

Ron

[krichter33]

I've read the biographies by Stein, Lemay, and Melvin. Without a doubt General Mungo Melvin's book is the best and most balanced Manstein biography I have read. Also, along with Newton's Model biography, it is one of the best general officer biographies I have read.

[julian]

Somebody has fortunately cleaned up the article based on Melvin so it is presentable now.