968:(2001; 2004). "The men who flew the fighters became popular figures of mythic proportions, partly because of the sheer, romantic improbability of flight, but also because they seemed to have restored a element of single combat to the anonymous slaughter of modern war. Victory in the air was thought to be a matter of personal skill, heroism, and the luck of the brave - an image that survived long after air tactics had begun to acquire the characteristics of deadly routine." I also found the Rickenbacker quote there. I could provide further quotes from other historians, but I am sure that you rather subscribe to the myth than to the views of military historiography.--
1049:: to have achieved 81 aerial victories in combat is significant; with that said, it is concerning that the article is sorely lacking so much RS cited detail; certainly there should be information which can be found and used for coverage as to this pilot in order to provide readers with an article of substance. The lack of a German Knowledge article is not the best indicator, as English Knowledge has many more articles than any other one on multiple subjects. I don't write on Luftwaffe pilots (or tank commanders, for that matter), but it seems there should be coverage to be found for someone with 81 air victories'.
645:. Keeping in mind K.e.Coffman's MO (to delete German personnel), the deletion of this article serves no purpose. In fact, a good article can be made out of it as good sources exist. Further, the assertions made about the alleged inferiority to Soviet airmen has been hugely exaggerated. Training deficiencies were most pronounced in 1941, and 1942, but thereafter the gap rapidly closes. Also, the Soviets were never grossly inferior technically. Most of the war-winning generation of aircraft were entering service in June 1941. K.e.Coffman's claims that a NPOV article is not possible is entirely fictitious.
891:. The latter features Broch in its appendices: "Hugo Broch* JG 54. TV 81 (all EF). CD EF Jan. 43. TS 324. SR 4.00". If this isn't about the KC, but about "aces", then the coverage is meagre, to say the least. It does not make sense to compare "counts" from different conflicts and different air forces. That's simply ahistorical. I also see no reason why fighter pilots should be entitled to a bonus of notability compared to other soldiers. It seems as if the notion of the lonely chivalrous fighter, i.e. the very image of the "ace", still dominates the imagination, but imagination does not supersede
201:: "No de.wiki article. The subject did not hold a significant command. Successful completion of missions is not part of SOLDIER. Please also see a note at MilHist Talk Archives for background behind the redirect. In summary, per the outcome of the discussion at Notability:People on notability of Knight's Cross recipients: permalink, certain recipients were deemed non notable and WP:SOLDIER has been modified accordingly: diff. The articles of these recipients are being redirected to alphabetical lists." Aggressively restored by a user with 20 edits. Speedy declined.
356:
broad an axe here disregarding notability on other grounds while incidentally leaving in less significant soldiers, including aces, which didn't recieve the knight cross. There are several books and articles on fighter acss leading to sigcov, and the military impact here is beyond just "Doing a job". An ace who shot down more than 80 aircraft took out more than a regiment, single handedly. In modern dollar terms, on the current 100 miliion dollar fighter jets, this is 8 billion dollars in just material damage, disregarding the effect in the air war.
1000:
stage of air war, mainly the first two years of WW I. Afterwards solo sorties were considered to be much too dangerous and group missions were carried out. Thus "airmen" were as much the products of industrial warfare as the masses of infantrymen on the ground. After WW I "aces" did have no strategic importance for air war. To borrow a phrase by
Richard Overy, they were "schoolboy heroes". So it's up to you to demonstrate that Broch was so popular an "ace" that his explorations have been significantly covered by reliable secondary sources.--
275:- flyers with a much smaller kill count have articles - with the notability being their kill count and nothing else. Being an aerial ace (with a significant count for a particular conflict - 5 would be borderline for WWII, but would confer significance in any other conflict - 81 is clearly significant for WWII - only German pilots (+1 Finnish) acheived this high a count (to be fair the Luftwaffe flew pilots until they died - not retiring them to command or training)).
326:. Germany had over 100 pilots who claimed more than 100 aircraft shot down, so the achievement of the subject of the article is not remarkable. Overall, German pilots of WWII claimed 70,000 Allied aircraft destroyed. The claim numbers for individual pilots are not significant in the grand scheme of things, as the Allies were producing aircraft and training new pilots at a much higher rate than the Germans could destroy them.
695:.... However - when wielding a huge axe, you sometimes (though some were spared) chop away people notable for other reasons - in this case SOLDIER(4) due to kill counts as ace. While getting a knight's cross might not make a soldier notable in and of itself - receiving one (and not being on german wiki, and not reaching high enough rank / effective rcommand) - does not make a soldier un-notable.
409:- and several others. As you should know - not everything is searchable online easily - some of biblo in the article is not easy to acquire. Beyond SIGCOV - which may exist (as per google-hits, and amount of google images, memorabilia sold with his name), he simply meets SOLDIER(4) - "Played an important role in a significant military event such as a major battle or campaign". He is on -
460:], and is one of the very few without a full entry - which might be an oversight. Regarding significant contributions of individual soldiers - I agree indeed that this isn't usually "serious" military history. However - it is popular information that interests the general public - as is evedinced by books such as -
985:
this source wasn't written by aviation specialist anyway. I don't think you are familiar enough with academic literature on air power to lecture me. Resorting to to the Oxford
Companion for support says as much. Out of interest, have you studied air power theory, history and practice at an academic level?
999:
I am familiar enough with the academic literature on the history of air power to know that Peter
Fritzsche's account of popular aviation culture in Germany is a respected study in the cultural history of air power. Interestingly enough you basically concede that "aces" were the creation of a specific
607:
Obvious retort. But in this case we are talking about fliers from the same war and notability. You even left in less notable German ww2 who did not receice the knights cross, as you chose to delete based on knight cross reception. While a knight cross might not make a soldiee notable by itself.... It
430:
is not relevant to the discussion. My contention is that significant RS coverage on the subject does not exists. The matter of Knight's Cross winners and
Luftwaffe fighter pilots is a matter of some discussion on de.wiki, where the community has arrived at consensus that indeed such coverage does not
1167:
I'm failing to see prolific autograph signing as a criteria for notability. For example, we include Pete Rose on the basis of his accomplishments in his field and enormous coverage in secondary sources, not because he is the most prolific baseball autograph signer (a fact that only gains mention in
1093:
could normally be presumed for someone with 81 air victories, the existence of (significant) coverage in reliable sources, beyond those already cited in the article, has been called into question. Examples of reliable sources beyond those already cited, with significant coverage of Broch, are needed
984:
Again, a meaningless response to what it a very straight forward issue. They were called aces if they claimed to have destroyed five or more in aerial combat. Aces are notable. It doesn't really matter what historians say about the image of the ace or aerial combat because that isn't relevant. And
516:
with much smaller counts (and not ace of ace). It should be noted that some of the US WWII aces - were flying in conditions of complete or almost-complete air superiority - which led to easy kills - both over Europe, and vs. Japan - particularly from 1944 onwards. In the air war vs. Japan whereas
1191:
Obviously this is marginally notable - wouldn't confer notability by itself - but is an indication that some people see some notability (as they are willing to pay for the autograph) - I added half a line (11 words) mentioning this to the article - which is marginal. But the book reference is an
949:
Who says/said the ace was a lone hunter anyway? And why should we subscribe to this view? Do we subscribe to this view? I dont think we do. Who cares what
Rickenbacker says or doesnt say about air combat? War isnt murder, and all war is scientific. You're just adding a series of pointless posts.
503:
I haven't gone through the entire bibol in the article - and I assume you haven't either - as it isn't online AFAIK. Regarding "ace" criteria - it doesn't need to be set out explicitly - as SOLDIER(4) already covers it. 81 aircraft kills - should be a no-brainer for notability. As you can see in
396:
So far the argument for delete has been based on him being on a knight's cross list - to which you took an axe (and I agree in part to your action - but you've cut off some articles that are notable besides the knight cross!). He is on
Japanese and Portoguese wikis. The article is supported by a
355:
If you delete german fighter pilots with less than 100 kills, you will have to delete every allied pilot, who did not receive top award honors, as well as every ace from every other war... and there are several. I actually agree with the deletion of many knight cross reciepents, but you took too
1070:
as lacking independent and non-inherited notability. Number of kills or ace status alone don't guarantee notability, and the only sources about this subject are mere confirmation of existence and victory number/Knight's Cross. No significant independent reliable sources in the article or above
934:
As the literature on the "ace" does not fail to mention, the image of the lone "ace" survived long after air tactics had changed air combat into something that Eddie
Rickenbacker has called "scientific murder". Why don't you just proceed to provide proof of that coverage in question instead of
1394:. The main problem, of course, is how incomplete gBook searches are. But where there's smoke, there's.... That is, when you get mulitipe hits, there is usually more out there on pages excluded from the search and books that don't appear. But there does seem to be enough here to keep.
1440:
I added a pair of recent news stories to article sourcing, one about Broch meeting with an
American pilot, two old men revisiting a long-ago war, the other about collectors who buy items he signed, he is said to have done more memorabilia signing than the average ace. Keep as per
434:
To quite from the
Featured List nomination discussion re a list of Luftwaffe fighter pilots: "The author is not to be criticized for the fact that no scientific literature has been used, because there are none. Serious military historians are concerned with other things."
457:
You are misquoting the German, as the discussion you are quoting from is for an expansion of the list of aircraft personnel to all knight-cross recipients - to 568 entries (which I agree would be excessive). Hugo Broch is on the un-expanded existing lists -
1392:
1357:
440:
1353:
331:
In any case, if the claim is that being an ace = "Played an important role in a significant military event such as a major battle or campaign", then it should be easy to demonstrate the coverage of this event. What I see are passing
1423:. Being an ace doesn't mean the subject is notable enough to warrant an encyclopedia article. There's literally nothing else on this page except that he was a "prolific signer" and as K.e.coffman said, that's really stretching it.
886:
Based on the lack of significant coverage by reliable, independent sources. The bibliography features four titles on KC recipients (mainly the usual directories), one article from a popular special interest magazine, and one title
298:
had around 60 fighters - this is a significant achievement in terms of material and personnel damage (destroying a regiment), meeting SOLDIER(4) - "Played an important role in a significant military event such as a major battle or
517:
early in the war the
Japanese were arguably on-par technically (better maneuverability, but less armor and often speed/dive-climb) , towards the late war they were quite inferior technically (dominated in all aspects). Contrast
1154:
1253:) view the subject as notable beyond a random scribble by some guy on the street. This isn't a strong claim - it is a weak claim - but it does provide evidence that he's considered notable by some other people.
166:
1275:
463:
461:
407:
401:
398:
1331:
378:, which are generally discounted in deletion discussion. If the subject of this AfD has indeed "played an important part in a major battle or campaign", then this should be easy to demonstrate via
412:- with a high count, and has destroyed a regiment equivalent number of aircraft. A soldier that is responsible for the destruction of a regiment of opposition forces clearly meets SOLDIER(4).
1168:
passing connection to his criminal conviction). I suppose that having large numbers of autographs in circulation could be construed as an argument that the signer is popular but
485:
situation -- only notable for the award of the Knight's Cross, and the community does not consider the latter to be a sufficient presumption of notability. The argument that an "
754:
Being an ace alone is enough, IMO. And "no German WP page" is a non-starter; there are dozens of U.S. hot rodders deserving of a page here who don't have one, either...
119:
662:. We have kept many articles on pilots with the bare minimum (five) of kills required to be an ace. If we delete an article on a pilot with 81 then we need to reassess
292:
1349:
465:
404:
160:
1095:
863:
244:
218:
691:
then took out a very big axe (I suspect based on set criteria, including German wiki inclusion), and redirected a very large number of Knight Cross recipients -
843:
1419:
There's no significant coverage by reliable, independent sources. Arguing that he's an ace, and we have articles about other aces, is a classic example of
717:
1361:
481:
These are passing mentions (the first one being a line on a list), and are insufficient to build an NPOV biography of the subject. What we have here is
1067:
397:
non-short biblography - not all of which I have available, and I assume you don't as well. A quick google-books search shows some hits, e.g. -
950:
Attack? Picking appart your argument is not an attack. I will get started on this soon, as your apparent deletion attempt has been rejected.
1155:
Collecting Historical Autographs: What to Buy, What to Pay, and How to Spot Fakes, by Ron Keurajian, ISBN 978-1476664156 pages 37,112-113
126:
1341:
1294:
1121:
1125:
513:
295:
272:
1466:'s. I think the prolific autographing paints him in a negative light but that shouldn't be the reason to remove his notability.
1312:-- the link that you provided only includes one source (Scutts) that mentions subject; are you sure this was the intended link?
1183:
1115:- added a RS book on his autograph to the article - he's a prolific signer (as evidenced by primary sources (not in article) -
1078:
509:
17:
521:
with sources and notability of US aces with much lower kill counts (and nothing particularly notable beyond the kill count):
505:
92:
87:
819:
argument, and should be discounted by the closer. The arguments "No, I don't have any sources" generally don't fly at AfD.
1334:
1307:
1287:
96:
181:
685:
148:
79:
1364:
is already cited on the article, with (apparently) only enough coverage to support one sentence. By no means is this
556:
530:
1420:
1223:
to be one of the more "credulity-stretching" arguments at AfD. I believe that such arguments should be discounted.
590:
375:
252:
1494:
40:
1172:
so I don't think you are making that argument. Given the sources you found, it might be worth a mention on the
267:- Not due to Knight's Cross (which is debatable in significance - not going there), but due to his status as a
1098:
has brought up sources that only have passing mentions of Hugo Broch and his killcount, or unrelated sources)
437:
Dass keine wissenschaftliche Literatur verwendet wurde, ist dem Autor nicht vorzuwerfen, denn es gibt keine...
534:
142:
1428:
742:
564:
371:
229:
1278:; I agree that the sheer number of kills, relative to the theatre, conveys notability sufficient to pass
1490:
1450:
1399:
1317:
1228:
1123:
824:
785:
598:
560:
494:
448:
387:
342:
248:
36:
138:
1475:
1454:
1432:
1403:
1381:
1343:
1321:
1296:
1262:
1232:
1201:
1186:
1136:
1107:
1081:
1058:
1041:
1009:
994:
977:
959:
944:
929:
904:
875:
855:
828:
806:
789:
762:
746:
729:
704:
675:
654:
617:
602:
584:
550:
498:
476:
452:
421:
391:
365:
346:
308:
284:
256:
236:
210:
61:
1169:
916:: first of all fighter pilots were not lonely, they fought in teams. Secondly, your claim that it is
804:
760:
725:
671:
1283:
1180:
1127:- and there are hundreds more (as he appeared in very many signing events + signed per mail order).
1075:
526:
322:-- Successful completion of missions (X enemy planes shot down, Y "tank kills" etc) is not part of
206:
174:
188:
52:. I'm not convinced that leaving this up for another week will lead to any discernible consensus.
1377:
1103:
572:
538:
489:" status makes someone notable by default in not included in the MilHist project's own guidance.
1424:
1258:
1197:
1132:
1054:
1005:
973:
940:
900:
871:
851:
816:
738:
700:
613:
580:
568:
546:
472:
417:
361:
323:
304:
280:
224:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
1489:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
780:
would you be able to offer any sources to sustain a stand alone article, vs being on a list?
337:
Separately, the absence of a de.wiki article is strongly suggestive of a lack of notability.
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
1471:
1446:
1395:
1369:
1365:
1313:
1224:
1090:
990:
955:
925:
820:
781:
688:
650:
594:
490:
444:
383:
379:
338:
198:
57:
608:
does not confee non notability if notable on other grounds... In this case Soldier4 is met.
799:
775:
755:
721:
667:
482:
83:
684:
To be fair - the delete (redirect) here did follow an RfC - on knight cross recipients -
1119:
410:
154:
1177:
1072:
1036:
486:
202:
1373:
1279:
1116:
1099:
892:
1463:
1442:
1254:
1193:
1128:
1050:
1001:
969:
936:
896:
867:
847:
696:
609:
576:
542:
522:
468:
413:
357:
300:
276:
113:
1467:
1391:
that changing search terms to "Hugo Broch" + Luftwaffe, brings up other books.
1246:
986:
951:
921:
718:
Knowledge talk:WikiProject Military history#RfC on the notability of flying aces
646:
53:
1286:(arguably he 'played an important role in a significant military event') . —
1250:
518:
268:
75:
67:
1242:
1173:
1071:
significantly about Broch instead of about large groups of contemporaries.
1033:
291:
Several google-books hits (In addition to the ones in the article itself) -
918:
Based on the lack of significant coverage by reliable, independent sources
541:- who are there solely because of their ace status (on around 15 kills).
426:
None of these offer significant coverage, and the argument that there's
1483:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
400:(and his autographs do sell on ebay - so someone is paying),
1192:
additional RS covering the subject (a few paragraphs there).
666:
articles on aces. This requires an RfC, not just an AfD. --
109:
105:
101:
173:
370:
So far, these have been arguments along the lines of
1330:
Yes; more than one of them (three) mentioned it. Or
467:. 81 aircraft kills - definitely meets SOLDIER(4).
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1497:). No further edits should be made to this page.
512:, as well as the existence of many articles in
798:Regrettably, no. (I'd add 'em if I had 'em.)
864:list of Aviation-related deletion discussions
245:list of Military-related deletion discussions
187:
8:
862:Note: This debate has been included in the
842:Note: This debate has been included in the
243:Note: This debate has been included in the
219:list of Germany-related deletion discussions
217:Note: This debate has been included in the
1215:-- Pardon me, but I consider the statement
844:list of People-related deletion discussions
861:
841:
242:
216:
271:with 81 claimed kills. As you can see in
1356:he is only present on two lists, and in
1094:in order to back up the Keep argument. (
966:The Oxford Companion to Military History
1372:with sigcov on Broch is up for debate.
1147:
439:) Etc. The nomination was quick failed:
1220:
1216:
1068:List of World War II aces from Germany
716:. I have opened an RfC on this issue:
427:
1462:as meeting SOLDIER(4) in my book and
1352:he is mentioned on just one page, in
294:. To put 81 kills in perspective - a
7:
1360:it's really just a passing mention.
1368:. Although whether offline sources
24:
1221:(as evidenced by primary sources)
935:engaging into personal attacks?--
555:Even less significant WWII aces:
1445:'s knowledgeable analysis above.
514:List of World War II flying aces
296:Aviation regiment (Soviet Union)
273:List of World War II flying aces
510:List of Vietnam War flying aces
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
506:List of Korean War flying aces
428:memorabilia sold with his name
1:
1096:Icewhiz's Google Books search
1176:page or somewhere related.
1170:popularity is not notability
1514:
1322:18:03, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
1297:15:53, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
1263:05:59, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
1249:- shows that some people (
1233:00:53, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
1202:05:59, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
1187:17:22, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
1137:08:21, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
1108:07:55, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
1082:21:51, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
1059:13:08, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
1042:12:56, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
1010:22:39, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
995:15:20, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
978:15:03, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
960:13:27, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
945:10:51, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
930:08:53, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
920:, is false and dishonest.
905:01:22, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
876:00:56, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
856:00:56, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
829:22:16, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
807:21:35, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
790:07:24, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
763:21:02, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
747:20:28, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
730:15:36, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
705:15:43, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
676:15:17, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
655:15:10, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
618:04:12, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
603:23:55, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
585:22:14, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
551:22:01, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
499:21:32, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
477:21:21, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
453:20:43, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
422:20:03, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
392:19:34, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
366:17:48, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
347:15:28, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
309:12:50, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
285:09:37, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
257:09:21, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
237:18:03, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
211:16:58, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
1362:This other book by Scutts
1486:Please do not modify it.
1308:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi
1276:military / history texts
32:Please do not modify it.
1476:23:19, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
1455:19:43, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
1433:18:09, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
1404:21:03, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
1382:18:47, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
1344:12:33, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
535:Eugene A. Valencia, Jr.
197:From the talk page, by
62:01:02, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
1274:plenty of coverage in
1217:he's a prolific signer
889:Luftwaffe Fighter Aces
815:Then this is solely a
565:Robert W. Aschenbrener
561:Gordon Arthur Stanley
557:Bolesław Własnowolski
382:in reliable sources.
1245:turn an item into a
964:Well, I paraphrased
531:Edward "Porky" Cragg
380:significant coverage
1421:WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS
591:WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS
527:Charles R. Stimpson
1333:. Many thanks! —
573:Norman C. Skogstad
539:Arthur Ray Hawkins
376:other stuff exists
1348:Of the three: In
1039:
878:
858:
693:largely correctly
569:Richard E. Turner
259:
239:
1505:
1488:
1339:
1311:
1292:
1157:
1152:
1037:
802:
779:
758:
504:listings here -
249:AustralianRupert
234:
232:
227:
192:
191:
177:
129:
117:
99:
34:
1513:
1512:
1508:
1507:
1506:
1504:
1503:
1502:
1501:
1495:deletion review
1484:
1335:
1305:
1288:
1162:
1161:
1160:
1153:
1149:
1038:(distant write)
800:
773:
756:
230:
225:
223:
134:
125:
90:
74:
71:
48:The result was
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1511:
1509:
1500:
1499:
1479:
1478:
1457:
1435:
1413:
1412:
1411:
1410:
1409:
1408:
1407:
1406:
1385:
1384:
1325:
1324:
1300:
1299:
1268:
1267:
1266:
1265:
1236:
1235:
1209:
1208:
1207:
1206:
1205:
1204:
1159:
1158:
1146:
1145:
1141:
1140:
1139:
1110:
1084:
1061:
1044:
1027:
1026:
1025:
1024:
1023:
1022:
1021:
1020:
1019:
1018:
1017:
1016:
1015:
1014:
1013:
1012:
908:
907:
880:
879:
859:
839:
838:
837:
836:
835:
834:
833:
832:
831:
810:
809:
793:
792:
766:
765:
749:
732:
710:
709:
708:
707:
679:
678:
657:
639:
638:
637:
636:
635:
634:
633:
632:
631:
630:
629:
628:
627:
626:
625:
624:
623:
622:
621:
620:
587:
432:
372:it's important
350:
349:
334:
333:
328:
327:
312:
311:
288:
287:
261:
260:
240:
195:
194:
131:
70:
65:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1510:
1498:
1496:
1492:
1487:
1481:
1480:
1477:
1473:
1469:
1465:
1461:
1458:
1456:
1452:
1448:
1444:
1439:
1436:
1434:
1430:
1426:
1422:
1418:
1415:
1414:
1405:
1401:
1397:
1393:
1390:
1387:
1386:
1383:
1379:
1375:
1371:
1367:
1363:
1359:
1355:
1351:
1347:
1346:
1345:
1342:
1340:
1338:
1332:
1329:
1328:
1327:
1326:
1323:
1319:
1315:
1309:
1304:
1303:
1302:
1301:
1298:
1295:
1293:
1291:
1285:
1281:
1277:
1273:
1270:
1269:
1264:
1260:
1256:
1252:
1248:
1244:
1240:
1239:
1238:
1237:
1234:
1230:
1226:
1222:
1219:, especially
1218:
1214:
1211:
1210:
1203:
1199:
1195:
1190:
1189:
1188:
1185:
1182:
1179:
1175:
1171:
1166:
1165:
1164:
1163:
1156:
1151:
1148:
1144:
1138:
1134:
1130:
1126:
1124:
1122:
1120:
1118:
1117:
1114:
1111:
1109:
1105:
1101:
1097:
1092:
1088:
1085:
1083:
1080:
1077:
1074:
1069:
1065:
1062:
1060:
1056:
1052:
1048:
1045:
1043:
1040:
1035:
1032:
1029:
1028:
1011:
1007:
1003:
998:
997:
996:
992:
988:
983:
982:
981:
980:
979:
975:
971:
967:
963:
962:
961:
957:
953:
948:
947:
946:
942:
938:
933:
932:
931:
927:
923:
919:
915:
912:
911:
910:
909:
906:
902:
898:
894:
890:
885:
882:
881:
877:
873:
869:
865:
860:
857:
853:
849:
845:
840:
830:
826:
822:
818:
814:
813:
812:
811:
808:
805:
803:
797:
796:
795:
794:
791:
787:
783:
777:
772:
771:
770:
769:
768:
767:
764:
761:
759:
753:
750:
748:
744:
740:
736:
733:
731:
727:
723:
719:
715:
712:
711:
706:
702:
698:
694:
690:
686:
683:
682:
681:
680:
677:
673:
669:
665:
661:
658:
656:
652:
648:
644:
641:
640:
619:
615:
611:
606:
605:
604:
600:
596:
592:
588:
586:
582:
578:
574:
570:
566:
562:
558:
554:
553:
552:
548:
544:
540:
536:
532:
528:
524:
520:
515:
511:
507:
502:
501:
500:
496:
492:
488:
484:
480:
479:
478:
474:
470:
466:
464:
462:
459:
456:
455:
454:
450:
446:
442:
438:
433:
429:
425:
424:
423:
419:
415:
411:
408:
405:
402:
399:
395:
394:
393:
389:
385:
381:
377:
373:
369:
368:
367:
363:
359:
354:
353:
352:
351:
348:
344:
340:
336:
335:
330:
329:
325:
321:
317:
314:
313:
310:
306:
302:
297:
293:
290:
289:
286:
282:
278:
274:
270:
266:
263:
262:
258:
254:
250:
246:
241:
238:
235:
233:
228:
220:
215:
214:
213:
212:
208:
204:
200:
190:
186:
183:
180:
176:
172:
168:
165:
162:
159:
156:
153:
150:
147:
144:
140:
137:
136:Find sources:
132:
128:
124:
121:
115:
111:
107:
103:
98:
94:
89:
85:
81:
77:
73:
72:
69:
66:
64:
63:
59:
55:
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
1485:
1482:
1464:User:Icewhiz
1459:
1443:User:Icewhiz
1437:
1425:CrispyGlover
1416:
1388:
1336:
1289:
1284:WP:MILPERSON
1271:
1212:
1150:
1142:
1112:
1086:
1063:
1046:
1030:
965:
917:
913:
888:
883:
751:
739:GELongstreet
734:
713:
692:
663:
659:
642:
523:Bud Anderson
436:
319:
315:
264:
226:CAPTAIN RAJU
222:
196:
184:
178:
170:
163:
157:
151:
145:
135:
122:
50:no consensus
49:
47:
31:
28:
1447:E.M.Gregory
1396:E.M.Gregory
1314:K.e.coffman
1247:collectible
1241:Have one's
1225:K.e.coffman
821:K.e.coffman
782:K.e.coffman
752:Strong keep
689:K.e.coffman
643:Strong keep
595:K.e.coffman
589:Please see
491:K.e.coffman
445:K.e.coffman
384:K.e.coffman
339:K.e.coffman
265:Strong Keep
199:K.e.coffman
161:free images
1354:the second
1251:collectors
1143:References
817:WP:ILIKEIT
801:TREKphiler
776:Trekphiler
757:TREKphiler
722:Necrothesp
668:Necrothesp
519:Hugo Broch
324:WP:SOLDIER
299:campaign".
269:Flying ace
76:Hugo Broch
68:Hugo Broch
1491:talk page
1366:WP:SIGCOV
1358:the third
1350:the first
1337:O Fortuna
1290:O Fortuna
1243:autograph
1184:(contrib)
1178:Eggishorn
1174:Autograph
1091:WP:NEXIST
1089:Although
1079:(contrib)
1073:Eggishorn
868:• Gene93k
848:• Gene93k
332:mentions.
203:Ymblanter
37:talk page
1493:or in a
1374:Alcherin
1100:Alcherin
1064:Redirect
483:WP:BIO1E
320:redirect
120:View log
39:or in a
1255:Icewhiz
1213:Comment
1194:Icewhiz
1129:Icewhiz
1087:Comment
1051:Kierzek
1047:Comment
1002:Assayer
970:Assayer
937:Assayer
914:comment
897:Assayer
714:Comment
697:Icewhiz
610:Icewhiz
577:Icewhiz
543:Icewhiz
469:Icewhiz
414:Icewhiz
358:Icewhiz
301:Icewhiz
277:Icewhiz
167:WP refs
155:scholar
93:protect
88:history
1468:Ifnord
1417:Delete
1280:WP:GNG
1181:(talk)
1076:(talk)
987:Dapi89
952:Dapi89
922:Dapi89
893:WP:GNG
884:Delete
647:Dapi89
431:exist.
374:&
316:Delete
139:Google
97:delete
54:Kurykh
1370:exist
720:. --
182:JSTOR
143:books
127:Stats
114:views
106:watch
102:links
16:<
1472:talk
1460:Keep
1451:talk
1438:Keep
1429:talk
1400:talk
1389:Note
1378:talk
1318:talk
1282:and
1272:Keep
1259:talk
1229:talk
1198:talk
1133:talk
1113:Note
1104:talk
1055:talk
1034:L3X1
1031:Keep
1006:talk
991:talk
974:talk
956:talk
941:talk
926:talk
901:talk
895:. --
872:talk
852:talk
825:talk
786:talk
743:talk
735:Keep
726:talk
701:talk
672:talk
660:Keep
651:talk
614:talk
599:talk
581:talk
547:talk
495:talk
473:talk
449:talk
441:link
418:talk
388:talk
362:talk
343:talk
305:talk
281:talk
253:talk
207:talk
175:FENS
149:news
110:logs
84:talk
80:edit
58:talk
1066:to
737:...
664:all
487:ace
318:or
231:(✉)
189:TWL
118:– (
1474:)
1453:)
1431:)
1402:)
1380:)
1320:)
1261:)
1231:)
1200:)
1135:)
1106:)
1057:)
1008:)
993:)
976:)
958:)
943:)
928:)
903:)
874:)
866:.
854:)
846:.
827:)
788:)
745:)
728:)
703:)
687:.
674:)
653:)
616:)
601:)
593:.
583:)
571:,
567:,
563:,
559:,
549:)
537:,
533:,
529:,
525:,
508:,
497:)
475:)
451:)
443:.
420:)
406:,
403:,
390:)
364:)
345:)
307:)
283:)
255:)
247:.
221:.
209:)
169:)
112:|
108:|
104:|
100:|
95:|
91:|
86:|
82:|
60:)
1470:(
1449:(
1427:(
1398:(
1376:(
1316:(
1310::
1306:@
1257:(
1227:(
1196:(
1131:(
1102:(
1053:(
1004:(
989:(
972:(
954:(
939:(
924:(
899:(
870:(
850:(
823:(
784:(
778::
774:@
741:(
724:(
699:(
670:(
649:(
612:(
597:(
579:(
575:.
545:(
493:(
471:(
447:(
435:(
416:(
386:(
360:(
341:(
303:(
279:(
251:(
205:(
193:)
185:·
179:·
171:·
164:·
158:·
152:·
146:·
141:(
133:(
130:)
123:·
116:)
78:(
56:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.