This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Aviation: Biography GA‑class This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation articles GA This article has been rated as GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. This article is supported by the aerospace biography project. Biography: Military GA‑class This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles GA This article has been rated as GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. This article is supported by the military biography work group (assessed as Mid-importance). Germany GA‑class Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GermanyWikipedia:WikiProject GermanyTemplate:WikiProject GermanyGermany articles GA This article has been rated as GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Military history: Aviation / Biography / European / German / World War II GA‑class This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles GA This article has been rated as GA-class on the project's quality scale. Associated task forces: /  Military aviation task force Military biography task force European military history task force German military history task force World War II task force Additional information: /  This article has failed an A-Class review. Silesia GA‑class (inactive) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Silesia, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.SilesiaWikipedia:WikiProject SilesiaTemplate:WikiProject SilesiaSilesia articles GA This article has been rated as GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Archives

12 August 2005 – 5 December 2015

"Found refuge" sounds POV, as it means "a condition of being safe or sheltered from pursuit, danger, or trouble." Was the family being persecuted or in danger? K.e.coffman (talk) 20:07, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Correct, as Silesians they had to evacuate their home from the advancing Red Army. The wording used in the source (Die Zeit) "Als Dr. Gadermann aus der Kriegsgefangenschaft entlassen wurde, fand er die Familie Rudels als Flüchtlinge [refugees] in seiner elterlichen Wohnung in Wuppertal." Cheers MisterBee1966 (talk) 20:20, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

By my count 11 editors were for the removal of the Wehrmachtbericht transcripts, while one editor was for keeping the transcript but did not offer a rationale as to why. Could the reverting editor clarify?

Please see related discussions:

• NPOV noticeboard discussion: here

• Bach-Zelewski

• Rommel

• Manstein

K.e.coffman (talk) 01:14, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Dapi89: Per BRD, please advise. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:35, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am referring to the section Later life with all its past scandals, what some football captain said in 1976; aiding Peron and Pinochet at the same time (!). Long notes of what a publisher published just after the war. Confusing, not interesting; could be summarized. Creuzbourg (talk) 23:21, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

why isn't the football stuff interesting?

the publisher material is the result of a long argument about what might be a decent source, it is the result of a compromise.

the fact that he involved himself post-war in an issue is relevant, even if he tried to play both ends. His life didn't end at the end of the war. It went on, and he continued to be active in other events.

Just saying! auntieruth (talk) 18:43, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Later life should of course be included, but not with this mass of details. Rudel was an unrepentenant Nazi, and acted accordingly, but the vast amount of petty details are just confusing the issue. Why is the opinions of a now forgotten soccer player about the Argentine military dictatorship of interest? "The result of a compromise", as long as that attitude prevails, Wikipedia can never reach excellence. Creuzbourg (talk) 14:39, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The note about the Dürer-Verlag is redundant; isn't it obvious that a publisher publishing Nazi apologetic, also is publishing other revisionist literature.

"Cocaine Generals"; no links, no explanation.

Bad continuity, due to an overflow of details: "Rudel suffered a stroke on 26 April 1970." The next sentence: "Rudel returned to West Germany in 1953." Suddenly a jump from 1970 to 1953!

It is the section Public Scandals that is mostly filled with the actions, doings, and sayings of other persons than Rudel, with a mass of intricate details concerning German domestic politics, that does not belong to this article.

The first two paragraphs: Rudel Scandal; there are 388 word in this paragraph. The main article contains only 279 word. The treatment of the affair is more thoroughly here than in the main article. This text should be moved to the main article, and the affair summarized in two or three sentences.

The third paragraph: Rudel watches soccer, mostly details the sayings of other persons than Rudel, besides enumerating what soccer games he watched. Hardly of common interest.

The box with a Rudel quote, seems to be totally out of context. What is it referring to?

Finally, the last section, Summary of military career, is misplaced at the end of the article.

The mass of detail seems to be there to prove that Rudel was a bad man and a Nazi; who doubts it: he was an unrepentenant Nazi, but its not a war crime to watch soccer. Creuzbourg (talk) 15:08, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As to User:MisterBee1966 just removing the tag; remember: It is not okay to remove maintenance templates until the issue flagged by the template is remedied first – that is, only once the maintenance tag is no longer valid. Creuzbourg (talk) 15:14, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You make the assumption that the tag is valid, while in reality it your opinion only. The article was peer reviewed and GA reviewed and never once was this topic raised. In essence, it is one opinion against many. Currently there is no consensus for you claim. Cheers MisterBee1966 (talk) 15:18, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it is my opinion; tags are put in by individual editors, not committees. There can be no support for my claim, if its not allowed to be discussed. Btw: I thought you were retired. Creuzbourg (talk) 15:28, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do you want me to leave? MisterBee1966 (talk) 15:41, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely not! I clicked on your name and got the message that you have retired; This user is no longer active on Wikipedia. Creuzbourg (talk) 15:50, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Most of this seems less to do with detail than style. Dapi89 (talk) 16:10, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Read through the article; the reference to the 1978 World Cup exposes Rudel's continued support and admiration of authoritarian regimes. It shows his Nazi-style views infected every facet of his life, even sport. Of course, it isn't a crime to watch football. But that isn't the point being made.Dapi89 (talk) 16:26, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The president of the DFB, Hermann Neuberger, justified the visit, and stated that criticizing Rudel's visit was "an insult to all German soldiers" ("käme einer Beleidigung aller deutschen Soldaten gleich").[99] The German team captain, Berti Vogts, further fostered the criticism by stating after the World Cup: "Argentina is a country governed by law and order. I have not seen a single political prisoner." ("Land, in dem Ordnung herrscht. Ich habe keinen einzigen politischen Gefangenen gesehen.") [---] Rudel had already visited a German team at a World Cup before. He was a spectator of the 1954 FIFA World Cup Final in Switzerland, and during the 1958 FIFA World Cup in Sweden, he visited the German team at Malmö following its 3:1 victory over Argentina on 8 June 1958. There he was welcomed by team manager Sepp Herberger.

My objections can be specified as follows:

• What Neuberger says is of no interest for the readers understanding of Rudel.
• What Vogts says doesn't have any bearing on Rudel.
• His visit to the German national team in Switzerland was not critized, and since Switzerland is and was a democracy, cannot be evidence of Rudel's support and admiration of authoritarian regimes.
• The same goes for the WC in Sweden.
• That Sepp Herberger welcomed him gives nothing to our understanding of Rudel.
• Whether intended or not, the text gives the impression of an indictment of the German soccer association, and the German soccer players as crypto-Nazis.
• Its redundant with text both in German and in English.

The whole quotation is in violation of criterion 3 for a Good Article: staying focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail. Hence it should be removed. The following text could be retained: During the 1978 FIFA World Cup, held in Argentina, Rudel visited the German national football team in their training camp in Ascochinga. The German media criticized the German Football Association (DFB—Deutscher Fußball-Bund), and viewed Rudel's visit as being sympathetic to the military dictatorship that ruled Argentina following the 1976 Argentine coup d'état.

And this is just one example, the whole article is full of these talkative expositions and meticulous investigations of insignificant details. Creuzbourg (talk) 22:32, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rudel's visits to the German national football team are significant. They are still frequently recalled in the German media. However, the scandal affected Herman Neuberger more than anybody else. It was him and the DFB who were critiziced for harboring sympathies for facism, while it actually had been coach Helmut Schön who had allowed Rudel into the camp. Schön knew Rudel at least since Rudel's visits during Herberger's tenure as coach, for example during the 1958 WC. In 1954 Rudel also tried to arrange a friendly match between Argentina and West Germany. But that's another story. Thus the incident is not being properly presented in the article, but it's not per se intricate details. In my opinion, however, there are many intricate details, since Rudel's military service is recounted in minute detail. Given that most of the references are to the usual militaria KC-recipient's literature, that's not too surprising. Fraschka and Brütting stand out for their strong bias, and, of course, Günther Just's "adulatory" (Smelser/Davies, p. 277) biography of Rudel. Just had already published Hans Ulrich Rudel. Adler der Ostfront (Eagle of the Eastern Front) with Hanoverian National-Verlag in 1971, a publisher with close ties to the NPD. In 1983 Just aptly received the new "Hans-Ulrich-Rudel-Award" from Gerhard Frey. --Assayer (talk) 14:51, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm with Assayer et al on this. Rudel's postwar intrigues probably were more important than his war-time activities. They should be well covered. auntieruth (talk) 16:35, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree on post-war, but Assayer's comments, and apparent irritation, that his wartime service is too detailed are off the mark. Four years service and 2,000 missions is not easy to abbreviate, nor should we. Dapi89 (talk) 16:56, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The OPs explanations are cogent, and I agree with them. The MilHist's definition of appropriate level of detail is not shared by all (including both within and outside of the project). Please see for example: Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/Hyacinth_Graf_Strachwitz/1, where an editor outside of the project commented: There is an immense amount of intricate detail that is along the realm of "military fancruft." If this is a typical A-Class or GA-class military biographical article, then I would suggest that there is a systemic issue for articles of this kind.

Most recently, I've been having a similar discussion with one of the editors in this thread at WP:NPOVN, where in fact I cited the Rudel discussion: Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Fringe_source_in_WWII_bio_article.

So yes, this article exhibits some of the issues where WP:LOCALCONSENSUS & community consensus diverge. I support the efforts by Creuzbourg to streamline this article, and the discussion & improvements should continue. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:03, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think that Creuzbourg aims for a complete removal of the content. Instead he suggested a more concise presentation. Why shouldn't we aim for a more concise article, even if it's not easy? Is it possible to put the article under scrutiny, or is the idea to freeze the article as it stands? Because comments like "one editor versus three" certainly do not signal any intent or willingness for discussion.

I am not at all irritated The article is pretty much what I came to expect in the English Wikipedia. Let me quote from the article to give an example for intricate details (and repetitive prose). On the morning of 12 August 1943, Rudel and Hentschel respectively completed their 1,300th and 1,000th combat mission. Hentschel was the first air gunner to achieve this mark.[37] On the morning of 9 October 1943, Rudel and Hentschel respectively completed their 1,500th and 1,200th combat mission. Rudel was the first pilot to achieve this mark.The event was celebrated at an airfield at Kostromka, south of Kryvyi Rih, and was attended by General der Flieger Kurt Pflugbeil, commanding general of the IV. Fliegerkorps (4th Air Corps). There is much more like that. Apart from Rudel's combat missions we also learn about missions in which he did not participate, about his skiing vacation in Tirol, how he met Hitler (the day before Hitler's final birthday - we do not learn that Hitler considered Rudel to be his successor or that he designed the highest variant of the KC specifically for Rudel for propaganda reasons, though). His political activities in post-war Germany are presented second to his sports activities. In general the article is not really about Rudel's many combat missions, but about statistics, awards and decorations. --Assayer (talk) 19:00, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I did a light copyedit; I'm finding much wordiness, foreign-language terms, ol, etc & irrelevant detail about other ppl. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:53, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid Creuzbourg has deleted a large swathe of Early life material that is included to meet the comprehensiveness criteria. Failure to understand this is at the heart of the problem with his editing of this article. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:14, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am afraid the Peacemaker67 doesn't understand the criteria for a Good Article; comprehensiveness is not included, only covering main aspects without going into unnecessary detail. The original GA-review was notably lacking in covering the last aspect. I guess I should have requested a Good article reassessment, but since I believe that the effort and research of the original editors are worth all appreciation, I thought that would be overkill, and it would be enough to copyedit the text. Creuzbourg (talk) 09:03, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See: Talk:Arthur Rhys-Davids/GA1 where a reviewer has made the same kind of objections as I, for an article nominated by User:Dapi89. Detailed family history not really relevant and should be summarized if included at all. Why is time mentioned now since it wasn't given earlier? And does it really matter? Watch for overlinking. Creuzbourg (talk) 09:30, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

One article, one opinion, and whose mother was notable enough for article of her own. Useless observation.

Wikipedia:Tag team springs to mind. Dapi89 (talk) 06:36, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• To report user behaviour issues, please see WP:ANI. This page is to discuss improvements to the article. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:33, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I streamlined the lead further by reducing blow-by-blow statistics and intricate explanations (i.e. if Rudel's foot was amputated, of course he would spend time in the hospital). Please see diff. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:38, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As auntieruth has argued Rudel's postwar intrigues probably were more important than his war-time activities. That underlines that so far too much emphasis is put on Rudel's military career and that the details should be reduced to come to a more balanced assessment of Rudel's life and acchievements. Acording to WP:LEAD: Like in the body of the article itself, the emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic. I may also note, that a lead section should contain no more than four well-composed paragraphs. This article contains five. One of these is replete with statistical details which are already summed up in the first paragraph.--Assayer (talk) 23:06, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm wondering what purpose the quote serves. There's no context, and it's unclear what its presence in the article is trying to convey.

Feedback? K.e.coffman (talk) 19:01, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For those who are not fluent in German: Rudel expresses his appreciation for the help extended by the Catholic church to former Nazis on the run. He refers to the ratlines that he himself used to flee to Argentina. The Spiegel uses an abbreviated form of Rudel's original quote to illustrate an article on how former Nazi war criminals escaped justice.--Assayer (talk) 22:52, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the excessive foreign language translations; pls see diff. Interested readers can click on the link, and avoidance of foreign language terms accompanied by italics also improves readability.

Separately, please see Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Hans-Ulrich Rudel where translations were brought up. In part due the prose issues, the article was not promoted to MilHist A-class status. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:12, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dear User:Dapi89: Here are my suggestions for copyediting the first two paragraphs of the sub-chapter "War against the Soviet Union."

Please state your objections to my editing, so we can discuss them. Anyone else can also comment, of course. Creuzbourg (talk) 12:06, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The context has been annihilated. That should be obvious. Dapi89 (talk) 18:57, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so. Annihilated is a very strong word. Can you specify what kind of context the following sentences (which I want to remove) give:

Rudel, who had been ordered to shuttle a Ju 87 to the production facility at Cottbus for a maintenance overhaul of the aircraft, heard over the radio news of the invasion of the Soviet Union on 22 June 1941. That day, he flew another aircraft to Insterburg, present-day Tschernjachowsk, and then southeast to Raczki. There, he was assigned to 1. Staffel commanded by Oberleutnant Ewald Janssen.

In my opinion its only excessive details that would be fine in a book-length biography, but not in an encyclopedic article. Creuzbourg (talk) 13:46, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This looks fine to me. I would add a sentence about Rudel's unit being subordinated to Army Group Centre, for context. I would also lose the detail about nn "First Lieutenant Ewald Janssen" and Rudel being Technical Officer. Such as:

• In June 1941, StG 2 was moved to occupied Poland in preparation for Operation Barbarossa, the invasion of the Soviet Union.^[1] StG 2 had been placed under the control of the 8th Air Corps, part of Luftflotte 2 (2nd Air Fleet), and supported the northern flank of Army Group Center.^[2] During the first two weeks of the campaign, StG 2 flew ground support missions for armored units of 3rd Panzer Group advancing towards Smolensk.^[6] Rudel flew his first four combat missions as a dive bomber pilot on 23 June 1941.^[1][5] On 18 July 1941, he was awarded the Iron Cross 1st Class.^[8]

I reduced unneeded piping & Germanisation of unit names, per WP:COMMONNAME, such as 3rd Panzer Group & 8th Air Corps. And I removed the link to "tank" (a second instance in this article  :-) ). K.e.coffman (talk) 01:13, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The German names don't bother me, but I trust you that its an eyesore for the normal English speaker. In your text I would like to remove "Gruppe of", since I don't think its matter if it was the whole or parts of the Wing that was subordinated. I will still wait awhile, and see if anyone else will make an input, before I publish the text. Creuzbourg (talk) 13:41, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Copyedited text published. Creuzbourg (talk) 07:03, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You would be okay with it Coffmann. I think I am going to ask the coordinators to step in. Two editors are running amok on this article. There is no logic to deleting the context to a particular action other than wanton destruction of the article. Dapi89 (talk) 17:09, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please do! I agree that a third party should intervene, since you are so dead against any changes; doesn't give any substantial feedback, just lamentations. Without feedback to me from one of the original contributors, my copyediting might rest on a shaky foundation.Creuzbourg (talk) 14:23, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe User Dapi89 can explain, why it is context to a particular action to mention the chain of command up to Kesselring, the immediate objective of Operation Barbarossa and that Rudel heard of the invasion of the Soviet Union on the radio? Why it is essential encyclopedic information (in the lead) not only that Rudel was credited with the destruction of 519 tanks, as well as a number of ships. He claimed 9 aerial victories and the destruction of more than 800 vehicles of all types. He flew 2,530 ground-attack missions exclusively on the Eastern Front, but also that he by 29 March 1944, ... was credited with over 200 tanks destroyed, and more than 1,800 combat missions logged. ... By 22 December 1944, Rudel flew his 2,400th combat mission and on the following day destroyed his 463rd tank. To my understanding, you'll need to have destroyed 200 and 463 tanks at some point, if you'll reach a 519 tanks total.--Assayer (talk) 21:53, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestions? Creuzbourg (talk) 14:05, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here's some additional copyediting:

• By August 1941, the 8th Air Corps was shifted northwards to support Army Group North in its attempt to capture Leningrad.^[4] Rudel flew numerous combat missions in support of the 16th Army and 18th Army advancing northwards.^[9] On 21 September 1941, Rudel flew his first mission against the Soviet Baltic Fleet task force that was bombarding German forces on their advance. He claimed a hit on the Soviet battleship Marat.^[10] On 23 September, StG 2, now armed with heavier, armor-piercing bombs, again attacked the Soviet ships based at Kronstadt harbor. Rudel hit Marat, causing an explosion that put her out of action for several months.^[11][12][13]

• Army Group Center opened Operation Typhoon, the Battle of Moscow, on 30 September 1941; the 8th Air Corps was again placed under the command of 2nd Air Fleet.^[4] On 2 December 1941, Rudel was awarded the German Cross in Gold, the first pilot of III. Gruppe to receive this decoration. By the end of December, he had flown his 400th mission, and on 6 January 1942 he received the Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross.^[19][7]

Published + a copyedited version of the last paragraph Creuzbourg (talk) 07:06, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Objections: why was this removed? : "In actions against land targets, he was credited with damaging or destroying 15 bridges, 23 artillery positions, 4 armored trains, and 17 tanks or assault guns.[7] In the winter of 1941–42, Rudel fought in the combat zones of the Volga–Daugave–Dnieper rivers near the Valdai Hills, in the vicinity of the Kholm and Demyansk Pockets, both pockets resulting from the German retreat following their defeat during the Battle of Moscow, in the area west of Rzhev, and over the railway line at Sychyovka.[20]". Dapi89 (talk) 17:11, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The material was removed because this level of detail is WP:UNDUE while being cited to questionable sources. I undid the revert by Dapi as no cogent explanations have been offered of why this material should be retained: diff.

Please also see Talk:Hans-Ulrich_Rudel#Sources. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:28, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No answer to the above question, intricate detail is opinion and nothing more. Information is relevant. Be constructive, not destructive. Dapi89 (talk) 19:12, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I've provided the answer, which seems pretty straightforward: The material was removed because this level of detail is WP:UNDUE while being cited to questionable sources. How much more clearer could I get? It seems yo be the case of WP:IDIDNOTHEARTHAT. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:00, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested new text after copyediting:

In February 1943, Rudel flew his 1,000th combat mission. As a reward, he was given fourteen days home leave.^{[21][22] [23]} Following this leave, he participated in the experiments with using the Ju 87 G in the anti-tank role, armed with two 37-millimeter (1.5-inch) Bordkanone BK 3,7 under-wing autocannons.^[23] In April 1943, he was promoted to Captain.^[24] The anti-tank experiment unit was moved to Kerch on the Kerch Peninsula. There, flying along with StG 2, Rudel was credited with the destruction of 70 Soviet landing crafts, flying the cannon equipped Ju 87.^{[23] [24]} Some of these attacks were filmed by an onboard gun camera and shown in Die Deutsche Wochenschau, a newsreel released in German cinemas.^[23] Der Adler also reported his actions in 1943. In April 1943, Rudel was awarded the Oak Leaves to his Knight's Cross, receiving them from Hitler personally in Berlin.^[21] On the first day of the Battle of Kursk, Rudel flew his first combat missions with the cannon equipped Ju 87 G against Soviet tanks in the area of Belgorod. In total, he was credited with twelve tanks destroyed that day.^[25] In July 1943 Rudel was appointed acting commander of III. Gruppe, after the incumbent was killed in action.^[25] In October 1943, Rudel, flying the Ju 87 G near Kirovohrad, was credited with the destruction of his 100th tank.^[26] For this achievement, on 25 November, he was awarded the Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross with Oak Leaves and Swords.^{[27] [28]}

Creuzbourg (talk) 07:36, 6 April 2017 (UTC) Creuzbourg (talk) 19:48, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Some additional copy-editing:

In February 1943, Rudel flew his 1,000th combat mission.^[21][22] He then participated in the experiments with using the Ju 87 G in the anti-tank role, armed with two 37 mm BK 37 under-wing autocannons.^[23] In April 1943, he was promoted to Captain.^[24] The anti-tank unit was moved to the Kerch Peninsula where it attacked the Red Army landing craft during the Soviet Kerch–Eltigen Operation. Some of these attacks were filmed by an onboard gun camera and shown in Die Deutsche Wochenschau, a newsreel released by the Reich Ministry of Propaganda.^[23] In April 1943, Rudel was awarded the Oak Leaves to the Knight's Cross, receiving them from Hitler personally in Berlin.^[21] During the Battle of Kursk, Rudel flew the cannon equipped Ju 87 G against Soviet tanks in the area of Belgorod.^[25] In July 1943 Rudel was appointed acting commander of III. Gruppe.^[25] In October 1943, Rudel was credited with the destruction of his 100th tank and was awarded the Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross with Oak Leaves and Swords on 25 November.^[27][28]

Published. Creuzbourg (talk) 09:01, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I streamlined the lead further by combining two paras on military service & reducing the level of detail unneeded in the lead; pls see diff. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:58, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Dapi89 reverted a number of those changes, without addressing the basic question: "does the level of detail in the lead, exactly have to mirror the content"? Its just a summary; its steering interested readers toward the main text; its not a substitute mini-article replacing the main article. Unfortunately User:Dapi89 never bothers to motivate his changes, or argue in positive terms for the inclusion of such data that are copyedited out. Explain why, and we might understand. There is a serious lack of goodwill from User:Dapi89, that inhibits any meaningful dialogues and compromises. Creuzbourg (talk) 14:33, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

BS.

I've already registered some of my objections above which relate to specificity to his combat record and statistics. And the lead does have to mirror the content in the article. The individual had a long war, and was a controversial creature well afterwards. A long article will obviously have a long lead. You wouldn't say a human being with a small head and large body looked normal would you?

As far as I can see, you haven't been willing to compromise on anything. Like Coffmann, you're attacking the article "because it's long". In fact, you fail to show how these deletions improve the quality of the article and how and why the excavated material is irrelevant. Removing statistics is not justifiable by any measure. Dapi89 (talk) 09:17, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please refer to the section "Sources" below; if better sources exist that cover Rudel's career at the same level of detail, please present them. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:34, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please answer the issues raised in this thread. Dapi89 (talk) 19:18, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is true that the lead currently mirrors the main body of the article. But that does not necessarily speak for the quality of that main body. I refer to WP:NOTEVERYTHING, WP:IINFO and WP:SUMMARY. I quoted an example above. Rudel's career, where he fought, how many tanks he destroyed and the honors and awards he earned, is not summarized, but presented blow by blow. The prose is full of repetitions and tiresome to read. As we can learn from the article, he flew a 400th combat mission, a 750th mission, a 1000th mission, more than 1000 missions, a 1300th mission, a 1500th mission, a 1600th mission, a 1800th mission, a 2000th mission, and so forth. Who would have known given his combat mission total? I could do a similiar list with the score of his tank kills, with an extra column for the tanks destroyed with the 37mm cannon. From an encyclpedic perspective, this is superflous information. And I agree that this has something to do with the sources being used. --Assayer (talk) 19:43, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The section-by-section review above really highlighted the poor quality of sources used in the article to cover Rudel's WWII career: Sample:

• In June 1941, StG 2 was moved to Raczki in preparation for Operation Barbarossa, the invasion of the Soviet Union.^[1] Rudel was assigned to 1. Staffel commanded by First Lieutenant Ewald Janssen. As Janssen's wingman, Rudel flew his first four combat missions as a dive bomber pilot against Soviet tank and troop deployments in the vicinity of Grodno and Vawkavysk on 23 June 1941.^[1][2] During the first two weeks of the campaign, StG 2 flew ground support missions for armored units of Panzergruppe 3 advancing towards Smolensk.^[3] Rudel was then appointed Technical Officer of III. Gruppe of StG 2. ^[4] On 18 July 1941, he was awarded the Iron Cross 1st Class and the Front Flying Clasp of the Luftwaffe for Ground Attack Fighters in Gold.^[5]

Bibliography

Personal analysis of K.e.Coffman

In order of appearance:

• Brütting: a WP:QS source by a former Wehrmacht propagandist; see Wehrmacht Propaganda Troops & Georg Brütting [de].
• Just: another questionable source. It comes from Schiffer Publishing which is pretty much the U.S. equivalent of Canada's J.J. Fedorowicz Publishing. Just's biography of Rudel is described as "adulatory" in The Myth of the Eastern Front.
• Murawski: I'm not familiar with this source. In any case, the statement that he's used for does not discuss Rudel or his command.
• Stockert: the source is a catalog of Knight's Cross winners.
• Obermaier: a dated (originally published in the 1960s), questionable source; see discussion at de.wiki on an attempted promotion of a list covering Luftwaffe fighter pilots to a Featured List: link. The nomination failed mostly because of the source, which was described as weak and dated. One of the comments was: 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. According to WP:Q, the lack of scientific literature points to a lack of relevance.

To echo the last comment, the minute details of Rudel's WWII career lack encyclopedic relevance since they are covered in sources such as those listed above. If better sources exist, then they should be presented as part of this discussion. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:27, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Provide direct evidence of their duplicity, or stop adding unreliable source tags. Dapi89 (talk) 15:07, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Old sources are not to be excluded for that reason. The rest of this is pure opinion and irrelevant. No convincing argument here for the removal of Muraski, Obermaier or Just. In fact, no argument is presented. You're reliance on one book is amusing. Dapi89 (talk) 19:16, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If I may quote Dapi89, "it isn't the opinion of Wikipedia editors that matters it sources" (bolding in the original). I've presented a secondary source (Smelser & Davies) that describes Just's biography as "adulatory", while Dapi presents only his opinion that the source is fine. Are there sources that describe Just's biography as reliable and trustworthy? K.e.coffman (talk) 00:57, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are using Smelser & Davies to re-write wikipedia in the way that you see fit. Dapi89 (talk) 15:05, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just as a source

It has recently come to my attention that Just and his biography has been used by Sönke Neitzel as a source. Coffmann in particular has placed this historian in high regard. Dapi89 (talk) 16:36, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tag

As a conclusion of the above debate I have added the following tag: Template:Refimprove . Creuzbourg (talk) 22:34, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Creuzbourg: I believe that Template:Unreliable sources would be more appropriate. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:22, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Dapi89: Please consider self-reverting; the removal of the tags is not in consensus with the Talk page discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 16:16, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Since all efforts to improve the texts has been thwarted by the original editor, I will cease trying. In spite of what the rule of Wikipedia says, its obvious that articles are owned by editors of bad faith. I cannot, however, accept the removal of tags before consensus have been reached. Creuzbourg (talk) 15:25, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you can show why the sources should not be used, and can prove their duplicity in reporting history, then you have my full support. Until then, it's just a series of agenda-driven attacks on content. Dapi89 (talk) 15:38, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I sense WP:OWN issues with this page; as I've noted in my edit summary: 3 editors (for) vs 1 editor (against) constitutes rough consensus. The discussion is not just about sources but about the excessive amount of intricate detail (see WP:DUE). K.e.coffman (talk) 15:43, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, I can sense you trying to destroy it. Prove your case in relation to unreliable sources, or move on. As with U-Boat commanders, you seem to think German servicemen and their achievements were a figment of "Nazi propaganda ". Dapi89 (talk) 15:51, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Since a single user constantly reverts, effectively blocking any attempt to keep the article at GA level, while confining his arguments to exercises in personal disregard, it may be about time for a GA reassessment.--Assayer (talk) 15:21, 25 April 2017 (UTC) For what it's worth: WP:ONUS.--Assayer (talk) 15:54, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nice try. I am introducing new sources, if you are not willing to assist, don't bothering commenting. Dapi89 (talk) 16:33, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Dapi89: Please consider self-reverting to this version: link; the restoration of the material is not in consensus with the Talk page discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 16:16, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Since the prevailing attitude of the "owner" is "I can see nothing wrong with the article and there is no need to change anything at all," I support a GA revision, but I cannot initiate it since I am so heavily involved in the editorial war. Creuzbourg (talk) 16:21, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is funny. I have removed Coffman's threat from my talk page. Also, this is not a case of WP:OWN. I did not create this article, I did not push it through at G.A, in fact I have hardly done any work on it. Dapi89 (talk) 16:33, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is absolutely impermissible to remove tags once there are three editors who believe they qualify. You are not allowed to delete your own discussion page. Your behavior is disruptive, and you should be banned from Wikipedia. Creuzbourg (talk) 16:36, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong. Editors opinions count for nothing. You need to prove the sources unreliable.

Coffmann has no authority, and I will do as I please there. My intentions are to prevent the destruction of the article, to call that disruptive is a joke. Dapi89 (talk) 16:40, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cite error: There are <ref group=Note> tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=Note}} template (see the help page).