Talk:Hans-Ulrich Rudel/Archive 1

Record holder
Shouldn't the fact that he holds the record for the most mission sorties be mentioned in the introductory paragraph? --WhiteEcho 16:06, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

The initial paragraph lists 3,530 sorties flown, while a later one (under "Achievements") lists 2,530. It would appear that one of these must be incorrect... 24.238.58.138 20:01, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

there is a picture at 0:47. You can see Luftwaffe staff personel or pilots( I dont know) holding a sign in front of Rudels "Stuka" which clearly says: 3500

Short Video on Rudel´s achievements — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.154.195.115 (talk) 09:34, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

From a purely logistics point of view the 3,500 missions total should be treated with caution. If one assumes Rudel saw action from June 1941 to May 1945 ( and ignoring leave, hospitalisation, etc) that means ~1,430 maximum days flying, resulting in an average of nearly 2.5 operations flown by Rudel every day constantly for over 3 and a half years ! Even 2,350 missions flown means 1.75/day. I suspect (but can't prove) the missions total may possibly have been confused with flying hours flown. Comments anyone? Harryurz (talk) 19:52, 21 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I think you will find that Stuka pilots, compared to fighter pilots, frequently engaged in multiple short range sorties per day. Take off - drop bomb - land - re-arm - take off etc. In fact it wasn't uncommon for fighter pilots to fly 3 sorties per day, particularly towards the end of the war given the state of the Luftwaffe then.1812ahill (talk) 14:18, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately the video was deleted so I can't confirm but if you refer to the picture published in
 * Just, Günther (1990), Hans Ulrich Rudel His Life Story in Words and Photgraphs. Atglen, Pennsylvania: Schiffer Publishing Ltd. ISBN 0-88740-252-6.

On page 130 you see a picture of Oblt Thiede, Oblt Rudel, Hptm Dilley, Oblt Jackel and Hptm Möbus pointing to a sign of 3500. The caption reads "five Stucka officers — 3,500 missions!" MisterBee1966 (talk) 19:40, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Kills
His kills should be mentioned.

He has more than 2000 kills. How can you name them all? I read about his missions from the book he himself wrote and he had a few unbelievable kills, especially against the T-31s rolling into Germany. But naming a few would not make a sense, as it is not that informative. --WhiteEcho 16:08, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

There are problems with Rudel's memoirs. The Wikipedia article states that Rudel destroyed 4 Soviet armored trains. But Rudel himself does not remember that he did something similar. In his memoirs Rudel remembers only one episode with the Soviet armored train, where his squadron not destroyed, but only blocked the Soviet armored train in a tunnel for a few days. I think that most of his kills is a Goebbels merit195.26.84.250 (talk) 16:19, 9 April 2011 (UTC)Arthur

The Wikipedia article states that Rudel destroyed 2 Soviet cruisers. But in his memoirs Rudel does not remember that he destroyed even one cruiser.195.26.84.250 (talk) 17:18, 9 April 2011 (UTC)Artur

The Wikipedia article states that Rudel destroyed 1 Soviet destroyer. Other Goebbels sources states that she was the Steregushchiy(Watchful). Yes, the Steregushchiy has sunk on 21 september 1941. But Rudel wrote in his memoirs about 22 september 1941 that the day when I will prove to my squadron that I am able to fly has come. Problems with his memoirs, problems...195.26.84.250 (talk) 17:39, 9 April 2011 (UTC)Arthur

the only problem here is not someones memory but your atempt to discredit H.U. Rudels amazing achievements. The fact that alot of people try to lable the outstanding achievements (not only of him but of all the german ww2-aces) as propaganda is just embarrassing. In fact EVERY kill had to be confirmed by either a wingman, video-footage or another (at least) decent source. It wasnt like Hartmann, Wittman or Rudel just went to the high-command and made 10 more marks on their list. Anyone of whom ever encountered the german way of bureaucracy knows that they are/ and were very serious about it. You actually had to provide some sort of evidence... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.154.195.115 (talk) 14:05, 16 August 2011 (UTC)


 * well, if you dig for Hartmann specifically, you discover that most of his record isn't documented and is based actually on the letters he wrote to his girlfriend ;) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.45.227.74 (talk) 16:40, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
 * b/s. See Toliver/Constable. 46.115.132.123 (talk) 01:48, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

A-10
Is there a source for the statement that his input was sought on the development of the A-10? I would be interested in knowing where that comes from.


 * Also, if this refers to the American A-10, then this sentence should appear in its chronological position - not here, when WW2 is still being discussed. altmany 00:58, August 12, 2005 (UTC)


 * The story of A-10 is very strange, yes he was in it. I will write the story into wikipedia if I have time. The A-10 design is based on a hungarian late-WWII Ju-87 derivative design, powered by two Jumo-004 early jet engines in the tail. I have a copy of its three-view. Rudel helped outline it, when he was fighting in Hungary in autumn 1944. The airframe was captured 2/3rd complete by americans in southern Germany in May 1945 and taken to USA. It was forgotten until A-9/A-10 designers discovered it in a warehouse. They found a note about the Rudel connection and contacted the old man for A-10 insight. 195.70.32.136 20:08, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

We still need the source for that.--J.A.

No peace
When the guy died in 1982, Luftwaffe F-4 Phantom fighters flew in Iron Cross formation over his funeral, which ignited a diplomatic protest from the soviet bloc. 195.70.32.136 15:39, 26 December 2005 (UTC)


 * So what? Even if true, the luftwaffe insignia to this day is a grey iron cross shape, so it would be a fitting send off. If it had been a swastika that would be a different matter. And considering the Soviet record w.r.t. human rights it's a bit like the dirty old kettle calling the clean(ish) new pot black.1812ahill (talk) 22:11, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

there are no sources which verify any of these dubius accounts of formations flying above his funeral. many different versions exist, but none of them appears to be true. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.154.195.115 (talk) 12:16, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Quote: "Was sich jedoch zwei Tage vor Heiligabend des vergangenen Jahres just über dem 240-Einwohner-Dorf Dornhausen im Landkreis Weißenburg-Gunzenhausen abspielte, hatte man im Altmühl-Tal bis dahin noch nicht erlebt: Während zur Mittagszeit auf dem Dorffriedhof gerade eine Beerdigung begann, zogen zwei Phantom-Jäger am Himmel eine sich merkwürdig kreuzende und knickende Bahn, die man, so ein Beobachter, "mit etwas Phantasie als Hakenkreuz betrachten" konnte.

Wenig später stürzte sich, wie mehrere Augenzeugen übereinstimmend berichten, eine Phantom gezielt in Richtung Dorfkirche hinunter, wackelte beim Anflug andeutungsweise mit den Tragflächen und drehte etwa hundert Meter über Dornhausen jäh nach oben ab.

Und während der abschließenden Trauerfeierlichkeiten in der Kirche setzten noch einmal zwei Phantoms und ein Starfighter im Tiefflug über die Gemeinde - so nah, daß die Hoheitszeichen der Bundeswehr-Luftwaffe unschwer ausgemacht werden konnten. Pastor Karl Ermann unterbrach den Gottesdienst für einen Moment und räusperte sich." (Der Spiegel, 03.01.1983)

http://www.spiegel.de/spiegel/print/d-14018251.html 77.11.114.35 (talk) 13:32, 26 October 2011 (UTC)


 * As this is the English WP, we'd need a translation. As there seemed to be none available online, here's a rough one of my making:


 * "What happened two days ago on Christmas Eve in Dornhausen (a village of 240 inhabitants) [...] had not been witnessed in the Altmühl valley before: During [Rudel's] funeral at the village cemetery, two Phantom interceptors flew by in a pattern that, according to an eyewitness, "looked, using a bit of imagination, somewhat like a swastika". Later, according to several independent eyewitnesses, a Phantom interceptor dove, approaching the church, apparently wiggled its wingtips" [a form of salute among military aviators, as far as I know] "and then pulled up again at approximately 100 meters above ground. Finally, during the ceremony after the actual funeral, another two Phantoms and a Starfighter flew by at a very low altitude, at which the Bundeswehr-Luftwaffe markings were clearly visible. The minister, Karl Ermann, interrupted the ceremony for a moment.


 * The "dubious account", clearly describing a formation fly-by, almost an "honor guard" (whether the swastika bit is true or not, is not relevant), has been given in Der Spiegel, one of Germany's most highly regarded news magazines with a thorough reputation. A reliable source by all means according to WP standards. FungusFromYuggoth (talk) 22:03, 28 January 2012 (UTC)


 * LoL. Even a mathematical moron can tell that it is impossible to make swastika out of two points (i.e. planes). It would require a minimum of 13 aircraft to make a shape discernible as a swastika. Banal reporting beyond belief.1812ahill (talk) 22:37, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

":So what? Even if true, the luftwaffe insignia to this day is a grey iron cross shape, so it would be a fitting send off. If it had been a swastika that would be a different matter. And considering the Soviet record w.r.t. human rights it's a bit like the dirty old kettle calling the clean(ish) new pot black.1812ahill (talk) 22:11, 2 August 2012 (UTC)"

How about because he was a convinced Nazi ?--JustinSmith (talk) 12:52, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Weapons
It should be noted that Rudel originally flew the Ju-87B/D versions which were dive bomber planes. By mid-1942 dive bombing became an obsolete tactic, as planes were too easy to shoot down while diving straight.

He was then retrained to operate the anti-tank variant of the Ju-87G, equipped with two 37mm caliber long barreled autocannon in fixed underwing pods. This weapon fired tungsten core projectiles and could pierce even the turret of the main soviet battle tanks then in service. These planes flew horizontally and as close to the ground as possible to evade AA artillery.

However, only Rudel and a few select German pilots could fly and aim the Ju-87G precisely enough to hit tanks reliably. Even his wingmen came near anywhere his kill ratio. But he did kill most of those 500+ tanks in the cannon-armed Ju-87G. Those 512 (or 519) tanks and 800 trucks are worth more than the entire equipment of an entire soviet tank army, so it was a tremendous loss to the Red Army. 195.70.32.136 15:48, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I am 100% sure that these figures were "inflated" for propaganda purposes by the Luftwaffe and the Nazi ministry of Propaganda. Mieciu K 23:09, 5 October 2006 (UTC)


 * No, it was not. There are many photos of T-34 wrecks and eye witness accounts which testify for Rudel's marksmanship. The Hungarian fighter pilot Tibor Tobak wrote in his memoire about occasions when his squadron gave top cover for Rudel's unit during autumn 1944 and how they saw Rudel's tremedous efficiency in hitting Soviet tanks with the 37mm autocannons. 195.70.32.136 14:23, 2 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, it was. Tank "kills" were mostly "confirmed" when there was visible smoke after a dive pass. However, putting a smoke renade on the tank when attacked to deceive bombers (so they don't make a second pass) was considered standard countermeasure among soviet tankmen. 95.32.127.132 (talk) 20:56, 13 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Source? One can acknowledge that Rudel was an extraordinary pilot without giving his political views any credence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.131.199.37 (talk) 06:58, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Whhops! apologies, but ive accidentally revised the discussion notes here rather than the main text- could someone revert to the earlier version for me? thanks Harryurz 10:53, 4 November 2006 (UTC)]

"But after the Kursk battle our engineering services have examined all our knocked out tanks, having measured diameter of holes in them. Also have established that 33,5 % of holes are left by 50-mm shell of German anti-tank guns and tanks T-III, 40,5 % of holes are left by 75-mm shell of anti-tank guns and tanks T-IV and Т-V, and 26,0 % of holes are left by 88-mm shell German anti-aircraft guns Flak and tanks T-VI. As you can see, the sum turns out 100 %. And where are the tanks which have been shot with 37-mm guns of Rudel's squadron ?"

Source : "Мухин Ю.И. Асы и пропаганда. Дутые победы Люфтваффе — М. Яуза, Эксмо, 2004."195.26.84.250 (talk) 15:35, 9 April 2011 (UTC)Arthur


 * Thats accurate. And not even 0,1 % of the Soviet tanks were hit by friendly fire or enemy planes, wow. Rudel kept swollow the hook, when the Soviets just "putting a smoke [g]renade on the tank", over and over and over again ... 77.180.13.172 (talk) 12:19, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Photos
A comprehensive collection of photos of Hans-Ulrich Rudel and his aircraft can be found at www.pilotenbunker.de (in German). I've included one in the article under fair use guidelines.--Toms2866 01:50, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Edits & Notes of 060606
1. Para 1 states: "Rudel is famous for being the most decorated German in the war". Is he? I'd never heard of him until I came across this article.

2. I have rewritten, substantially edited and incorporated para 2 into para 1.

3. I have changed all dates to the European way, (they were 1/2 European and 1/2 American) - the article is about a European.

4. I have moved the 'planes destroyed' to just after the 'vehicles destroyed'. In its origional form, it sounded like he had sunk the planes.

5. I have changed the spelling of the Russian currency to conform with that of the Oxford English dictionary.

6. I am still confused by the penultimate paragraph. In one sentence it states that Rudel was 'the most decorated soldier in Germany'(but see 1 above). Huh? I thought he was a pilot. Then it goes on to say that Gǒring was the most decorated.

RASAM 14:10, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, he is the most decorated but the Germans have a habit of being very discreet about the whole WW2 thing (shame, you know), and his name has faded away in their memory. When I mentioned his name to one of my German relatives, who served during WW2 in the Wehrmacht, he could not believe I knew his name (and I am not even German myself). He showed me his uniform, he was so-so proud of it, and apparently it was not something he did often. --WhiteEcho 16:12, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Jewish Mistress
The text added recently to this page noting that Rudel had a Jewish mistress is very interesting. I have found what is apparently its source in an untitled document: kudiglib.ku.edu/projects/rigg_bm.pdf, but as a fact it lacks substantiation and proper citation. I'm hesitant to remove it, however, since it seems such a profound insight into the man. I'll continue to look at time permits, but anyone else verify or refute this statement?

Rank
Why is his rank listed as being major? At the and of WWII Rudel was a colonel of the Luftwaffe. I edited his rank to colonel but someone changed it back to major. Please correct his rank to colonel and leave it so.


 * Provide proper citation first. John Reaves 15:37, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

The sites in the external link section of the article clearly state that his final rank in the Luftwaffe was Colonel or Oberst ( http://www.pilotenbunker.de/Stuka/Rudel/rudel.htm ). And on all pictures after 1.1.1945. you can clearly see his rank being colonel ( http://www.pilotenbunker.de/Stuka/Rudel/rudel.htm ). So please correct this error.

Planes shot down
In the intro, it says 13, but in the Achievements section, it claims 9. Which is it? Clarityfiend 17:20, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I haven't been able to confirm 13, though a couple of sources say 9. The Achievements section, however, appears to be referring to ground targets when it lists the number of aircraft he destroyed as opposed to him having "shot down 13 aircraft."  It still seems like those numbers should be reversed.... Geeman 21:58, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Release by the Americans
How come he was released by the Americans without being subject to the 'Yalta Agreement'? Hartmann and other German pilots had to serve time in Soviet prisons, yet Rudel seemed to have avoided it all. Jaker5 05:45, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes Rudel did seem to live a charmed life! I have not come across any literature that gives a specific answer on this question. The book Hans Ulrich Rudel by Gunther Jost mentions he was wounded at the time, his 'stump' leg seems to have needed medical attention and this is perhaps what led to him remaining with the western allies rather than immediately being handed over. He did obtain a transfer to a German military hospital after being in a POW in camp in England and france and then he was just released. Perhaps the allies knew he would most likley by treated badly by the soviets. As I understand Hartmann might have stayed with the Americans had it not been for his insisting he return to his unit on the Eastern front. He rejected the chance to fly the me 262's, a lot of 262 pilots were kept by the US because they had invaluable combat experience on the Jets.Dapi89 21:14, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

The allied mistreatment of German POW's was extensive. The Soviets murdered hundreds of thousands of German POW's during and after the war, and the USA starved untold numbers to death. The French put German POWS into forced labor camps and beat them. The Americans also headed up the "war crimes" trials but what is never mentioned is the torture and brutalization of the defendants. Anyone who thinks Rudel lived a "charmed life" must be demented. Like my own family who was also from Silesia, he lost everything. Silesia, was part of the one third of Germany that was stolen from Germany and given to other European countries. Approximately 20 million Germans were ethnically cleansed from their cities and driven into current day Germany. Like most Germans form Silesia, he most likely lost family members in the atrocities the allies committed.Pgg804 (talk) 22:18, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Hartmann surrendered to the Americans, but he surrendered to the Americans in Czechoslovakia, which was part of the Soviet Zone of occupation. The 90th ID was doing deep recon when they came across the JG.52. Had Hartmann made it to the American Zone of Occupation, rather than just reaching US forces, he would have probably been fine. 50.37.120.131 (talk) 09:34, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Btw. Rudel was well aware of the brutality of the Soviets, even of the Allies. After surrendering to the West, by flying to an Allied controlled base, he was then constantly transferred and shifted around, the U.S. to British to France, and back, etc. ... There was at one point a threat to send him off to his former Silesia, and to be interned with the Russians. He responded to this by saying that he was sure that the Russians would be very interested in hearing of his combat experience and tactics, and that this might prove useful in any future war [with the West]. The response to this: "And then you want to work for the Russians [therefore]?" (...) Rudel: "I have been very interested to hear your opinion of your 'allies'." The subject of Russia was never again brought up in his presence. (John G. Lewis (talk) 17:44, 6 December 2015 (UTC))

Limited Education
After a limited education? He had/passed the Abitur.

Lieutenant Rank
I have corrected the use of the English/American Lieutenant Rank, to the German Leutnant. This only serves to make sense, as the American rank equivalent is bi-hierarchical. And later in the article we use the term "Oberstleutnant". Therefore not using the anglophonic lieutenant makes for better and more agree able native German reading of the article, and also improves the over all quality of the accuracy, as there is only one Luftwaffe Leutnant rank attainable.

- Xelous - 21st june 2007

Golden Oak Leaves with Sword and Diamonds
Rudel was awarded the Golden Oak leaves on January 1st 1945 ! Please correct the error in the article. Regards Bruce Marvin 22:34, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I also changed it to show that while he was one of the few to win it, he was not the only one. 70.45.166.124 00:42, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I know this last note was 2007, but still... H. U. Rudel was, evidently, the only winner of the Golden Oak Leaves with Swords and Diamonds to the Knight's Cross. Yes, there were previous winners of the Oak leaves, Swords and Diamonds to the Knight Cross (abbreviated "Diamonds to Knight's Cross"; a rare award), and one of which was Rudel himself, but he was the only winner of an award which happened to be specially designed and made for him: the *Golden Oak Leaves* with Swords and Diamonds to the Knight's Cross (perhaps abbreviated "Golden Oak Leaves to Knight's Cross"), becoming the highest *battlefield decoration*. In the decoration, made at the very end of the War at the bequest of Hitler, the Leaves were literal Gold, and there were real Diamonds too, so it would seem difficult how to upgrade this. Btw, upon landing behind Western Allied lines, May 1945, Rudel's documents, including a notebook of all his recorded flights over the U.S.S.R., were taken from him. [Not the Knight's Cross, however.] Additionally, Rudel is clear in his autobiography of the War ("Stuka Pilot"), that he did disobey Hitler toward the end. See footnote 24 (this page).

It appears he was the only winner of the Golden Oak leaves, though of the literal award itself 6 were made, one of which was awarded to Rudel roughly on Jan. 1, 1945. Many notables of the Third Reich were present, including Goring and Donitz. Upon giving the award to Rudel, the latter writes that Hitler said: "Now you are done flying. Your life must be preserved for the sake of our German youth and your experience. [He was to assume some executive function interior to the Luftwaffe.]"  When Rudel refused to cease flying, even at the sake of the decoration, Hitler changes his mind, and says; "All right, you may go on flying." Admiral Donitz considered this "unsoldierly", and told Rudel so. (John G. Lewis (talk) 21:58, 5 December 2015 (UTC))

Notorious nazi.
He was said to be the head of a secret post-WII nazi-helper organization called "Kamaradenwerke", which continued the activities of the ODESSA project. He helped Josef Mengele escape and hide in South Ameria. 91.83.6.174 20:40, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Reference necessary. Med 20:46, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

This information has been added without citation as directed. I have removed it. It is highly suspect, and I would demand a very reliable source. User Mrg3105: "its a matter of bograpical [biographical] fact and how he was able to move back to germany". Is it really? Then it will not be too difficult to find a citation for will it? As an experienced editor you should know this cannot stand without one, or else it's tantermount to slander. Dapi89 (talk) 02:20, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Battleship Marat "Sinking"
Can we really say that Hans SANK the Marat? If we are to follow the history books and the references on the Wikipedia article about the Marat herself, she never did actually "sink". She blew up, but did not officially "sink". I believe this should be noted somewhere and that his claim of "sinking" a battleship be changed to "blowing up" or "destroying" a battleship. Either would comprise the correct terminology. Im just trying to create consistency here. Jeremy D. (talk) 06:38, 30 January 2009 (UTC) But the Marat was not destroyed. She stays in use as a motionless artillery battery. "She was sunk at her moorings" - that is the better. 195.26.84.250 (talk) 22:43, 8 April 2011 (UTC)Arthur

Sorry for my bad English. BTW. There were 5 air raids over Kronstadt on that day at 10.30, 11.45, 13.10, 14.30, 17.55 Moscow time. First Rudel's attack was in the second raid after 11.30. But Marat was sunk ... at 11.00. Captains Potter and Peltz were awarded after this day in KG77. But Rudel was not. At his memoirs Rudel wrote two ships about - the Marat and the Kirov. But he did not wrote about the "October revolution". But during the second raid he could see two ships only - the "October revolution" and the Kirov. So, he bombed the "October revolution" instead of the Marat. Read Rudel's memoirs attentively. Rudel wrote "I look downwards, at Marat. There is a cruiser Kirov behind her". Yes, gotcha !!! On that day Kirov was just behind the "October revolution" in the Lesnaya(Wood) harbour. But Marat was aside and alone in the Srednyaya(Middle) harbour. So during the first raid Ju-87s from KG77 have drowned the Marat but thought that she was the "October Revolution" (this battleships are of the same type) and during the second raid Ju-87s from StG2 with Rudel bombed the "October revolution", but thought that she was the Marat. Thus Rudel damaged the battleship "October revolution" which was hit by 2 bombs on that day195.26.84.250 (talk) 04:47, 9 April 2011 (UTC)Arthur

In any case, according to its own page, the Marat did sink. however, it sank in water that was 11m deep, so the task of raising part or all of it was not particularly difficult. 50.37.120.131 (talk) 09:41, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Sinking a ship in shallow water (like a harbor) doesn't prevent it from being rised up. So you can sink a ship without preventing on a long time it owner to make it float and fight again. Probably Marat sank but was not damaged beyond repair. Moreover in harbor you can't go very deep, never deeper than the height of water under the keel. Look at Pearl Harbor for example. All but 2 of the battleship sank at Pearl Harbor fought in WW2. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.23.175.180 (talk) 15:49, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Achievements
The final paragraph of this section doesn't make sense. Can someone who knows which awards he received and which Goering received, please clarify? Rumiton (talk) 14:17, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Unreliable source
Right off the bat the section that reads "On one occasion, after trying a landing to rescue two downed novice Stuka crewmen and then not being able to take off again due to the muddy conditions, he and his three companions, while being chased for 6 km by Soviet soldiers, made their way down a steep cliff by sliding down trees, then swam 600 meters across the icy Dniester river, during which his rear gunner, Knight's Cross holder Henschel, succumbed to the cold water and drowned. Several miles further towards the German lines, the three survivors were then captured by Soviets, but the irrepressible Rudel again made a run for it, and despite being barefoot and in soaking clothes, getting shot in his shoulder, and being hunted by several hundred pursuers with dog packs, jogged his way back to his own side over semi-frozen earth during the following days.", Has only 1 source and after going through it site does not seem reliable. There is no source referencing and the about the only part mentioned on the site used for the above mentions the death of Henschel and the fact that he did crash and had to run and swim to find the germans. No where is there anything about hundreds of pursuers with dogs, steep cliffs, barefoot and soaking, etc....  This simply seems written as from a dramatic point of view and without adequate referencing there is no reason to keep most of this entire paragraph on an encyclopedia. I've chosen not to whole sale cut or delete as it is a substantial amount of wording and if proper and reliable sources can be found then by all means it should stay in. tyvm Pudge MclameO (talk) 01:49, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

The situation is from Rudels book 'Stuka pilot'. I advise you to read it(100 pages) Ivanov 22:30 26 Feb 2012 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.100.60.91 (talk) 20:36, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * If it's indeed from Rudel's book, then this is it precisely - an unreliable source in action. See WP:reliable sources. --Kubanczyk (talk) 08:17, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

100 000 rubles for the head
"Eventually a 100,000 ruble bounty was placed on his head by Stalin himself.[citation needed]" Only russians could know what Stalin promised for someone's head, what not. But there is no such information in russian sources. M.Zefirov is the post-USSR russian historian and apologist of Rudel. Even in his book there is no such information. In soviet history books Rudel was not mentioned at all. But in the Wikipedia article this statement is not confirmed even by western sources. I think it is full fake. 195.26.84.250 (talk) 14:57, 9 April 2011 (UTC)Arthur

damn, isn´t it obvious why post-war russian (soviet) sources wouldn´t compliment him for his achievments?
 * sure, as none of these sources deals with science fiction in general and specific fiction authors writing achievments in particular))

some of you appear to have not understood that the soviet propaganda is equal to Mr. Goebbels apparatus of lies, and lies, and lies.........--62.154.195.115 (talk) 12:28, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

519 sounds a bit unrealistic
according to different sources soviet army lost 50T-90T tanks. Percentage of tanks destroyed by airplanes varies between 2%-6%. That will make 1T-5,4T tanks. 519 would be at least 11% even more than the entire luftwaffe(him excluded)had scored on the eastern front. I dont know how many pilots germany had, but there were 18500 bombers and 12000 ground attack aircraft. 519 destroyed tanks is a nazi fairy tale. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.200.57.223 (talk) 12:04, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Now "a bit unrealistic" sounds a bit understated)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.32.187.18 (talk) 20:47, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

"Hard to believe." I would classify it as. He was the top German Luftwaffe tank ace, Eastern front, and flying for the full length of the war against the Soviets. Many of his kills are confirmed by reports in the OKW, OKH ... (etc.) I am not aware of a report by a comrade - or even an enemy - that casts aspersions on the number "519". Rudel was not one to lie, either. I believe the number is accurate, though a fantastic tally, indeed. It should be remembered that Rudel was flying, at the end of the War, in a modified Folke Wolfe 190, with only one leg. (John G. Lewis (talk) 17:20, 6 December 2015 (UTC))

How many children does he has?
How often did he became a father? --91.6.80.139 (talk) 18:40, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

More combat missions than anyone in history?
Please check Lee Lue for starters. Lee Lue flew approximately twice as many combat sorties as Rudel.

I also know of other Asian pilots with more sorties than Rudel. Mind you, if I put this in the article without citable sources, it would be the dreaded ORIGINAL RESEARCH. However, the last time I saw Prince T-Vant of the Royal Lao Air Force, he had flown over 2,800 missions, and I had debriefed him after most of them. Another RLAF pilot I knew, Kham P. Manivanh, seems to have flown even more mission than any of the above–possibly as many as 7,000. I am scrounging for quotable sources for the pilots in this paragraph. It's a tough go because of the extreme secrecy that attended the RLAF operations.

However, Lee Lue's claim in his article is sourced, and he bumps Rudel off the "most missions" perch.

Georgejdorner (talk) 17:41, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Addenda per Manivanh:

Try http://www.geocities.ws/koratmahknut/warinlaos/rlaf/rlafpilots.htm (which credits him with "only" 4,200 sorties. Still looking for more reliable sources.

Georgejdorner (talk) 17:47, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Hello, all,

Indisputable proof of Lee Lue's missions is on page 216 of Tragic Mountains: The Hmong, the Americans, and the Secret Wars for Laos, 1942-1992. Jane Hamilton-Merritt. Indiana University Press, 1993. ISBN 0253207568, 9780253207562. Note that I am not claiming he flew more combat sorties than anyone in history–just that he flew about twice as many as Rudel.

To quote: "Ly Lue's logbook recording over 5,000 missions was given to his family."

With that, I am removing the false claim from this article.

Georgejdorner (talk) 23:34, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

wasn't it 3530 combat missions?
I thought Rudel flew 3530 combat missions. There is a picture of him standing in front of a Stuka with 3500 written on it. the photo can be seen in this excerpt from a documentary: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9FD7MvO7fww. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Squidonthemoon (talk • contribs) 07:44, 22 May 2014 (UTC)


 * The image shows the collective missions flown by Oblt Thiede, Oblt Rudel, Hptm Dilley, Oblt Jackel and Hptm Möbus pointing to a sign of 3500. The caption reads "five Stucka officers — 3,500 missions!" Rudel "only" flew 2,530 missions during the war. MisterBee1966 (talk) 13:12, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

My book, "Stuka Pilot" (1958), Ballantine Books, clearly states 2530 operational flights. I submit the no. "3530" was an error. (John G. Lewis (talk) 17:07, 6 December 2015 (UTC))

Disobeying hitler
Rudel refused to accept this command, and Hitler had no choice but to reluctantly rescind it.

This is ridiculous and I am am removing it as it is unsourced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Youngdrake (talk • contribs) 11:42, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Hans Rudel writes that he refused a direct order from the Fuehrer at least twice, and it was to the Supreme Commander's face each time. The first was when Rudel was awarded the Golden Oak leaves to Knight's Cross, this being the time when the award was created. The incident is written of above, and occurred on roughly the first of the year, 1945. [Hitler wanted Rudel to stop risking his life, and accept an executive role in the Luftwaffe.] A fortnight later, the Reichmarshall (H. Goring) repeated this message in a wireless priority message. Again, this was refused... Rudel goes on to write, however, that Hitler called him to a personal meeting in the first fortnight of April, 1945, with the direction that once again, Rudel was to discontinue flying, and his new mission would be to take over Jet Command in northern Germany. Rudel pleads to be relieved of the task, and so a final decision is not reached that day. A few days later, Rudel is again summoned, and the Fuehrer has decided that Rudel is the man to do this. Again, Rudel declines, as he loves his tactical flying against the Soviets, now in an advanced Folke-Wolfe 190 -- yet, he does write that he would be willing to accept, if the situation demanded. Again, Hitler delays the issue, postponing until another day for Rudel's "final acceptance of the assignment". However, as it was mid-April 1945, and the War was drawing to a close, this command never did materialize, nor Hitler's final order on it. (John G. Lewis (talk) 21:49, 5 December 2015 (UTC))

Refuge
"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)
 * 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)

OKW press releases
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)


 * Per BRD, please advise. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:35, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Translations
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 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)

Rudel quote
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)


 * 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)

Anti-tank operations
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. Following this leave, he participated in the experiments with using the Ju 87 G in the anti-tank role, armed with two 37 mm Bordkanone BK 3,7 under-wing autocannons. In April 1943, he was promoted to Captain. 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. Some of these attacks were filmed by an onboard gun camera and shown in Die Deutsche Wochenschau, a newsreel released in German cinemas. 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. 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. In July 1943 Rudel was appointed acting commander of III. Gruppe, after the incumbent was killed in action. In October 1943, Rudel, flying the Ju 87 G near Kirovohrad, was credited with the destruction of his 100th tank. For this achievement, on 25 November, he was awarded the Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross with Oak Leaves and Swords.

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


 * Some additional copy-editing:


 * In February 1943, Rudel flew his 1,000th combat mission. 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. In April 1943, he was promoted to Captain. 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. In April 1943, Rudel was awarded the Oak Leaves to the Knight's Cross, receiving them from Hitler personally in Berlin. During the Battle of Kursk, Rudel flew the cannon equipped Ju 87 G against Soviet tanks in the area of Belgorod. In July 1943 Rudel was appointed acting commander of III. Gruppe. 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.
 * Published. Creuzbourg (talk) 09:01, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

War against the Soviet Union - first two paragraphs; suggestions for copyediting
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)


 * The context has been annihilated. That should be obvious. Dapi89 (talk) 18:57, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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. 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. During the first two weeks of the campaign, StG 2 flew ground support missions for armored units of 3rd Panzer Group advancing towards Smolensk. Rudel flew his first four combat missions as a dive bomber pilot on 23 June 1941. On 18 July 1941, he was awarded the Iron Cross 1st Class.


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

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

War against the Soviet Union - paragraph three and four
Suggestions? Creuzbourg (talk) 14:05, 5 April 2017 (UTC)


 * 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. Rudel flew numerous combat missions in support of the 16th Army and 18th Army advancing northwards. 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. 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.


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


 * 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)


 * 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. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:28, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)

Recent edit
I've implemented a number of edits as have previously been discussed on the Talk page; I'm preserving this material here by providing this link.

Please see Talk:Hans-Ulrich_Rudel as well as elsewhere on this Talk page for rationale. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:36, 27 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Here's another diff; the nearly incomprehensible quote from Rudel: diff. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:47, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

No consensus
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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

3RR violation
Please see: WP:3RRN discussion. K.e.coffman (talk) 16:58, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I have already dealt with this issue and Creuzbourg has been told to leave my talk page alone. I have also expanded this issue to WP:ANI. Dapi89 (talk) 17:20, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The reverting editor has been blocked for edit warring: 3RRN, permalink. K.e.coffman (talk) 11:56, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

German People's Union
The party is described as neo-Nazi in Encyclopedia of Modern Worldwide Extremists and Extremist Groups. Please see diff.

As an aside, the article on Gerhard Frey (politician) may need to be updated; I just changed the descriptor for the party from "patriotic" to "right wing" over there, but neo-Nazi is more accurate. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:34, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Intricate details
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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * Do you want me to leave? MisterBee1966 (talk) 15:41, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * Most of this seems less to do with detail than style. Dapi89 (talk) 16:10, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
 * 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)

''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)


 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)


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

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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * One article, one opinion, and whose mother was notable enough for article of her own. Useless observation.
 * Tag team springs to mind. Dapi89 (talk) 06:36, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * Considering that Rudel flew over 2500 missions - possibly the most, or very likely in the top 5, of any pilot in history, his wartime career is at the extreme end of any military biography. By necessity, it cannot be abbreviated down to a paragraph or two. This is not 'intricate detail', this is a reflection of a career that would be 5x, 10x, 20x, longer than many other notable pilots. I would suggest a degree of tolerance is needed here Philby NZ (talk) 23:36, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

May 2017 reductions
Preserving here by providing this link. K.e.coffman (talk) 16:18, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Public Scandals?

 * this is a fairly contentious word. How about Public Controversies.  auntieruth (talk) 16:01, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
 * As far as I know Rudel was called a "controversial" figure, but in connection with him literature speaks of "scandals" and "affairs". Scandals have also been subject of investigation and conceptualization. See, e.g., John B. Thompson: Political Scandal: Power and Visability in the Media Age. Cambridge 2000. It may also be noted, that the word has already been used in the reviewed version of this GA.--Assayer (talk) 22:40, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Germany at War: 400 Years of Military History describes one of the associated events as a "scandal", so I think the heading is appropriate. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:24, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Wehrmachtbericht
Could you clarify what you mean by the edit summary "no matter if cited or not, a reference is a reference"? K.e.coffman (talk) 23:50, 24 May 2017 (UTC)


 * I was unaware of the citation style (my mistake), thus I took the reference as part of a bibliographical list with not link to the article footnotes. I have already moved the source to the "Further reading" section. Thank you.--Darius (talk) 00:31, 26 May 2017 (UTC)


 * The source is a collection of war-time propaganda materials, which are moreover in German. Would you have any objections to it being removed from Further reading? K.e.coffman (talk) 20:15, 27 May 2017 (UTC)


 * No objections if the source is deemed unreliable.--Darius (talk) 22:15, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Recent infobox edit
I undid a recent edit that added battles and awards in the infobox: diff. List of battles is excessive for a non-sr commander, and infoboxes are generally reserved for the highest awards per conflict / era. Please also see WP:ICONDECORATION (sorry, gave the wrong link in the edit summary). K.e.coffman (talk) 01:21, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Analysis by K.e.Coffman
In order of appearance:
 * Brütting: a WP:QS source by a former Wehrmacht propagandist; see Wehrmacht Propaganda Troops &.
 * 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)
 * Provide direct evidence of their duplicity, or stop adding unreliable source tags. Dapi89 (talk) 15:07, 25 April 2017 (UTC)


 * 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)


 * 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)
 * You are using Smelser & Davies to re-write wikipedia in the way that you see fit. Dapi89 (talk) 15:05, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I have asked a simple question: Are there sources that describe Just's biography as reliable and trustworthy? I'm awaiting an answer. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:32, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

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)
 * Historians use unreliable sources all the time. Did Neitzel provide any commentary on the source itself? K.e.coffman (talk) 18:33, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I guess this refers to Neitzel's article in the NDB--Assayer (talk) 22:53, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The NDB is a reliable source period. full stop.  Gentlemen and Ladies, please stop this incessant bickering.  The article was passed at GA as having reliable sources, well documented, and a level of detail necessary and appropriate for Good Article.  auntieruth (talk) 13:29, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but this is not about the reliability of the NDB as a source, but about the merits of Günter Just, collaborator of Hans-Ulrich Rudel and recipient of the "Hans-Ulrich-Rudel-Award". Sönke Neitzel did not comment on the reliability of Just's work at all.--Assayer (talk) 14:47, 26 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Nobody has suggested that NDB is not a reliable source; I believe you misunderstood.


 * As a professional historian, I'm sure you appreciate that not all sources are created equal (see WP:IRS). Likewise, editor Dapi89 has repeatedly suggested that Our collecrive opinions dont matter, its the sources that should prevail. I've asked Dapi several times for sources on Just, but none have been provided. I'll repeat my questions here; perhaps you could help:


 * Are there sources that describe Just's biography as reliable and trustworthy?
 * K.e.coffman (talk) 23:41, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

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


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


 * 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)
 * This edit summary "Clean up removed "unreliable sources tag" --- this issue was addressed previously" appears to be inaccurate, as I don't see on this page where the issue has been addressed. Please don't remove the tag without discussion. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:57, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

reversion to a previous status Comment
Several edits and deletions made the article difficult to read and in some cases, appeared to insert bias. I've reverted it to its previous status. Please do not make massive rewrites or deletions without discussion first! auntieruth (talk) 16:29, 19 February 2018 (UTC)


 * text rewritten to reflect material included at GA, and streamlined per comments made by various editors, to achieve a balance of the former article and suggestions for streamlining text. auntieruth (talk) 14:45, 2 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment: The edit in question ("returned to previously established text") added 28,000 chars to the article. It does not look to be streamlined per comments made by previous editors, but like a restoration of previously discussed and removed/condensed material.
 * For example, this diff compares Mar 2017 version (prior to the discussions above) to the version restored by AR: . One can see that the body edits start with the section "In Latin America". This means that the WWII sections were restored word-for-word, which does not reflect any of the discussions / reductions per the threads above.
 * I would be happy to discuss further. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:00, 3 March 2018 (UTC)


 * It was easier to paste in the previous version before rather than go line by line. Previous editions had deleted most of the material, especially that on WWII; they did not "condense" it.  Although there were discussion above, there was not agreement, and the "streamlined" text you provided does not reflect the material on WWII, which is legitimate, and does reflect the discussions of this man's controversial post-war career. I'm going to revert (again), and ask for discussion on from the coordinators and other interested parties.    auntieruth (talk) 14:47, 5 March 2018 (UTC)


 * A request for page protection was put in for this article; at the moment, there is no justifiable reason for one, however if this should become an edit war or a revert war then we can discuss the matter of page protection. TomStar81 (Talk) 21:58, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

BRD
Please note that the restoration of the material (28,000+ chars) has been challenged diff. The arguments for the edit are not convincing, given the multiple discussions above addressing the issues of detail and sources:
 * 
 * 
 * , etc.

No new arguments have been made as to why the level of detail in the prior version of the article is appropriate. Likewise, no additional discussion has occurred as to whether Just, Brütting, etc should be considered reliable sources suitable for this article.

Per WP:BRD cycle, please consider self-reverting so that we can discuss. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:46, 6 March 2018 (UTC)


 * it seems to me that there was no consensus, and that the article was changed without that consensus. (See above).  So I put it back to the state that it was.  Brütting has published many books on the history of German aviation (https://portal.dnb.de/opac.htm?method=showPreviousResultSite&currentResultId=Georg+and+Br%C3%BCtting%26any&currentPosition=10) His work " Das Buch der deutschen Fluggeschichte " is probably his best piece of work,and Sönke Neitzel wrote the material in the NDB.  I'll accept that the level of detail is higher than it needs to be, but that is easily fixed without massive deletions of material, which is what had happened.  I will be happy to pare it down.  auntieruth (talk) 14:55, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
 * as promised (above) I've pared it down some, and will take a look at some other issues later. Please let me know if this kind of "paring" is to your satisfaction. auntieruth (talk) 15:32, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry, this does not address the concerns. I've elaborated on the editor's Talk page: . K.e.coffman (talk) 05:13, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Okay, I've reverted per your request.  Here's my take on this:
 * the WWII section can be shortened some to be more in balance with "later life" section. This seems logical, since the subject's later life is important related to his connections and reputation of WWII activities.  There was no consensus otherwise.  There was simply the inundation of material to wear down other editors.
 * after evaluation, the sources are reasonable and reputable. There was no consensus otherwise   Again, there was simply the constant iteration of claims that the material was unreliable because one of the project directors had been a member of the Nazi propaganda machine.
 * overall, there was no consensus to remove the so-called intricate detail to the degree to which it had been subjected. Again, there was the constant statement that the details were too intricate.  While I agree that some of the details are repetitive, much of the material that had been removed can be done without destroying the WWII content of the article.  auntieruth (talk) 16:48, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, when this article was reviewed for A-class (never completed) the issues raised were all addressed. See incomplete A class review Issue raised included wordiness (which was addressed), but not balance of WWII coverage and sources.  auntieruth (talk) 13:30, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Just making sure that you saw my comment on your Talk: . K.e.coffman (talk) 00:19, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
 * yes  I did.  Changes were made to put the article back to the way it was before edits made without consensus  auntieruth (talk) 16:04, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Incomplete revert
The revert was incomplete; please see this discussion: Incomplete revert on the editor's Talk page. Per WP:BRD, I'm restoring the last stable version.

I believe you are misinterpreting the consensus that was achieved last spring on this Talk page. Several editors participated, including yourself (see linked discussions).

A number of sources have been challenged, with limited or unsubstantive responses from Dapi89 and yourself. For example, the discussion about the suitability of Just (Talk:Hans-Ulrich_Rudel) concluded with me asking you a question: "Are there sources that describe Just's biography as reliable and trustworthy?"

There was no response. In the most recent discussion above, you've still not provided this information, apart from a vague statement about an evaluation. So, I don't find the assertion that the sources are reasonable and reputable to be convincing.

You disagree with the outcome of the 2017 discussion, which is understandable. I see that you've already pinged MILHIST coordinators and posted to the MILHIST Talk page. There are other dispute resolution avenues available that you could try, such as WP:RSN or WP:NPOVN. But simply restoring your preferred version is not the right solution. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:48, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
 * nor is restoring your preferred version. The sources used by the original editor seem reliable to me. The article now seems out of balance,  I've not got the time to deal with this right now, but I will notify you when I get back to it. auntieruth (talk) 15:03, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

June 2018 - Lede tagged for WP:UNDUE; please discuss here
If I understand the lede correctly (and it's constructed with the correct degree of weight due to a person via their notability and scholarly coverage), 80% of what any noteworthy media source has had to write about Hans-Ulrich Rudel has been about him being an unrepentant Neo-Nazi, and 20% is about his military career. I have no dog in this fight, nor any politics; an 80/20 split on the lede is simply grossly disproportionate per WP:WEIGHT. Speaking as somebody who's always deliberately avoided touching any Nazi articles with a 10-foot pole and has no politics at all, I only felt a need to step in because it really reads (even to a "casual" like myself) like somebody's gleefully grinding the man's face into the dirt with their boot. It's unencyclopedic WP:AXE stuff, and it makes the page look like shit. Everybody knows Rudel was a crazy Nazi war hero, the lede doesn't need to go full Commissar and start hilariously and transparently grinding the axe about how his highly notable status in MILHIST is actually merely a meaningless footnote to him being a Nazi ("I'll just drop this uncited insinuation here... I'm not TELLING you to pick it up, but it's the only line I'm going to write about his war record, so... yeah.").

Thanks kiddo, I got the message in grade school like the rest of us. Can we make it read like a human wrote it, now? J. Harrington Inchworm III (talk) 19:58, 3 June 2018 (UTC)


 * My count is a total of 319 words for the lede. Two paragraphs with a combined 184 words deal with his post-war endeavors. That's about 57%. We may add 4 further words ("prominent neo-Nazi activist") to make it 188 words (59%). Rudel spent the larger part of his life as a neo-Nazi activist in the public spotlight. I find it odd to speak of grinding the man's face into the dirt simply because his political affiliations and activities, during which he was not a simple rank-and-file member, but the top candidate and a prominent spokesperson, are named. If anything it was Rudel himself who chose his political proclivities. Or is it simply beyond belief that Rudel was indeed such a prominent neo-Nazi activist that his appearance at a veteran's meeting in 1976 alone cost two German generals their post and reshaped German politics? --Assayer (talk) 23:00, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Exactly, Assayer. What someone does with the latter 80% of their adult life, in a very newsworthy, notorious, and consequential manner, is certainly worth that amount of coverage. The fact that he shilled his wartime achievements for political purposes also supports this attention. Huangdi (talk) 09:15, 26 July 2018 (UTC)