Talk:Hans von Luck

message: I removed the reference in the North Africa section to PzIV H tanks. I am pretty sure this mark of Panzer IV never served in the desert - according to the 'Encyclopedia of German Tanks of World War Two' (Auth: P Chamberlain and H Doyle) , the Panzer IV H only entered production in April 1943. The whole N Africa campaign ended in May 1943 - so it would seem highly unlikely that enough Panzer IV H's could be built for a combat formation, the crews trained and shipped across to N Africa in the time available. At best there would be about 6 weeks to do this? Most reference books regarding WW2 German tanks/WW2 history only give credit to Panzer IV F2 models, being the most upto date version of this vehicle to serve in North Africa.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.6.2.215 (talk) 10:33, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment

message: When did he died? 15 January or 1 August 1997?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.221.31.221 (talk) 10:02, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Date of Death

message: Regarding the recent revert:
*3rd Panzer Group captured Vilnius in Lithuania before advancing on Minsk. Following the capture of Minsk the armored group continued east towards Vitebsk. -- this info is about Luck's Panzer Group, not about Luck. That was also unsourced.K.e.coffman (talk) 02:33, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Luck was a participant, thus it tells us where he was and what the sequence was. To be more precise, he was at the northern flank of Army Group Center, and his unit attacked out of what was East Prussia into and through land recently taken by the Soviets. This is pertinent to time and place, and of interest to people interested in military history. Source provided. Note: Luck's memoir agreed perfectly with the secondary source. Gunbirddriver (talk) 03:52, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  Certainly this is notable. He went from commander of the recon battalion (a field promotion to replace CO KIA), over to the headquarters staff, then back to command of the recon battalion. This is the second time this happened to Luck, the first time being in France. What a person interested in military history would gain from reading this is information relating to the nature of the reconnaissance work Luck's unit was doing. Gunbirddriver (talk) 03:52, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

text: Citation provided.Gunbirddriver (talk) 03:52, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

text:  You could have sourced this one. Sourcing takes time and is work. It is not solely up to me to source the article.  If you are unwilling to read about the subject and help source the page it would be well for you to refrain from editing it.Gunbirddriver (talk) 04:09, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

text:  Hans von Luck is best known for the Battle of Goodwood, where his battlegroup essentially successfully stopped three British armoured divisions from breaking through the German positions and into northern France. After his time imprisoned in a Soviet work camp he returned to Germany and attempted to resume a normal life. Because of his role at Goodwood he was sought out and repeatedly asked to speak at various military lectures, and for the British Staff college at their yearly June tour of Normandy.  To borrow Wellington’s phrase, he presented a much valued view from “the other side of the hill”. All this information should be known by someone who is familiar with Luck. In fact, I have already mentioned this above, and it is in the text of the article we are speaking of. People reading this article are interested in military history, and want to know more about the people they are studying. We should provide them with the information that is available. That is what I have been doing.Gunbirddriver (talk) 03:52, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

text: Per WP:BRD, could you outline your objections to the removal of the material outlined above? K.e.coffman (talk) 19:41, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, the removals were unnecessary and unhelpful. The material removed cast light on who Hans von Luck was and what the details of his career were. Claiming that the sources used here are not adequate and the content they support should therefor be deleted from the article is not supported by wikipedia policy. When you first proposed doing a major revision on 4 February 2016 I said I was willing to help and asked you to also help by improving the sources and citations used in the article. Since then I have added nine reliable sources to the references, using them in creating multiple supporting citations to buttress the text. A month has gone by now and as far as I am aware you have yet to add a single source or made a single citation. In fact, you are asking me questions on Luck's career which indicate you are still completely unfamiliar with who he is. I fail to understand your interest in editing this article when you have made no effort to learn anything about the subject. Can you explain to me why you continue to wish to remove material from the page and apparently decline to take any action to attempt to learn about the subject and support the material herein? It is curious behavior and in my view is not helpful to improving wikipedia. Look at the discussion below. EnigmaMcmxc and Nug both clearly have an interest in the subject and have read on it. It makes sense to me that they would have an interest in the page. I am sorry to say I do not see the same from you. Gunbirddriver (talk) 03:52, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unsourced/poorly sourced material 

message: I cleaned up the article a bit more by reducing uncited and / or non notable material cited to the subject's memoirs. Please let me know if there are any concerns. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:52, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article cleanup