EnigmaMcmxc (talk | contribs) |
Ranger Steve (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 533: | Line 533: | ||
:You highlight the German armoured divisions, this is actually covered in one of the articles to do with them - the German ones may have had less tanks but they sure had more frontline manpower; this is the point, regardless of what unit may be more "precise" to count they will always mean something different to each nation involved we cant change that. The historians dont mind doing so when figures are not around so what is the issue really other than the need to be more specific - which we do see V-B, Epsom etc |
:You highlight the German armoured divisions, this is actually covered in one of the articles to do with them - the German ones may have had less tanks but they sure had more frontline manpower; this is the point, regardless of what unit may be more "precise" to count they will always mean something different to each nation involved we cant change that. The historians dont mind doing so when figures are not around so what is the issue really other than the need to be more specific - which we do see V-B, Epsom etc |
||
:The only valid point you have thus far brought up, imo, is that we need to reword the wording on the Charnwood article to highlight that it was only part of the Luftwaffe division that was there (in the infobox) and suffered serious losses (in part of the main body of the article); i will ammend that later after rechecking the sources to ensure as close to 100% accurecy as possible.[[User:EnigmaMcmxc|EnigmaMcmxc]] ([[User talk:EnigmaMcmxc|talk]]) 19:45, 11 July 2010 (UTC) |
:The only valid point you have thus far brought up, imo, is that we need to reword the wording on the Charnwood article to highlight that it was only part of the Luftwaffe division that was there (in the infobox) and suffered serious losses (in part of the main body of the article); i will ammend that later after rechecking the sources to ensure as close to 100% accurecy as possible.[[User:EnigmaMcmxc|EnigmaMcmxc]] ([[User talk:EnigmaMcmxc|talk]]) 19:45, 11 July 2010 (UTC) |
||
::(e/c once again) "''Its of topic but if u claim regiments arent units of particular size but in the same sentence you claim the normally consistet of one battalion then u contradict yourself. But like i said, off topic :-)''". It isn't off topic at all, its actually very relevant. Like I pointed out, a regiment can be of just about any size, depending on the number of battalions each regiment contributes to a division. If for example, we used the 2 brigades I mention above as an example, we would list 4 regiments. 1 Regiment would be 3 times the size as all of the others though, so it doesn't make any sense to list strength in this way. As for your following comment "''am afraid all participants, at the moment, try to find weak spots in my edits''", like I've told you before I am trying very hard to remain neutral and get some agreement out of this. All I've done in this thread so far (and given that there are only 2 editors other than yourself contributing, I assume you mean me as well as Enigma) is explain to you why one of your ideas is unworkable. I'm trying to gain a positive outcome here, so please don't push it. [[User:Ranger Steve|Ranger Steve]] ([[User talk:Ranger Steve|talk]]) 19:49, 11 July 2010 (UTC) |
|||
=== Getting back on track === |
=== Getting back on track === |
Revision as of 19:49, 11 July 2010
|
If you are in need of a quick response, please feel free to ask your question on our IRC channel (#wikipedia-en-milhist).
Counterparts to this discussion page also exist in several other languages: Deutsch • Français • Italiano • Polski • Русский
War and popular culture queries
Two questions which sort of follow on from earlier discussions on computer games.
- I assume that wargames as a research or training aid come under the remit of MILHIST but not wargames as a hobby. Is that correct?
- I think the consensus of the previous discussion was not to allow computer games because we were already suffering mission creep. I suggested we have a wider look at the popular culture field, being clearer on what we included and what we declassified as MILHIST as a contribution to the problem. I'm not sure there was an answer to that, so I'd like to raise it again. If there is no interest, then we can file it under NFA.Monstrelet (talk) 09:20, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
- Your first would seem to make sense to me, although what type of wargames are we talking about? Computer, tabletop, or both (not that it really matters I suppose).
- Your second... that might be a good topic for the thinktank, as it could have implications for the project's existing scope. No objection to discussing it here though :) EyeSerenetalk 13:16, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
- On the firsrt point I have strong objections to wargames being here (excepting such things as Kreigspiel and other training aids). I do not see a doifferanced in this respect from Board wargames, computer games or playing with toy solders.
- I see no reaso ot to0 discuse the inclusion of computer games, I just dojn't think we should include them.Slatersteven (talk) 13:32, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
- I think a case could be made that tabletop wargames are closer to military simulations than they are to computer games - many training aids in use now started out as hobbyist wargames. I don't think the same case can be made quite so readily for computer games, although even there the boundaries blur when looking at computer-based training simulations. Obviously we have to have a cut-off somewhere though. EyeSerenetalk 13:44, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
- Depends, for example whilst say Anzio might be an excelent simulation of the italian campiegn of WW2. But what about (lets say) WWIII, both a bad game and a terrible simulation (even at the time). I agree that were something starts out as a training aid (or in the case of Phoenix Command a forensic simulation) there is justification for its inclusion is good. But if its just a commercial wargame then no I don't think there is a case.I have dbouts that if we allow the idea that a game is a form of millitary history then every one who has played they third Reich will feel that their version of reality is a valid as Liddle-harts. I just so not se any benifit but a lot of potential trouble. The 'Hey I played battlefield Vietnam, I'm a vet man' mentality.Slatersteven (talk) 13:55, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
- Wargaming and simulation is a standard element of both training and operational planning and should be covered, ISTR that red teaming already is. The individual games used in training aren't really all that significant, and the models used in strategic planning are sensitive so any discussion probably can't be sourced.
- ALR (talk) 18:13, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
- I think I agree. Wargaming is a military method as well as a recreation - insofar as it's a military method, we should cover it. Individual games shouldn't be covered, regardless of their sales/authenticity/whatever (though there might be exceptions). The Land (talk) 19:06, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
- To summarise, then, the initial query is correct - Wargaming is only within the scope of the project in as far as it has a professional military, rather than hobby, context. Hobby games can only come in where there is cross-over e.g. Kriegspiel, originally a staff training aid which crossed over into hobby circles in the later 19th. century.
- I think I agree. Wargaming is a military method as well as a recreation - insofar as it's a military method, we should cover it. Individual games shouldn't be covered, regardless of their sales/authenticity/whatever (though there might be exceptions). The Land (talk) 19:06, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
- I think thats fair.Slatersteven (talk)
I would be happy to take the other part of question to the think tank but can't find the link on this page or the main project page - could someone enlighten me? Thanks Monstrelet (talk) 07:28, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
- The link is WP:MHTHINKTANK. The pages are still in the process of being set up, so if you wanted to continue here that might be best for now. I don't know what others think? EyeSerenetalk 13:09, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Moved to "Polular culture in milhist articles" section below. EyeSerenetalk 15:50, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
General Question
When i have a text about a battle, and the source talks about casualties of one participant ( in my case , they are actually far lower than the casualties of the other participant ) and says he believes that battle was a improvement for the other participant due to various reasons ( captured ground for example ). Can i take the historian/text to claim the historian claims the inflicted casualties were a major reason to call the battle a "tactical victory". Blablaaa (talk) 16:04, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
- If the author does not specifically make that claim, then unequivocally no. You are not allowed to put words into the author's mouth, nor are you allowed to draw your own conclusions from what the author does say. Parsecboy (talk) 16:08, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
- Blablaaa, please don't keep forum shopping until you get the answer you want. See the discussions at: Talk:Operation_Charnwood#sentence_in_the_lead_.28problem_solved.29,
User_talk:EnigmaMcmxc#Operation_Charnwood, User_talk:EyeSerene#Charnwood, User_talk:Nick-D#Operation_Charnwood and User_talk:Blablaaa#Enlighten_me. EyeSerenetalk 16:20, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
- Blablaaa, please don't keep forum shopping until you get the answer you want. See the discussions at: Talk:Operation_Charnwood#sentence_in_the_lead_.28problem_solved.29,
- You're quite right, you haven't posted to Enigma's talkpage so I've struck that one - my apologies. You have joined in on Nick's though.
- I hope Parsecboy doesn't mind me responding further, but he was replying to a hypothetical situation based on your post and in the circumstances you've described he's absolutely right. If I came across that situation I'd say the same too, as I'm sure would any experienced editor. However, you've not really given the full picture and enough editors have explained by now the problem with picking a single phrase out of a single sentence in a potted summary of an article and taking it out of context. My sincere advice is to drop the stick. EyeSerenetalk 16:53, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
- If u mean with "full picture" that i did not tell here that other editors are already commited to their false arguments, yes correct. I guess my statement is very simply summarize of the main factors ( two unconnect claims of an historian become a connected claim due to OR of wiki editors). And we all know how correct iam. Give the quote for the claimed correlation. U have no quote for a correlation?---> u are doing OR. And in this case pretty wrong OR. Iam aware of the full situation. The situation is so clear: VERIFIABILITY. Blablaaa (talk) 17:00, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
- If this is going to carry on; it’s not an opinion of a single historian, the intro was not wrote by me and it is based on the sourced information in the article; i do not believe anyone, who worked on the article, has manipulated the information to fabricate the lede. Furthermore i do not subscribe to this whole notion, that seems to be getting raised, of spin or attempting to influence the opinion of other editors into gaining consensus; i believe people can see the facts for themselves. As it may have already been gathered this stems from the talk page of the Operation Charnwood article.
- A quick glance through the article and a few sources at home highlights around six historians (at the least, i don’t have the time or inclination to go through everything i own) noteing the heavy personnel, equipment and tank losses the two principle formations took during the battle. Once again this is noted in the article and sourced. Of importance is a quote from Simon Trew and Stephen Badsley, albeit not mentioned in the article; “... Hitlerjugend Division’s incomplete records... . ... Hitlerjugend also reported losing eleven Panthers and seen Panzer IVs. Losses for other German units are not known”.
- Thus the basis of the OP’s argument is rather flawed due to the incomplete records for one side not to mention how we do not know what size this force actually was. Additionally several sources note how the elements of the Luftwaffe division, based in front of Caen, suffered 75% losses; this is noted in the article. The tank losses, sourced in the article, provide a range of 29-52% loss rate of what was deployed.
- Finally at least two sources, again i have not the time or inclination to look further, note in a separate point that the tactical position was improved by the capture of the city yet strategically nothing had changed.
- I welcome further opinion on the matter although i doubt i will be able to reply today or tomorrow on the matter due to above mentioned lack of time.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 17:46, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
- U do the same again, u try to distract. The statement is not sourced and cant be sourced because no historian claims this correlation. U try to list german casualties which is not more than a try of distraction and a very cheap on. First off all german lost far less euqipment and personnel. The lead is not based on sourced material. The statment is OR if the assumption is sourced u could easly give me the quote. U can not so its not sourced. Stop distracting stop listing casualties stop trying to affect other people face the point. The correlation is OR of an wiki editor and nothing more. In my opinion are u violating wiki rules when u claim the statement is sourced because two parts of the statement are sourced but without context. Bring the quote and stop talking blablablablablabla . My intention here was to find somebody who was not involded and not distracted after i found one , 2 of u immediatly banged into and distracted and threw useless comments in. But after u both disabled my try to get a complet objectiv opinion my plan failed Blablaaa (talk) 20:03, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
- At the moment i seriously doubt that u understood the point. Blablaaa (talk) 20:05, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
- We understand your point just fine, but I wonder if you understand WP:LEDE? The first section of an article is a summary of the following sections, and the sentence you're objecting to is fully supported in the text. Your argument about WP:OR would only apply if the lede made assertions that were unsupported in the rest of the article. However, if you read the "Analysis" section you'll find lots of detail about historians discussing the battle in terms of both the territorial gains made and the increasingly serious consequences to the Germans of the losses they were sustaining. Summarising related arguments in a single sentence in the lede to try to express the broad thrust of many paragraphs of detail is not original research, it's economical writing. EyeSerenetalk 20:53, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
- At the moment i seriously doubt that u understood the point. Blablaaa (talk) 20:05, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
- What u write hgihlights that u dont understand the point. I doubt that u understand what tactical ( your sentence about german losses is simply unclever while it highlights the strategic situation and not the tactical. U dont understand tactical u are unskilled) means , really i think u dont know it, u try to give your opinion about somethin what u simply dont understand. Give me the quote of a historian claiming the german losses were one reason for the tactical victory. A sentence in the lead must be verifiable , because he summarizes the rest what must be verifiable. But the statement in the lead is a conclusion which is not printed anywhere. U claim the text is full of sources but give me one supporting the claim. U are simply wrong i call u bias and u are, your sentence on the tractable talk highlights perfectly. U are wrong eyeseren. That this is your final replay is logic u dont have arguement u dont have sources thats why u trashtalk without bringing a quote for a statement. Blablaaa (talk) 21:27, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Remaining neutral for the moment (until I've fully understood this chat), could I please ask everyone to keep their comments civil and constructive (here and on related threads). This discussion bears all the hallmarks of descending into a bitter battle - totally unnecessarily in my opinion. Blablaaa, I appreciate that English isn't your first language (apologies if I'm wrong on that) but comments like "what u simply dont understand" and "U dont understand tactical u are unskilled" come across as fairly insulting, and you are in danger of destroying any credibility your argument might have. Cheers, Ranger Steve (talk) 21:44, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
- It is not insulting it is important for the discussion. For example, somebody at charnwood page comes to the dicussion and says "blabla is wrong: the text doesnt say victory he claims sucess". Then i read this and think omg who is talkin to me. Victory in warfare is the definition of sucess its exactly the same , look here victory . Than eyeseren comes here and wants to give his "opinion" and shows clearly that he did not understand what tactical means. What shall i do , teach him ? I try to show all objectiv readers that he not even understand the basis of the issue. Maybe this sounds insulting but i dont see the value of people who dont have the knowledge about the topic they talk about..... Blablaaa (talk) 22:00, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
- If someone didn't fully understand the terms they were using, then it is of course important to the discussion. It would be perfectly acceptable to question that editor's understanding or knowledge. What it isn't ok to do is accuse editor's of "trashtalk", deliberately miseleading or distracting the conversation or being biased, and making challenges in bold font, which merely makes it look aggressive. You might have a point in this thread, but stooping to such phrases doesn't help. For what its worth, I think you're barking up the wrong tree on this particular argument (I refer to your opinion of other editors and not the main issue at hand, which I am still digesting). EyeSerene in particular has written or contributed to most of these articles, is particularly well read and, as I understand it, has a far more thorough military background than most editors here. Just my opinion, but I will once again reinforce my belief that you are coming across as very insulting. Ranger Steve (talk) 22:20, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
- What i said about distraction is also very important enigma for example is deliberately distracting. He is fully aware of the fact that german losses were far lower but he is over and over repeating german % losses which were far higher simple because they had much less troops involded :D . Hes repeating to imply the opposite. Furthermore for the tactical outcome the % losses are pretty irrelevant compared to absolut numbers everyone knows this. Thats why i claimed i guess no historian supports the statement in the lead of charnwood, and i was totally correct when i see they are not bringing any quote who supports this uncommon statement. Distraction and lacking knowledge nothing else and a bit ad hominem beginning of every discussion to affect the "neutral" readersBlablaaa (talk) 22:22, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
- Yes maybe i look insulting. But understand my point i go to a talk page and write that something is obviously not correct, what follows? a overlong dicussion where nobody wants to admit that the annoying blablabla is correct. All question my faith but at the same time they show they talk about things they didnt fully understood. So maybe sometimes i sound pretty annoyed. But u are correct its up to me to change this. I apologize for that. Blablaaa (talk) 22:26, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Just time for a quickie and two points:
- It seems the discussion is being drown out in regards to a discussion on casualties. Two historians have been cited that state that the military position, the tactical position/situation was improved as a result of the battle. If we cannot suggest that this was some sort of tactical success, what was it?
- A quick glance for articles that uses the term and that i have not worked on dig up contradictory statements to what one is over the, imo confusing, Tactical victory article. The victory article, while unsourced contricts it. During my brief search i found several articles: Battle of Wavre notes equal casualties among the attacking French and defending Prussian forces but gives the tactical victory to the French; one notes that the Prussians suffered heavier losses on the whole when compared to the French due to the size of forces deployed. The Battle of the Coral Sea article notes the tactical victory due to the losses inflicted on American warships but highlights how the Japanese suffered more personnel and aircraft losses. Higher British naval and manpower losses during the Battle of Jutland again provides a different tactical outcome. A further example i have noted, an article that i have worked on, is Operation Brevity which resulted in lopsided casualties but no historian putting a label on the outcome.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:14, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
- U only reinforced my opinion that u not get the point. If charnwood was a tactical victory isnt the point i not even doubt that it was one . There are multiple factors which maybe make a tactical victory . Inflicting more casualties for example is maybe a reason to call a battle a tactical victory. But in this operation allied suffered heavier casualties so in this particular case the german casualties were not the reason for the tactical victory. Thats the point. I assumed this when i read the statement and that nobody brought a statement of a historian claiming that, showed clear that iam correct. That charnwood was a tactical victory and german had casualties are mabye 2 facts but that german casualties were a major reason for the outcome, is not said by any historian, so this is OR of wiki editors. Thats what i claimed and thats correct. Nobody brought a source to support the claim despite WP:Burden . The fact that there are 1 million battles in history and u searched 3 to show that a general rules does not always fit looks very strange for me and highlights that u not talk about the same like me Blablaaa (talk) 23:42, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
- I must admit I am a little confused. The article says that the intent was to take Caen with a secondary objective of drawing forces away from the American front. Is this correct ?
- Chaosdruid (talk) 23:51 29 June 2010 (UTC)
PLease do not edit your posts after people have replied nor insert between other posts. Your last post was not made before mine at 23:55 it was after my post of 23:51 (UTC) (which you managed to remove the time stamp from !!) I have corrected the order... Chaosdruid (talk) 00:04, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
- "The fact that there are 1 million battles in history and u searched 3 to show that a general rules does not always fit looks very strange for me"; you will have noticed that i stated numerous times that i have limited time at the moment, it also highlights the multiple factors that appear that need to be taken into account.
- Balblaa, have you not just shot your argument in the foot with the following remark: "There are multiple factors which maybe make a tactical victory." The lede and article state such.
- Chaosdruid, thats the general idea: Second Army tactical/operational goal was to seize the north of the town and secure bridgeheads to the south and take advantage if opportunity presented itself. The general overhead strategic plan was to halt the shifting of German divisions.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:49, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
- Now u already explained your mistake. Here look your words " it also highlights the multiple factors that appear that need to be taken into account " , correct the casualties are not the only reason for a tactical outcome thats why on charnwood casualties werent the reason for the outcome they were side effect, but a side effect in favor for germans. The lead implies they were the main reason beside northern cean. No historian claimed this corelation. your quote "Balblaa, have you not just shot your argument in the foot with the following remark:" , absolutly not i showed that your OR, -----german had casualties + allied tactical victory = german casualties made allied victory ---- is wrong. After rethinking the issue and with assuming that u are no complete amateur in warfare i think the problem is maybe the understanding of the sentence in the lead. Can u maybe read the sentence again. Maybe u read him only once and missed the implications Blablaaa (talk) 01:04, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
convenient break
It may be that some alteration is needed then as the article states nothing about only capturing the north of the town and the bridgeheads:
"...drew up an offensive with two goals: to capture Caen and to prevent a large scale redeployment of German forces from the Anglo-Canadian sector to the American front." and "...he sought control of Bourguébus and the commanding high ground to the south."
Bourguébus is around 5 miles south of the centre of Caen, and two miles outside its southern boundary. I do not think that you are correct in your last statemnt according to the article.
It seems to me that neither of these objectives were fulfilled so it would appear that the operation was not a success at all.
THe article states that the operation failed to draw german forces away from the american front and it also says that "mid-afternoon on 9 July, Operation Charnwood was over" with only the northern half of Caen being taken.
It may be possible to say that securing the northern half led the germans to withdraw more quickly but the eventual taking of Caen in August was surely down to operations Goodwood and Jupiter?
Chaosdruid (talk) 01:14, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
- They are directed to anyone interested in correcting the article to properly reflect events and outocmes. I think it is time for you both to co-operate on getting the article right instead of arguing over which sort of success it was (strategic v tactical)
- In my opinion as the article stands there is too much contradiction and I would not call it a success of either kind.
- Chaosdruid (talk) 01:30, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
- Its a general problem on normandy article, when it comes to the outcome. Fulfilling objectives was not a cretaria for allied. If some germans where there do defend it always was a strategic victory because they were "missing" somewhere else. The fact that outbreak was only a madder of time from the very beginning seems to be irrelevant. Even if battles achieved nothing and resulted in heavy casualties they were victories because german were there. Please take a look at Second Battle of the Odon, this battele was a strategic victory because german units were held on the line and could not participat in goodwood, while goodwood itself was a tactical victory of german and they didnt need these units. Funny, isnt it? take a look at the talk of this battle. And we are not arguing about the outcome.
- I feel like I'm missing something. I read the lead, & the analysis, & they look to be in agreement, so the "no support" argument falls IMO. As to "more Allied casualties equals German victory", that's a non-starter; attacker casualties are always greater. That's the nature of the beast. As to "limited success", I'd agree with the historiographers quoted (& here, I must confess a strong bias against Monty in the interest of full disclosure): the objectives were not entirely achieved, but things were better at the end than the beginning, & that is a functional definition of "limited success" IMO. I also see (not having carefully read the entire page) no strong criticism of Monty for said failing; IMO some wouldn't be out of bounds. At bottom, however, I really don't get Blablaaa's complaint. This looks to me like a pretty good example of a tactical victory for an Allied army in Normandy: front not shattered, Germans not in rout, but situation better for Allies than before. (BTW, don't try & tell me I don't understand what "tactical" is.) TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 04:49, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
- No i tell u that the outcome is not the point. Cant believe how often i already explained it :-) please see charnwood talk. Off-topic: And regarding your statement "attacker casualties are always greater", this absolutly not correct. In ww2 the "rule" that an attacker suffers generally more casualties is far away from truth. Not even talking about the fact that an allied offensive in normandy was always supported with enormous firepower which inflicted so much casualties. In battles with good schwerpunkt its high likly that the defender suffers more casualties because he is commited to counterattacks if not he losses much troops which are taken POV. A good example is german attack at kursk, according to nearly all sources, the germans attacked the biggest and most fortified "fortress" ever .... . In ww1 this rule was a bit more accurate. Second quote of u "BTW, don't try & tell me I don't understand what "tactical" is." sorry but the fact that u think charnwood was a perfect example for a tactical victory because the strategic situation of allied improved, indicates this. Blablaaa (talk) 05:40, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
- Perhaps I should leave these unanswered. However...
- "In ww2 the "rule" that an attacker suffers generally more casualties is far away from truth" This isn't a "WW2 rule", it's an operations research reality. If you like, you can consult Numbers, Predictions, & War & see for yourself.
- " the fact that u think charnwood was a perfect example for a tactical victory because the strategic situation of allied improved, indicates this." This suggests to me it's you who doesn't understand. The outcome was tactical victory for the Allies. The strategic situation was unchanged precisely because the victory was tactical & not operational or strategic. (Also, notice, I never said anything about the strategic situation being better; care to read what I actually wrote? Which is, "situation improved", & it was, over the situation pertaining before CHARNWOOD was executed.) Which is to say, the COBRA breakout was at the least an operational victory, & arguably a strategic success.
- Care to reconsider your position? TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 11:23, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
- No i tell u that the outcome is not the point. Cant believe how often i already explained it :-) please see charnwood talk. Off-topic: And regarding your statement "attacker casualties are always greater", this absolutly not correct. In ww2 the "rule" that an attacker suffers generally more casualties is far away from truth. Not even talking about the fact that an allied offensive in normandy was always supported with enormous firepower which inflicted so much casualties. In battles with good schwerpunkt its high likly that the defender suffers more casualties because he is commited to counterattacks if not he losses much troops which are taken POV. A good example is german attack at kursk, according to nearly all sources, the germans attacked the biggest and most fortified "fortress" ever .... . In ww1 this rule was a bit more accurate. Second quote of u "BTW, don't try & tell me I don't understand what "tactical" is." sorry but the fact that u think charnwood was a perfect example for a tactical victory because the strategic situation of allied improved, indicates this. Blablaaa (talk) 05:40, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
- its an operation research reality that maybe in overall ww2 the attackes has higher casualties but this is because some armies didnt very well in attack, if you read my post carefully u will see that i said with good schwerpunkt its high likly u suffer less casualties. Everybody with understanding of mobile warfare is aware of this. That means for german for example this rule doenst apply so good like for others. When a attacker in mobile warfare suffers more casualties than this is because of his flawed tactics and not because you think their is any rule saying this they have to have higher casualties. Please rethink the whole issue. The outcome was tactical victory for the Allies. The strategic situation was unchanged serious? please read again why people start tactical offensives.... Blablaaa (talk) 15:28, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
- "with good schwerpunkt"; Operation Charnwood was launched on as wide a scale as possible there was no narrow focused attacked. "When a attacker in mobile warfare ... because of his flawed tactics". Charnwood was not mobile warfare; it was a direct assualt on fortified positions. "why people start tactical offensives...." The operation was primarily launched to improve Second Army position, the strategic worth of Caen had already been rendered usless by the Germans digging in on the ridges to the south; this had been noted and is mentioned in the article. The secondary goal of the operation was to halt the trickle of German forces eastwards.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 16:03, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
- its an operation research reality that maybe in overall ww2 the attackes has higher casualties but this is because some armies didnt very well in attack, if you read my post carefully u will see that i said with good schwerpunkt its high likly u suffer less casualties. Everybody with understanding of mobile warfare is aware of this. That means for german for example this rule doenst apply so good like for others. When a attacker in mobile warfare suffers more casualties than this is because of his flawed tactics and not because you think their is any rule saying this they have to have higher casualties. Please rethink the whole issue. The outcome was tactical victory for the Allies. The strategic situation was unchanged serious? please read again why people start tactical offensives.... Blablaaa (talk) 15:28, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
- i didnt talked about charnwood. I said in general its a myth that an attacker has higher casualties. This mostly applies for bad tactics. But u are correct charnwood is an example for flawed tactics or maybe and more likly for bad objectives. Blablaaa (talk) 16:35, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
- "I said in general its a myth that an attacker has higher casualties. This mostly applies for bad tactics." And if you'd bothered to actually read what I wrote, you'd see, you're wrong. Historically in all eras, for all commanders, the attacker has higher casualties, often much higher. The German casualties were frequently lower because of superior doctrine; that this often produced better tactical results is a separate (but related) issue: namely, Heer tactical responses tended to be better because of better doctrine & training. By contrast, B.A. doctrine & training were substandard, even for the period. (Infantry & armoured forces trained separately!) TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 07:38, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
- i didnt talked about charnwood. I said in general its a myth that an attacker has higher casualties. This mostly applies for bad tactics. But u are correct charnwood is an example for flawed tactics or maybe and more likly for bad objectives. Blablaaa (talk) 16:35, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
- in mobile warfare the attackers has less casualties than the defender. The only reason because your old and wrong statement applies for ww2 is the Red Army. Germany inflicted higher casualties in Poland in France in Russia. England inflicted more in attack on africa. Germany inflicted more on attack in Africa. Allied inflicted more in italy despite beeinf inferior in tactics. Allied inflicted more in western front. Japanese inflicted more in asia while attacking. Soviet inflicted more in asia while attacking. Allied inflicted more in asia while attackig ( while this could hardly be called mobile warfare. German maybe even inflicted more casualties in Bulge attack( at least during the attackphase ). Nearly everywhere and always did the attacker more dmg. Thats mobile warfare. The only reason the old rule applies for ww2 is the "extreme" tactical qualitydifferencen between wehrmacht and red army. I now what i talk about please dont try to explain me such wrong stuff. The sense of mobile warfare is to avoid attrition battles which are won by production thats why its the inherent logic that mobile warfare has to inflict more damage to the opponent. Cant even unterstand how somebody can argue against this. I also want to highlight that u brought this myth argument for charnwood which was "tactical" attack with enourmous artillery power and air power. The only reason for higher casualties in this battle was the handling, you responed: to explain this with the old rule, which in this case is absolutly inapproiate. Historically in all eras, for all commanders, the attacker has higher casualties, often much higher please look 85% of ww2 :-). Now after u called me a "twit" on a talkpage somewhere and got teached by me, please not argue with me. Regards Blablaaa (talk) 17:37, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
- "in mobile warfare the attackers has less casualties than the defender. The only reason because your old and wrong statement applies for ww2 is the Red Army." Wrong both times. Casualties are a function of forces deployed & firepower, among other factors. Your examples are limited to one era & often to special cases. (The Chinese army was sadly deficient in artillery & training by comparison even to IJA, Red Army attacks in Manchuria were against a defeated enemy, & the 1941 Red Army had more SOs in Lubyanka's basement than in service, so these are hardly representative samples.) As before, you've conveniently ignored the thrust of the argument: it's not a WW2 rule, it's an operations research reality. And if you bother to look at Dupuy (which I can't find my copy of, or I'd quote the damned ratios, which would run something like 25% A>D for the period IIRC & around 50% for USCW & WW1, as firepower outstripped doctrine). And Heer didn't need to inflict more casualties on the Red Army; they had a 2.5:1 tactical performance advantage. "The sense of mobile warfare is to avoid attrition battles which are won by production thats why its the inherent logic that mobile warfare has to inflict more damage to the opponent. Cant even unterstand how somebody can argue against this." Where did I argue against that proposition? More to the point, what part of the battle for Normandy to the date in question (i.e., before COBRA) qualified as "mobile warfare"? (It wasn't quite positional, but bocage was not conducive to anything remotely resembling blitzkrieg, & if you think it was, you need to re-examine the geography. Or your definition of "mobile warfare".) Contrary to what you evidently beleive, tactical succes is not all about inflicting or taking casualties. Did the Brits take more casualties in CHARNWOOD because their doctrine & training were deficient? Unquestionably. Did the Germans take fewer as a result of better doctrine & training? Certainly. Did the losses decide the outcome? Don't be ridiculous. Losses alone don't decide anything. If they did, the battle at Verdun would have ended in the first couple of hours, & Bomber Command would have given up bombing cities in 1941. Your inability to understand that, plus your evident unwillingness to actually read the arguments when they're inconvenient, leaves me wondering at the quality of your reasoning. (I also wonder at the good sense of my bothering to answer....) TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 18:28, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
- To end your arguments before u bring new. Here is your first reply regarding charnwood a operation done in mid 44 : As to "more Allied casualties equals German victory", that's a non-starter; attacker casualties are always greater. That's the nature of the beast . this statement in combination with a mid 44 operation is military nonsense. Blablaaa (talk) 17:51, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
- "this statement in combination with a mid 44 operation is military nonsense" Indeed? So you believe CHARNWOOD was a German victory, do you? Despite the fact the Germans failed to hold the northern part of Caen & their local situation was worse? Interesting definition of "victory". Sounds a bit like the one IJA appears to have been using at the time. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 18:28, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
- in mobile warfare the attackers has less casualties than the defender. The only reason because your old and wrong statement applies for ww2 is the Red Army. Germany inflicted higher casualties in Poland in France in Russia. England inflicted more in attack on africa. Germany inflicted more on attack in Africa. Allied inflicted more in italy despite beeinf inferior in tactics. Allied inflicted more in western front. Japanese inflicted more in asia while attacking. Soviet inflicted more in asia while attacking. Allied inflicted more in asia while attackig ( while this could hardly be called mobile warfare. German maybe even inflicted more casualties in Bulge attack( at least during the attackphase ). Nearly everywhere and always did the attacker more dmg. Thats mobile warfare. The only reason the old rule applies for ww2 is the "extreme" tactical qualitydifferencen between wehrmacht and red army. I now what i talk about please dont try to explain me such wrong stuff. The sense of mobile warfare is to avoid attrition battles which are won by production thats why its the inherent logic that mobile warfare has to inflict more damage to the opponent. Cant even unterstand how somebody can argue against this. I also want to highlight that u brought this myth argument for charnwood which was "tactical" attack with enourmous artillery power and air power. The only reason for higher casualties in this battle was the handling, you responed: to explain this with the old rule, which in this case is absolutly inapproiate. Historically in all eras, for all commanders, the attacker has higher casualties, often much higher please look 85% of ww2 :-). Now after u called me a "twit" on a talkpage somewhere and got teached by me, please not argue with me. Regards Blablaaa (talk) 17:37, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
- Try of distraction? Never said something about battle outcomes when we talked to each other. After i said allied had higher casualties u responed with : As to "more Allied casualties equals German victory", that's a non-starter; attacker casualties are always greater. That's the nature of the beast . This is, like i explained absolutly wrong espcially for mid 44. Please read what u said and what i responded. Your statement in general is wrong and particular wrong regarding an allied offensive in the west. The conclusion is based on million of soviet casualties. I also want to highlight here that relativ casualties were far higher during Barbarossa ( defense ). And the first major soviet numbers victory ( stalingrad ) was achieved with attack. If u look the eastern front alone ( major theatre ) u will see that in the first years ( german attack) soviet casualties were maybe even 7-8 : 1, when red army were attacking, this ratio was falling down. Thus every major theather supports my opinion.... Like i said u may think about the sense of mobile warfare or maneuver warfare , schwerpunkt , battle of anhilation. But maybe we end this off topic, iam sure u are not willing to admit the truth of my position nor iam willing to give u a "you are correct" while u are not. So maybe u go down this page and give your opinion to my comments regarding infoboxes maybe this is our last chance to get something constructive out of this long discussion :-) Blablaaa (talk) 19:04, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
- Chaosdruid; re the plan for Charnwood see "The objective ... to clear Caen ... up to the Orne river, and if possible to secure bridgeheads in southern Caen.[17]" and "it was hoped that I Corps could exploit the situation ... towards the Verrières and Bourguébus ridges," and finally "...two goals: to capture Caen and to prevent a large scale redeployment of German forces from the Anglo-Canadian sector to the American front.[2]"
- Blablaaa re Charnwood outcome, it is stated in the article that the capture of portions of the city had no effect the strategic situation.
- Re Goodwood, considering your arguments here - plus the fact that the article has received much less attention and is an "unfinished state" - the outcome probably needs to be looked at more carefully rather than what appears to be accepting it on face fact due to the positive German result. The note states: "Hart states that Goodwood "...despite being [an] immediate tactical failure".[1] Dempsey is quoted stating the battle was not tactically very good ...".[2]". If accusations are to be thrown around it probably should be for this part; because the sources dont call it a German tactical victory they talk of the failure on the side of the British tactical handling of the battle.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 07:27, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
- (ec)
- I think you are taking things a little too personally bla - we are discussing things and you are constantly replying as if we are talking about what you said - we are not. We have moved past the discussions you were having.
- @Trekphiler - I can see now how that would be measured as a tactical success - although the original operational objectives were not met they still got half the city and got rid of half the german defences. There was also some success in recapturing a major French city as the populated side rather than the industrial was in the north half. Also I guess that would have caused logistical problems for the germans as they would have had to divert their heavier equipment quite far south to Vassy/Vire, or risk using the smaller roads, quite a detour - Thats not as contradictory as I thought then :¬)
- Chaosdruid (talk) 08:08, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
- @Enigma - I was trying to suggest changing the lead slighty from "operation was intended to capture the German-occupied city of Caen" to "operation was intended to capture the northern part of the German-occupied city of Caen.
- That was what I was talking about when I said it didn't quite match sry :¬)
- Chaosdruid (talk) 08:15, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
- I think "capture Caen" wasn't over-reaching too much, as there were contingencies for following up into southern Caen depending on how the assault developed, but I take your point. I've tweaked the lead - it now says "The operation was intended to capture as much as was feasible of the German-occupied city of Caen...". Is this a reasonable compromise? EyeSerenetalk 09:00, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
- "I can see now how that would be measured as a tactical success" I just noticed that. Thank you. I'm glad I persuaded somebody. ;p TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 18:28, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
- I think "capture Caen" wasn't over-reaching too much, as there were contingencies for following up into southern Caen depending on how the assault developed, but I take your point. I've tweaked the lead - it now says "The operation was intended to capture as much as was feasible of the German-occupied city of Caen...". Is this a reasonable compromise? EyeSerenetalk 09:00, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
It's a bit of a mouthful lol but yup :¬) Sorry but it's an FA - I'm not normally that picky...Chaosdruid (talk) 09:44, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
- The sentence: "With northern Caen's capture and the heavy casualties inflicted on the two German divisions defending the immediate sector, Operation Charnwood was a tactical success." Maybe my english is the problem but for me this means the casualties were a major reason to call the battle a tac victory. But this is wrong and unsoured . That german suffered casualties is sourced that charnwood was a sucess is sourced but not the correlation . Charnwood was no tactical sucess regarding the inflicted damaged because they suffered more. Lord can somebody fix this OR finally or give me a simply quote for this claim. Iam getting mad seein people dont understant this incorrectnes Blablaaa (talk) 10:21, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
- You are choosing to ignore the "northern Caen's capture" part of the sentence.
- It seems to me that there are around 6 or more editors who, after checking the refs and quotes, agree that "it was a tactical success" is correct.
- Consensus is therefore that the facts and the information in the article are correct.
- Capturing half the city (and the network of road junctions it contained), forcing the Germans over the river, removing half of the German defenders and establishing a base for the next assault which took the rest of Caen, Bourguébus and the commanding high ground was indeed a tactical success.
- It may be that your understanding of English is not the problem as the article clearly states "northern Caen's capture" first and the "heavy casualties" second which would mean that the casualties were indeed not the main reason for the tactical success.
- Chaosdruid (talk) 10:55, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
- I ignore the capture of northern cean because i dispute the second part of the statement and not the first. No they were not the reason they were maybe not even a minor reason maybe they were even a contra point. because no historian claimed this. Thats why its must out of the statement because the correlation between the outcome and german casualties is not support by historians!!!! The statement is simple orignal research because no historian claimed the german casualties as beeing crucial for the tactical outcome, and its not up to me to explain this its up to other editors to giving sufficient sources WP:BURDEN. DO u see anyone giving a quote of an historian claiming this correlation?? No!! german casualties are sourced and the outcome but no conclusiion. Iam getting mad ..... Here out of the OR article " It also refers to any analysis or synthesis by Wikipedians of published material, where the analysis or synthesis advances a position not advanced by the sources." this is pretty perfect description of what happend on charnwood. Two sourced facts become a new synthesis not support by any historianBlablaaa (talk) 11:08, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
- 1
- "In two days of savage fighting I (British) Corps incurred 3500 casualties. In the process of securing Caen, however, I (British) Corps mauled the 16th German Air Force Field Division. Thus, the victory at Caen had been a hard-won affair that owed much to the resolution of the ordinary Allied soldier."[1]
- 2
- From Der Weg 21.Panzer-Division (The history ofthe 21st Panzer Division) by Werner Kortenhaus, a surviving German veteran.
- At 16:30 hrs, the division commander of 21 Panzer division Generalleutnant Feuchtinger got the following information:
- "The enemy has been successful after heavy bombardment and occupied the northern part of Caen. The situation is still unclear. Familiarise yourself with the situation and go to the position of the 16 GAF, which is in Caen. Release the commander of the 16 GAF and take command yourself. All parts of the 16 GAF are under your command. Regarding the situation you have to lead a couterattack with 21 Panzer Division and get in charge of the stuation."
- Generalleutnant Feuchtinger reached the command post at 18:00 hrs. It became immediately obvious that the enemy was already in Caen and that all the infantry of the 16 GAF, who were meant to defend the city and prevent the enemy to get a further hold, were not there. The 16 GAF had suffered losses of 75% and all battallion and most ot the company commanders were dead or wounded. Demoralised parts of the division had already retreated over the Orne.[2]
- 3
- Night of 8/9 July 1944 from "The 12th SS: the history of the Hitler Youth Panzer Division, Vol2 by Hubert Meyer"
- Soon after midnight the Divisional commander visited. He recalled:
- "I found the survivors of I./25 in a bunker at the edge of town. These totally worn out soldiers had fallen into a deep sleep...The soldiers of 12. SS-Panzer Division were at the end of their physical endurance....TOday, mud-covered steel helmets threw their shadows on sunken faces whose eyes had beheld the beyond all-too-often."
- The Division issued orders to leave the assembly areas at dawn, and to take up the new positions at the southern bank of the Orne...The enemy (Allied forces) had reached the majority of his attack objectives on the wings, although some centres of resistance held out...In thecentral sector, at the 59th InfantryDivision, Malon, Couvre-Chef,la Folie, Bitot, parts of Galmanche and Ardenne had not been captured, but abandoned by German decision. However, there was no doubt that these positions could not have been held any longer, because of the completely open right flank and also because of the heavy German losses."[3]
- I trust this will suffice for you
- Chaosdruid (talk) 13:09, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Nr 1 allied suffered higher casualties!!!!! No quote regarding tactical victory and casualtie correlationAgain noobish comment. Here from charnwood article "With support from the 10th Canadian Armoured Regiment, by noon Buron had been taken, although the 9th Brigade's assault companies suffered 60% casualties in doing so" , WOW 60% !!!! of a fully equipend brigade WOW. omg u didnt get it, hu ?
FOR FUCK SAKE WHO QUESTIONED THE OUTCOME ????????? U QUOTE STORIES OF SOLDIERS TO SUPPORT THE POINT ??? ARE U SERIOUS ?????? THEN QUOTE ALLIED SOLDIERS WHO SUFFERED MORE CASUALTIES IN EVERY ASPECT ???? ARE U SERIOUS ????? THATS NOT THE FUCKING POINT!!!!!!!!!!!!!Blablaaa (talk) 13:23, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
- If you strike those comments now, you might just be able to spare yourself a block. Calm down please. I was on the verge of posting something to help, but am rethinking it now. Ranger Steve (talk) 13:30, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
- There is nothing to help, the is right or wrong. Nobody brings the quote all claim it is sources but when i ask for the explicit quote nobody respondes and then claims he dont respondes because some other reasons. Nobody brings the quote, guys going around and making jokes about "blabla" instead of investing this time in bringing the quote and clearing the issue. What the word for this? Blablaaa (talk) 13:42, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
- "Again noobish comment. Here from charnwood article "With support from the 10th Canadian Armoured Regiment, by noon Buron had been taken, although the 9th Brigade's assault companies suffered 60% casualties in doing so" , WOW 60% !!!! of a fully equipend brigade WOW. omg u didnt get it, hu ? "
- The sentance doesnt state the brigade suffered 60% casualties; it is not comparable to an entire Brigade being made combat ineffective per the quotes regarding the Luftwaffe boys. The sentance specfically states the assault companies suffered these losses. Depending how the battalions attacked it could make the losses, while high, overall sustainable i.e. units attacking with one company up, two in reserve or whatever etc.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 13:36, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
- enigma i dont care who suffered how much % because its totally irrelevant. i simply copied to show how useless this % are when we have overall numbers. i hoped my WOW and !!!! made it clear. and off topic: suffering 60% casualties against a dazed company is kinda tactical desaster, but thats not the point. Blablaaa (talk) 13:42, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
final try
is somebody willing to explain in 1 sentence what he thinks my problem is. Rethinking the whole problem iam not ready to accept that the people here are not able to understand the in my opinion very obvious mistake. So it is now high likly that my words are not wisly chooses. So please can someone explain to me what he thinks what i mean. if he understood what i mean i will quit the discussion and "accept" that their is no support for my opinion, while iam 95% sure that iam correct. So show your good faith now Blablaaa (talk) 13:47, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
- You think that linking the assertion that there were heavy German losses with the assertion that it was a tactical victory is wp:synth? Ranger Steve (talk) 13:52, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
- hm No i guess: i think that "the assertion that there were heavy German losses" and the "assertion that it was a tactical victory" are 2 source parts but the conclusion that the first was a reason for the second is wp:synth, does this sound different for u ?
- i did some research because the 75% seem dubios for and found that , the 16 LWFD had 500 infantrymen in 8 companies and reported the loss of 375 men mainly POW, so they reported 75% loss, sounds a bit different now doenst it? "the whole division was steamrolled and lost 75% of their men" is one way to describe , and the neutral military way is saying 375 men which is the value of 2 companies and not more. Somebody so honest to say that this sounds complety different. It all comes down to the presentation of the facts... Blablaaa (talk) 14:00, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
i followed the link of ranger steve and i think this is exactly what i mean, two correct facts are put in one sentence to imply a correlation. Blablaaa (talk) 14:09, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
- I am still waiting for an apology - your comments were extremely baseless and in very bad taste. I spent three hours trying to help you and I deserve better than the language you chose to use. If this is the way you treat people that are trying to help then do not complain when they turn round and chew your nuts off.
- Chaosdruid (talk) 14:37, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
- I will think about accepting it as you havent even deleted or struck out the insults yet...
- Did you understand that in the post (where I have labelled them 1, 2 and 3) the only thing that I have written which is by me is "I trust this will suffice for you" ? Everything from the 1 to the "I trust..." is taken directly from the sources. It is what they said and is a direct quote.
- Chaosdruid (talk) 15:00, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
- Well maybe it is a language problem then. I will try (once more) to simplify it for you.
- 1 - "mauled the 16th German Air Force Field Division. Thus, the victory at Caen had been a hard-won affair that owed much to the resolution of the ordinary...." - This means that the mauling led to a victory (Thus means due to what I said in the previous sentence/s)
- 2 - "The enemy has been successful and occupied the northern part of Caen...the 16 GAF, were not there... had suffered 75% losses" - he is saying that the occupation of the north part was sucessful because the GAF suffered 75% losses and left
- 3 - "However, there was no doubt that these positions could not have been held any longer, because of the completely open right flank and also because of the heavy German losses." - he is saying that the Germans could not hold the positions because of the heavy losses.
- I do not understand why you cannot accept that - it is not OR or SYNTH - it is merely the opinions of sources which can be quoted to support the statement "it was a success due to XXXX and the high German losses"
- Chaosdruid (talk) 15:50, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Regarding the first, sure was the 16 LWFD defeated , that also not the point and only a part of charnwood. It also reflects not the cost of the operation. The statement is claiming nothing near the statement in the lead it claims it was a hard won victory. I also want to highlight that the 75% are 800 men, because the 75% sound so "extreme". To the second, hes claiming the allied took cean and reports the casualties of 16 LWFD, also no correlation. I also want to highlight that this is only a part of charnwood. To the 3rd that simply strategic when german losses slighlty lower than allied ( like they did on charnwood ) its a strategic problem for german , this is far from being relevant for the tactical scale. All your statements dont take the 12 ss inot consideration which inflicted very heavy casualties on the allied. Blablaaa (talk) 16:34, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Maybe u think about the following. An example, u have only the fact a battle took place and party X lost 3500 and party Y lost +2000. What do u think who won at the tactical scale ? Party x? Nope , no historian will think this. A tactical victory is in general seen as inflicting more casualties ( or more valuedamage ), this is a very "simple" describition but fits in general. Now u get more facts like caputred ground etc and now u hear; it is considered a tactical victory for party x. Would u now assume the casualties of party Y were a reason for the tactical outcome ? Nope, no historian would claim this. Thats why u find no historian ( hereby i want to point at the fact that u quote stories of participating soldiers and officers ) claiming this, thats why enigma , eyeseren and so on dont take the 1 minute and type the quote of a historian into the editbox. Nobody brings the quote. Nobody silence me with bringing the quote. The only thing we have are german casualties ( far lower than allied ) and the tactical outcome. And a statement which is wp:synth, maybe this helps understanding the issue finally. Blablaaa (talk) 16:34, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
- You seem to flipping back and forth, one moment you are in agreement that a tactical victory has many factors and then you are entrenched in the position that it is purely down to casualties. As previously stated a quick search finds articles that do not conform to such rigid thinking. I also point out that the notes in the actual infobox, IIRC, are soley down to the tactical improvement of the situation as a whole; your issue appears to be with simpley just the lede.
- In regards to purely a casualty argument you dont seem to want to engage the point that regardless of figures, per the article and per comments and quotes from others, the losses were more serious for the Germans. You seem to scoff at the 75% loss rate for the GAF regiment - " because the 75% sound so "extreme"." - if i havent got my maths wrong, would have made the unit 1,000 men strong with 200 survirors available to the German army. That seems pretty extreme (although what is this source for this figure?). Up to half the tanks available in the area were knocked out. Simon Trew states HJ incomplete records suggest around 500 men lost during the operation while Meyer places it closer to 600. Where did the rest of the losses come from, how badly did it affect those units? This type of argument opens up more questions than answers imho.
- Furthermore the tactical handing of the battle from the British perspective is called on; we have quotes from Buckley stating how combind arms somewhat fell apart and led to higher casualties. One could argue the bombing raid alerted German defenders, plus the article notes how the German troops were well dug in. On the whole i think a lot is getting brought up to distract from the issue.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 17:57, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
- U are switiching my words. I never claimed a tactical victory is soly based on casualties, never claimed this. but i said if there is no other factor, the party with less casualties is considered victoriuos in general. And when a party with much more casualties wins tactical that this doesnt come from the casualties but from other factors, thats what i said and thats what the issue is on charnwood. I repeat me over and over again no historian claimed the tactical sucess came due german casualties, iam still awaiting a quote for that. Iam wondering that u are biting on the 75% , the %losses are pretty irrelevant for the tactical scale. i think 800 sounds better than 75% because 75% is a relativ number which can have much meaning. And u see that people who lack arguments sometimes over focus on % numbers. The combat unit of 9th brigade lost 60%, and now ? what does this say about the tactical outcome ? nothing.... . That german had more serious losses regarding their strenght is no tactical issue its a operational or strategic. I hope u know this. Regarding your off topic question. 600-700 for 12 SS 800 for combat troops of 16 LWFD and the rest for 21 panzer and auxillery troops who got shelled. does this seem strange for u ? for me not... Blablaaa (talk) 18:44, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
- And yet I already told you that the quote you were using says "northern Caen's capture" first and the "heavy casualties" second :¬)
- BTW those quotes: 1 is from the Ministry of Defence (England) and 2 & 3 are from German sources with 3 being from Hubert Meyer. It is that officer who states "However, there was no doubt that these positions could not have been held any longer, because of the completely open right flank and also because of the heavy German losses" and as he was the man in charge of the division I tend to believe he is an authority on the matter! The first quote (1) is from a Ministry of Defence article written for the MOD by two very well respected authors Lloyd Clark[4] and Dr Stephen Hart[5], Department of War Studies, Royal Military Academy Sandhurst so lets ignore your comments about "from soldiers and officers" and change it to "from a soldier in that battle, the head of the 12th division Jugend and 2 respected authors on WWII.
- Chaosdruid (talk) 18:48, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
- And u clearly forget that all sentences like "because of the completely open right flank and also because of the heavy German losses" simple means german had less troops available. This is no tactical issue its a strategic/operational Blablaaa (talk) 19:06, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
- If a certain number of troops, from those available - the strategic picture; have been assigned to an objective: sit and hold that village, sit and hold that hill/trench etc etc how is that then an operational issue? In the tactical battle to gain control of the outskirts and the northern half of the city, the Germans had deployed fewer troops this appears to be the entire tactical level. Operationally, if i understand correctly, a good chunk of I SS Panzer Corps had been put into reserve and to dig in south of the city. Strategically there was only the troops slowly being fed into the armies from other sectors of France etcEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 19:24, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
- And u clearly forget that all sentences like "because of the completely open right flank and also because of the heavy German losses" simple means german had less troops available. This is no tactical issue its a strategic/operational Blablaaa (talk) 19:06, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Tactical diversion
I’ll probably regret getting involved in this, but here goes…
As I understand it, Blablaa believes that assertion A (that the Germans suffered heavy casualties), assertion B (that north Caen was captured) and assertion C (that it was a tactical victory) are all fine (sourced to reliable historians etc…). However, he feels that the wording of the line currently in the lead (“With northern Caen's capture and the heavy casualties inflicted on the two German divisions defending the immediate sector, Operation Charnwood was a tactical success.”) is a case of synth (or thereabouts), because it isn’t directly explained in the article’s analysis section, nor backed up by a reliable quote. Have I got that right Blablaa?
- ( replied after ranger by blabla ), awesome, thats it.
I think that if this was all there was to it, I wouldn’t really question the line too hard. While the German losses (A) alone might not constitute a tactical victory (being lower than the Allied), the other half of the sentence (the capture of northern Caen (B)) apparently did (I’m assuming you agree with that as well Blablaa). If the capture of Caen made it a tactical victory (B = C), then the large losses sustained by the Germans (lower than the Allies or not) only helps to reinforce that victory (B (& A) still = C).
- ( replied after ranger by blabla ) kinda. i think allied loses were even a negativ factor, regarding them alone they lost tactical but other factors outweighted the casualties. Thats why already suggested to say "despite allied casualties" and not "with heavy german casualties".
On the flip side, I’m not too keen on the whole use of the term tactical. The articles Victory and Tactical victory don’t really match up well and neither are particularly well sourced. Could someone explain or improve the tactical article for the benefit of someone like me, who knows nothing of war or military manoeuvres? Unfortunately all of my books seem to refuse to do so and I wouldn’t be surprised if a lot of respectable authors aren’t 100% sure themselves!
- ( replied after ranger by blabla) , i guess its not so well sourced because there is no real dispute of this. tactic is about handling battle values and destroying enemy value, oversimplyfied. Tactics means beeing efficient. but off topic
As it is, the word tactical only appears three times in the Charnwood article (twice in the infobox and once in the lead). I would very much like to see the phrase used in the Analysis section as well, and be sourced. It must be said that Beevor doesn’t use the term tactical on p. 273, and yet the same reference is used in the infobox to support tactical victory as is used in analysis to describe partial success. I’m afraid I don’t have D’Este, so I can’t comment on that one.
So, is it original research for us to assume or infer the result of “tactical victory” from the main outcomes of a battle, when those words aren’t actually used by historians? I don’t know personally, but I think that would be a far more worthwhile conversation than this one. It does strike me that sometimes an article seems to use a fairly standard term in order to describe a rather unorthodox result for the sake of a tidy infobox (I am not pointing any fingers here, it is merely something I’ve noticed occasionally when battles far more complicated than this example seem to be so simply described in the box). Equally, sometimes an article uses a relatively convoluted description that isn’t actually used by any of the reliable sources in the article’s bibliography (I could use Operation Market Garden as an example here). I personally believe we should only use terms directly reference-able to reliable sources. This will inevitably lead to more complicated infoboxes on some articles (Charnwood being one), but it has to be verifiability over truth as always.
- ( replied after ranger ) the tactical scale is very losly connect with overall outcome sometimes, so in general it should always be explicit said by the author if he thinks is was a tactical victory an operaiton or even strategic. Most historians i follow divide mostly in tactical operational and strategic outcome of a battle.
However, this is only my take on it, and I welcome some patient discussion about how much we can infer a result when summarising an article in the lead and infobox. In this instance, Charnwood is described as a tactical offensive, so its result would (theoretically) be a tactical victory/defeat. It might also be that a partial victory and tactical success are pretty much the same thing in military circles. If this is the way things go though, I think we need to really spruce up the relevant victory articles, and that way our summaries are directly explainable.
I’ve read this and the 3 or 4 related threads over the course of nearly 2 days, so apologies if I’ve got this quite wrong (please correct me accordingly!). Cheers, Ranger Steve (talk) 18:52, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
- There is only really the American version unfortunately - it is the one i try to use though for now...
- Simplified version from the site DOD Glossary extracts
- DOD online Dictionary of Military and Associated Terms (Does not appear to define a Level III threat though)
- The DOD dictionary as a PDF (Only 699 pages lol!)
- (For Tactical diversion see diversion...)[6]
- Chaosdruid (talk) 21:41, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
- Nice summary Steve :) I can't provide any neat definitions of "tactical success" (or "Tactical victory") because I don't know of any; the linked article is unsatisfactory and I can't find much elsewhere. There are wargame-type definitions but these don't really make the grade for real-world situations because they're far too prescriptive (rather like casualty-based definition Blablaaa has been using). However, I was taught (many years ago!) that there are basically four levels of military endeavour: the overall political (grand strategy) level, the military strategy level, the operational (or theatre) level, and the tactical (or battlefield) level. Each is linked, so the grand strategy decides the military strategy, which guides the planning of operational goals, which are achieved (or not) by tactical means. Unfortunately this is dredged up from memory (though I did find something here to refresh my memory and support the analysis). It's worth noting that the usage of "tactics" seems to have changed over the years, so postwar historians might refer to "tactical" where modern doctrine would use "operational"... just to confuse things further :)
- The upshot of all that is: "tactical" refers to the lowest level of the hierarchy, and a tactical success is basically a battlefield "win". Did the Allies win the battle? Yes, as supported by the refs. Does it matter that they took higher casualties? No, because that was the price they paid to win the battle. Were the German casualties sustained having serious repercussions? Yes, again as supported by the refs. Did those casualties contribute to the tactical win? Clearly (backed up by the sources Chaosdruid has found). Did the Allies prevent the Germans reinforcing the US sector? No. So... Charnwood wasn't a strategic success (we should probably be careful using "operational" becuase the concept wasn't really in use by the Brits at the time). What are we left with?
- I appreciate the point that this doesn't appear to be explicitly sourced, but I'd argue that it's a non-controversial term (bar the one obvious objection, consensus supports it), the text supports it, and it's what this type of victory is called. It simply doesn't need a cite (see Wikipedia:When to cite).
- I hope this helps, and apologies for any incoherence (it's getting late...) Best, EyeSerenetalk 23:28, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
- Please rethink this statement by u "Were the German casualties sustained having serious repercussions? Yes, again as supported by the refs.Did those casualties contribute to the tactical win? Clearly (backed up by the sources Chaosdruid has found)" , First of all the source dont claims tactical victory, u added this word. Why ? Sorry but anyways thats very senseless ( i dont want to sound insulting but that is the proper word i guess ), every time u achieve a victory the casualties of the enemy contributed to it?!?!? :-) ??? thats inherent in fighing. This fits for nearly every victory ever achieved :-D. I also claim u misquote the source when u claim that the source claims the german casualties contributed to a tactical victory at charnwood. I also see that u ignore the fact that major allied casualties were suffered against the 12 SS and not the 16 LWFD. Thats why overall allied casualties were far higher at charnwood ( and we talk about charnwood and not the 16 LWFD ). I said above the "source" only covers the sector of 16 LWFD, but u ignore this. Why? It does not help, to discuss selektiv. We will not find consense if older established facts are ignored and iam forced to repeat. Please consider all relevant facts which are presented in this discussion! U missed again the point explained by ranger ( i guess he is maybe more clear as nativ speaker as iam ). The statement in the lead is claiming german casualties were a reason for the tactical victory, they were not , actually they were a contra factor but were outweighted by other factors like captured ground... . The statement in the lead is a claim of correlation which is actually not correct and also unsourced. Best regards Blablaaa (talk) 02:07, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
- I try again. There are multiple factors which affect the outcome of an tactical battle. For example, the casualties , the taken ground , maybe special and vital positions. If u reduce a battle to not more than casualties, the victor is "always" the party with less "value" losses . But if u add more factors like taken ground u can maybe achieve a tactical victory despite suffering higher casualties. Thats what happened on charnwood , despite suffering heavy casualties the allied won a tactical victory because they captured ground? So the claim in the lead exactly claims the opposite which is very uncommon, thats why i asked for a exact quote . it implys the casualties "factor" were in favor for allied and a reason for the tactical outcome. But thats not the case. But iam not even the editor who must proof it. Other must proof the statement is sourced but nobody does it. Blablaaa (talk) 02:26, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
- Blablaaa, I do understand your point and have since you first posted. I just happen to mostly disagree. It's arguable that casualties should come under 'strategic' rather than 'tactical' because many historians support the idea that Montgomery's strategic aim was to draw down the German forces to the point where a breakout was inevitable (which was what eventually happened). However, the article doesn't really go into this debate so including it in the lead would be a step too far. I accept that you don't believe the lower German casualties should be in the same sentence as "tactical success", and like Steve I'd agree if that was all the sentence said because it would present a misleading picture, but it's not. I also accept that 'tactical' isn't cited, but in a general summary of a detailed article I believe it's a justifiable term and as "subject-specific common knowledge" I'd argue it doesn't need a cite (Wikipedia:When to cite). In the interest of clarity I've tweaked the sentence to also mention allied losses, but I should also point out that your aggressive and accusative approach has again done you a disservice as it has on many articles before, entrenching positions instead of facilitating discussion. Even if you were 100% right, why should other editors submit to being harassed and insulted? EyeSerenetalk 10:14, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
- Without wanting to get too involved in the discussion on this particular article, I am very unhappy with the use of "tactical victory", "marginal victory", "Japanese major tactical victory but strategic disaster ultimately resulting in Hiroshima being nuked" etc in infoboxes. In almost every single battle article I am involved in editing, the result is a matter of controversy - often bitter controversy. Often it is possible to summarise those issues in the lead section. It is almost invariably impossible to summarise them in the infobox. IMV the "result" section of the infobox should be scrapped. The Land (talk) 10:43, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Eyeseren u said many times u understand my point but than u say things like It's arguable that casualties should come under 'strategic' rather than 'tactical' because many historians support the idea that Montgomery's strategic aim was to draw down the German forces to the point where a breakout was inevitable (which was what eventually happened) , seeming u dont completly get tactical outcome , the tactical outcome is nothing else than battle performanc, the aims of the parties are pretty irrelevant. if montgomeries aim was to destroy 10 panzers and he losses 100 doing this he fulfilled his objectives but had a tactical defeat from a neutral point of view. I want to raise another issue maybe u and enigma thing about, why we have wasted 3 three days instead of changing the statement to something better? u thinkk the recent statement is perfect and we cant find a better? even when u think iam not really correct why not changing the sentence to another wording. I also want u to look at charnwood talk and who started bringing aggressiv attitude into the discussion. The new statement sounds not optimal in my opinion and for somebody with a good understand of warfare it sounds contradicting that it was a tactical with german heavy casaualties and despite aliied casualties. It can not be a tactical victory with german causltias and despite allies it can only be a tactical victory despite allied casualties and with allied ground gains. And that is indeed the correct version like i explainded above. I also want to highlight since we recognized that no historian claims this correlcation and so we cant find any quote supporting the statement ( i claimed this from the very beginning ) , now u say it needs no citiation, to avoid wp:burden. First u and enigma said its completly sourced since we know it is absolutly not, u claim it now needs no sitiation. Without trying to push u in a corner, maybe we should simply search a new sentence which is better than the old and satisfiing for all. what do u think ? Blablaaa (talk) 17:31, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
- I'm struggling now... Blablaa, what would you want/expect the sentence to say? Ranger Steve (talk) 18:10, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
- Please see Victory Chaosdruid (talk) 19:39, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
I support TheLand here. I have read numerous discussions about trying to simplify very complex, often historically differing accounts', views on various outcomes of battles which go over and over disagreements merely to come up with an infobox result. The result is enormous amounts of wasted time. EyeSerene, is it plausible to delete the results section from the battle infobox? Buckshot06 (talk) 09:55, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
- Well, the field is optional, so it can potentially be removed from individual articles. I think it would be unreasonable to remove it from the infobox entirely, however; most historical battles—particularly those before the modern era—do have a clear and obvious victor, and readers expect to see that fact indicated in any summary of said battle. Kirill [talk] [prof] 14:10, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
- My opinion is that infoboxes have the problem that they oversimplify issues and tend to "fool" the reader. The general reader is no expert, a victory will always draw the same picture in their heads. Espcially for battles which are far away from being clear victories or losses. The analysis section should explain the outcome of battles more complex, some articles on normandy do this very well. The infoboxes are a general problem in my opinion. Maybe here is the correct place now to raise this issue. If we look normandy we see that all german units for example are listed in the strength section. The strength section has the task to give the reader an idea of strenghths this means he wants to compare the participating infantry tanks planes etc. But on normandy we get the funny resultes that german units which were battalion size are counted as full divisions in the box, this applies for nearly every battle. German units never get real replacements. This meant 3 german division against 3 allied division in august 44 meant mabye 4:1 infantry and 5:1 in tanks. When the reader gets the counted units in the box he will always assume they are equall strengths. This is nothing else than fooling i think. I raised this problem already but i was ignored. Now we get the next problem. when 2800 bombers and other aircraft take part in an allied operation they are never mentioned in the box, when i ask why i get the answer : " because we dont know german aircraft", the simple reason that we dont know how much german aircraft participated, is that there were 20 or something like this. why not mentioning the 2800 aircraft? same for artillery. When a german battalion sized unit is listed as full division , then i wonder that 2800 aircraft are not mentioned. The infobox on normandy article is so useless its persuades the reader some kind of equality in strenght which is wrong (there are more problems but this is the most obvious for me). Please take a look at any normandy article its everywhere. Best example was verriers ridge. 3 days before this battle the charnwood article said the 12 SS has battalion size now and on the next article the 12 SS is again listed as full Panzerdivision in the strenght section. Thats a simple lie, isnt it? I raised the issue but got no answer, i changed it now. The strenght section is for comparing strenghtes and if the division are very unequal in strange than u cant put them in the box. thats undisputable. My idea: use the infobox only for clear facts. Dont imply something . If german strenght isnt availabe than dont count any battlaion which took part as full division!!! I want also to give some input , on german wiki all new featured articles for battle in ww2 no longer have an infobox please take a look at cholm or wjasma-brijansk for example. On german wiki they came to the conclusion that for battles in ww2 its pretty useless to use an infobox which is so easy to manipulate. ( strength section on normany for example). All relevant issues are detailed explained in the article. Blablaaa (talk) 18:17, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
- Agree with The Land. It's so often difficult to summarize in a couple of words, & so often subject of contention, which so infrequently leads to really satisfactory results. We've all got better things to do than argue over it. (Tho the discussion in progress may put the lie to that proposition...) TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 12:37, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
- My opinion is that infoboxes have the problem that they oversimplify issues and tend to "fool" the reader. The general reader is no expert, a victory will always draw the same picture in their heads. Espcially for battles which are far away from being clear victories or losses. The analysis section should explain the outcome of battles more complex, some articles on normandy do this very well. The infoboxes are a general problem in my opinion. Maybe here is the correct place now to raise this issue. If we look normandy we see that all german units for example are listed in the strength section. The strength section has the task to give the reader an idea of strenghths this means he wants to compare the participating infantry tanks planes etc. But on normandy we get the funny resultes that german units which were battalion size are counted as full divisions in the box, this applies for nearly every battle. German units never get real replacements. This meant 3 german division against 3 allied division in august 44 meant mabye 4:1 infantry and 5:1 in tanks. When the reader gets the counted units in the box he will always assume they are equall strengths. This is nothing else than fooling i think. I raised this problem already but i was ignored. Now we get the next problem. when 2800 bombers and other aircraft take part in an allied operation they are never mentioned in the box, when i ask why i get the answer : " because we dont know german aircraft", the simple reason that we dont know how much german aircraft participated, is that there were 20 or something like this. why not mentioning the 2800 aircraft? same for artillery. When a german battalion sized unit is listed as full division , then i wonder that 2800 aircraft are not mentioned. The infobox on normandy article is so useless its persuades the reader some kind of equality in strenght which is wrong (there are more problems but this is the most obvious for me). Please take a look at any normandy article its everywhere. Best example was verriers ridge. 3 days before this battle the charnwood article said the 12 SS has battalion size now and on the next article the 12 SS is again listed as full Panzerdivision in the strenght section. Thats a simple lie, isnt it? I raised the issue but got no answer, i changed it now. The strenght section is for comparing strenghtes and if the division are very unequal in strange than u cant put them in the box. thats undisputable. My idea: use the infobox only for clear facts. Dont imply something . If german strenght isnt availabe than dont count any battlaion which took part as full division!!! I want also to give some input , on german wiki all new featured articles for battle in ww2 no longer have an infobox please take a look at cholm or wjasma-brijansk for example. On german wiki they came to the conclusion that for battles in ww2 its pretty useless to use an infobox which is so easy to manipulate. ( strength section on normany for example). All relevant issues are detailed explained in the article. Blablaaa (talk) 18:17, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
- In a few articles where the result is complicated we substitute "See analysis" for a result. However, I don't think Charnwood needs to be one of these :) EyeSerenetalk 20:33, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
- Nobody an opinion ? Blablaaa (talk) 19:21, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
- I agree Blablaaa. The infoboxes are a major problem on WWII articles. You made some good points about this that had already caught my eye before. I think it's a good idea if the infobox was only used for undisputed facts. That way readers are not mislead. Currently the way (most) infoboxes are set up (on quite a few WWII articles), I find it to be misleading to readers. Personally I think we should get rid of the boxes all together. The German Wikipedia has done it the right way. Why have the infobox when it can be so easily manipulated? Caden cool 06:48, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
- Nobody an opinion ? Blablaaa (talk) 19:21, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
The charnwood article still has OR in the lead with an statement which contraticts military logic and which is still unsources. Can someone change it now ? Correlation between allied sucess and german casualties was never claimed by any historian. please change it now and search for a better statement. The recent sentence is even worse than the old because u cant win a battle with german casualties and despite allied casualties. The sentence is weird now. Blablaaa (talk) 16:53, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry for such a slow response, although fortunately things don’t seem to have moved much in my absence : )
- EyeSerene and ChaosDruid, thanks for the details, its largely what I’d expected (and always believed). Re your point below EyeSerene, I do agree, but I have to admit I would always prefer to see a direct citation for results like these. There has to be a point where we summarise what the sources say in the easiest way, but at least a citation would prevent instances like this! The only thing that occurs to me is that perhaps the infobox could say tactical success instead of victory?
- TheLand and Buckshot, I’m not too sure that removing the result from infoboxes altogether is all that necessary. For every article with a contested result there are 3 or more with a very plain, obvious and sourced outcome. I think it might be overkill to remove the result section altogether.
- Blablaa, perhaps it’s a language thing but I see nothing wrong with the current sentence. You can win a battle even if your casualties are worse, if only because the win is defined by the objective. In a paintball match of capture the flag say, even if all of your teammates get splatted, if you get the flag then you win (and hopefully get free beer), even if not a single opposing player has as much as a drop of paint on them.
- As an aside, but one I can’t quite ignore I’m afraid, I’m not quite sure about one of your last comments. You say that you don’t really have an opinion on what the sentence should say, which I must confess leaves me puzzled. To have gone to this much trouble to get a sentence changed but to have no opinion on how it should be changed, leaves me a little confused. I hope that you just enjoy reading these articles and spotted what you perceived to be an inconsistency, but it would be better if you brought an alternative to the table from the beginning.
- At any rate, if we are agreed that this was a tactical operation, I think EyeSerene’s adjustment to the sentence in question is more than accommodating enough and should, based on all of Blablaa’s previous comments, be enough to satisfy this issue. I think an example like this shows a need to tighten up our definitions of various results, as ChaosDruid is already doing with the victory articles. Hopefully, something solid can come out of this massive discussion other than minor adjustments to a solitary sentence. Ranger Steve (talk) 17:50, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
- You can win a battle even if your casualties are worse, if only because the win is defined by the objective. In a paintball match of capture the flag say, even if all of your teammates get splatted, if you get the flag then you win (and hopefully get free beer), even if not a single opposing player has as much as a drop of paint on them. yep and nobody would summarize the paintball game with: "they won with the caputre of the flag and heavy casualties inflicted on the enemy". thats exactly what happend on charnwood they. Exactly the same situation, victory despite higher own casualties. nobody of this paintball group would summarize the match this way, he would maybe say despite our heavy casualties we achieved victory with the caputre of the flag. exactly what happend on charnwood :D . lol. Ok i see, the statement will stay in the article. i will stop moaning about maybe the issue will be brought up again if a editor, with military history or some kind of title in study, joins wikipedia and reads the lead. But anyways thanks for all people who invested time to deal with me. the infobox nonsense will also stay i guess so that every reader will see how u can imply people german were not outnumbered at normandy. Thats wikipedias mission: bringing information to the readers...Blablaaa (talk) 18:10, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
- As an aside, but one I can’t quite ignore I’m afraid, I’m not quite sure about one of your last comments. You say that you don’t really have an opinion on what the sentence should say, which I must confess leaves me puzzled. To have gone to this much trouble to get a sentence changed but to have no opinion on how it should be changed, leaves me a little confused. I hope that you just enjoy reading these articles and spotted what you perceived to be an inconsistency, but it would be better if you brought an alternative to the table from the beginning. i saw the sentence, i saw that the sentence is military nonsense and no one with military understanding would write such sentence. i went to the discussion page to say it must be changed. my good old friend enigma immediatly took the opposite opinion. i was still correct and said " ok show me any historian who says this ", he searched and searched but found nothing so he brought some quotes which are not supporting him but he thought his job was done. So, no quote; and i went here. explained exactly the issue but without details, now i was supported until the people saw who is against me and that iam blabla . Then a prolonged discussion about this issue with nobody bringing a quote of a historian and many editors proving they have limited knowledge about warfare ( this is not insulting thats fact.. ). And i dont need an idea about the new sentence my only objective was removing nonsense from wiki and what did we get? weeks of discussion some appearens on the ani board, some people who wanted a block for me. And no improvement. If my name would not be blabla the statement would be changed to something not wrong and everything would be fine. Blablaaa (talk) 18:28, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
That nobody respondes to the infobox issue shows that nobody wants to take position for the status quo, because its bad. But if i would start changing it i would be reverted. So many people have opinions to topics where they lack the knowledge to participate on a academic level. But the infobox issue is so obivous allied bias that nobody wants to risk to get himself attackable. The best option is to wait until blabla shuts his mouth... . Thats an easy way to avoid changes. Ignore the guy who moans and revert him if he tries to change the status quo. And then use his reputation to slander his points. Blablaaa (talk) 18:34, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
- I answered above in regards to the infobox Blablaaa. Caden cool 06:55, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
- "That nobody respondes to the infobox issue shows that nobody wants to take position for the status quo, because its bad. But if i would start changing it i would be reverted. " Yep, & so you should be, until a consensus is agreed. Status quo need not be defended; it has the status of precedent, & if you intend to overturn precedent, you need good arguments & to achieve consensus. FWIW, as noted above, I agree, it should be taken out. I also notice, as usual, you ignored comments (which, in this instance, were supportive). TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 12:37, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
- Ok i see, the statement will stay in the article. i will stop moaning about maybe the issue will be brought up again if a editor, with military history or some kind of title in study, joins wikipedia and reads the lead. ... i saw that the sentence is military nonsense and no one with military understanding would write such sentence. ... proving they have limited knowledge about warfare ( this is not insulting thats fact.. ). ... they lack the knowledge to participate on a academic level I find it quite bemusing that when you don’t find agreement you fall back on insulting the intelligence of the editors who have taken the time out to look into the issue. You have no idea of our own experience, military, educational or historian wise, not to mention our own common sense etc; yet you claim that every single person here is unsuitable to the task and apparently only you can rectify these problems while at the same time apparently ignoring everything that has been presented to you or the various points made. If the other editors have tighten what has been stated in the article and on the whole generaly agreed with what has been stated, i dont think the problem lays with us. On top of which TBH i think Steve has gone above and beyond attempting to hash out something positive with you so i feel you could at least put the thinly hidden insults on hold.
- my good old friend enigma immediatly took the opposite opinion. Past experience has seen you raise all sorts of points, which on the whole have been groundless and took up a lot of wasted time justifying to you why xyz should or should not be stated; You will note that this time I initiated conversation with you asking you to clarify your weasel words then pointed you to the article were the various points discussed are noted – not automatically taking the opposite position to you. This was followed by personal attacks by you towards me coupled with completely groundless statements that i wrote what you objected to accumulating with you threatening me. But we can all wear rose tinted glasses and remember it differently i suppose.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 18:50, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
- Actually Enigma, past experience has shown that Blablaaa brings up good strong valid points that you can't handle. You go out of your way to oppose Blablaaa regardless of the fact that he's been 90% right most of the time, while you have been dead wrong too often. Let me remind you as well that you have been disruptive with rude, incivil, never ending personal attacks, and empty threats. We have talk pages filled with your weasel words Enigma. Keep wearing your rose tinted colored glasses dude. You don't fool me. I remember well. Caden cool 06:55, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
- Dont draw conclusions which are wrong . when i question the skill of editors to participate on a academic discussion than this is not insluting i hope to improve the situation. the problem on warfare articles ist that so much people who wrote a book, think they are able to write articles on wiki. on mathematical articles we have mathematics who write the articles, same for medicine. but here on warfare we have people who like their armys and then go to wiki to write articles. Thats not insulting thats a major problem... Blablaaa (talk) 18:58, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
- Past experience has seen you raise all sorts of points, which on the whole have been groundless and took up a lot of wasted time justifying to you why xyz should or should not be stated that the point most of my points are against allied bias and we get always same resultes because i always talk to u. same happend on allied warcrimes article where i was correct too, and discussed with u and nick. i always discuss with you and finally you are the guy who decides what happens, my concerns are correcrt in 90% Blablaaa (talk) 19:00, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
the perfect prove for my opinion is that u ignored the infobox issue but immediatly came back to dicuss me and my opinions. thats so obvious. Blablaaa (talk) 19:02, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
- That's all Enigma ever does. The fact that he's back here yet again discussing you is evidence. Caden cool 07:03, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
- here my statement at the start When i have a text about a battle, and the source talks about casualties of one participant ( in my case , they are actually far lower than the casualties of the other participant ) and says he believes that battle was a improvement for the other participant due to various reasons ( captured ground for example ). Can i take the historian/text to claim the historian claims the inflicted casualties were a major reason to call the battle a "tactical victory". Blablaaa (talk) this was the summarize of your wrong point. i got support until everybody saw who is involded etc.... Blablaaa (talk) 19:04, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
- (e/c - multiple it seems!) Blablaa, please. Reading your comments is like watching someone wind themselves up. Please don't expect everyone to respond ASAP, we are volunteers here, not enemies locked in a room trying to reach a compromise. To start with, you've misunderstood my comment above. There are something like ten posts on the Charnwood talk page before you get to the main gist of the problem. If you clearly identified your problem with the sentence and suggested an alternative wording then these sorts of long winded problems may not arise. Wikipedia is collaborative effort online (which in many places would be considered absolutely impossible). It requires everyone to work extra hard to accommodate and improve the articles, so I recommend you do your best to make yourself clear from the off. As for the infobox issue, I noted (about an hour ago when I read it) that no-one has reverted you on the Battle of Verrières Ridge article. I happen to think you might be right, it would be odd for us to contradict ourselves in articles. But its because of contradictory reliable sources - here's the problem; how do we decide which reliable source is correct when we apply this to articles? If one source says a division was only a battalion, and another says it was a division 3 days later, how do we pick between them? The bigger question might be "who are we to pick between them?" Our mission is (perhaps annoyingly) verifiability, so we require historians to get it right first. Ranger Steve (talk) 19:06, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
your premise is that enigma and eyeseren want to think about my concerns and handle them as real concerns rather than attempts to disrupt wiki. Your premise is wrong so are your conclusion. sorry...Blablaaa (talk) 19:12, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
- you think my words are handled like words of all other editors they are not. and please look eyeserens talk page i brought up the verries ridge concern he was against and against and against until we reached a point where he was in such bad position that he would make himself attackable, he immediatly cut the discussion and never responded again. And now please read what i wrote above about editors who avoiv taking their position again when it become obvious that they are wrongBlablaaa (talk) 19:15, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
- same happend on allied warcrimes article where i was correct too... There, as with other articles, and in fact this one; the sources support what the articles state. In the allied warcrimes article you attempted to apply modern stats on the whole modern German population to a 60 year old issue, that only included a portion of the then German population, in an attempt to discredit an acedemic study that you did not agree with.
- the perfect prove for my opinion is that u ignored the infobox issue Mainly because i was attempting to stick to this one topic, as meandering as it is, where you have announced your right and everyone else is wrong followed up by a sly dig at me. I do not have to address every little problem you decide to raise. So can we please attempt to stay on topic?
- The bigger question might be "who are we to pick between them?" Our mission is (perhaps annoyingly) verifiability, so we require historians to get it right first Steve, you hit the nail right on the head; we can only reproduce, albeit generally worded differently, in the articles what the historians have said. When the lede was wrote for this article it reflects the various comments made by historians in the article. Consensus throughout this discussion has generally supported that point, that it reflects it and is not original research; various editors have already tighten the prose as well to ensure the message the various historians have made is conveyed over in a more clear fashion.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 19:18, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
- thats a blatant lie u know exactly what the point on allied warcrimes was, you lie when u claim this was my point. what a cheap tatica. please everyone who read enigmas post go to the article and read the discussion. Enigma this was the prove for everything i said about u. really what a cheap lie.Blablaaa (talk) 19:23, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
- some more pressure: please folks go to the discussion of Talk:Allied war crimes during World War II and read the dicussion. You will see how blatant this lie is and how exemplary for enigmas attitude towards me. Please invest some minutes to read the discussion there and than read again how enigma summarzied my points, above this postBlablaaa (talk) 19:57, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
- Your second post, a point that you make several times, supports practically everything i have just said. Sorry that i forgot to mention how you stated the acedmic study was worthless and of no value because you believe the author should have based his stats on a year by year basis (post 3). We can carry on the back and forth but its been going on far to long and am bored of it. Can we please contuine with this discussion?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 19:37, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
- Why the rush to change the subject Enigma? Oh yeah it's because Blablaaa proved what a big liar you are. It's all there on the talk page for all to see. Just follow this link Talk:Allied war crimes during World War II and read the section "Death rates of POWs held by the Allies". Caden cool 07:13, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
- I hope many people will go to the article and read the discussion and then come back to read your post again. Everything what i claimed regarding your behaviour towards me is proved then. Finally i think i have to say thank you. After reading this i guess people will understand. Blablaaa (talk) 19:47, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
- When the lede was wrote for this article it reflects the various comments made by historians in the article :wrong. the lead draws conclusions which is not support only the parts of this conclusion are sourcedBlablaaa (talk) 19:34, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
- So the various positions in the lede are sourced? Therefore how does it not reflect the article?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 19:39, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
- When the lede was wrote for this article it reflects the various comments made by historians in the article :wrong. the lead draws conclusions which is not support only the parts of this conclusion are sourcedBlablaaa (talk) 19:34, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
addressing ranges question for my suggestion: here my idea "Despite I Corp's losses, operation charnwood became a tactical sucess with the capture of northern Cean." this summarizes the article better than the old. allied had much higher losses but achieved victory with the caputre of northcean Blablaaa (talk) 22:32, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
- I've not said anything before, but I find the language being used here unacceptable. I don't care if you disagree with what someone's position is or opinion is, there is a respectful way to say it. Wikipedia's policy is to assume good faith. Whether someone is right or wrong, I don't care but to label any editor a liar is to act in bad faith. I ask all editors to be mindful of WP:AGF in their posts. This applies to everyone and I'm not singling anyone out. AustralianRupert (talk) 12:06, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
- Agreed, but I'll go one step further and actually single one editor out: Caden. This user's only contributions to this topic appear to be highly-critical attacks against Enigma and have not aided this conversation one iota. They just seem to have an axe to grind, and I'd ask them to stop these attacks. Skinny87 (talk) 12:16, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
Blablaaa's uncivil language and WP's gutless response
I am completely uninvolved in the discussion above, and to be honest couldn't care less who is right or wrong, but I find this editor's language to be uncivil, offensive and unjustified. For those that haven't followed the discussion, I quote from the thread above:
FOR FUCK SAKE WHO QUESTIONED THE OUTCOME ????????? U QUOTE STORIES OF SOLDIERS TO SUPPORT THE POINT ??? ARE U SERIOUS ?????? THEN QUOTE ALLIED SOLDIERS WHO SUFFERED MORE CASUALTIES IN EVERY ASPECT ???? ARE U SERIOUS ????? THATS NOT THE FUCKING POINT!!!!!!!!!!!!! Blablaaa (talk) 13:23, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Since when have we tolerated such language, especially from an editor with 5 previous blocks? Are we all so gutless now following the previous episode that we allow this behaviour to go unsanctioned? It seems that way... (still waiting for his mate Caden to chime in and award him another Barnstar).
Bloody bad show all round. Why wasn't this reverted immediately and a block applied? The apology is hollow at best until the comments are removed by the editor in question, and quite frankly he is still deserving of at least a 24-hour block. Perhaps only Nick-D had the stomach to do it, but then we saw where that got him didn't we? His integrity unfairly called into question... Disgusted. Anotherclown (talk) 14:14, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
- Some of Blablaa's contributions are quite heated, but it does seem that there is still a constructive discussion going on on a talk page, and Wikipedia policy is that we do not issue blocks as a 'punishment' for rudeness (or indeed anything else). Probably the best place to raise this kind of issue is at WP:ANI - there matters will get the prompt attention of an administrator. The Land (talk) 14:25, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
- A society that doesn't apply sanctions against those that flout its rules of behaviour... the vultures are circling. Anotherclown (talk) 14:58, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
- I prefer to let people's comments speak for themselves. I wouldn't club and gag someone if they had an outburst in a real life conversation/argument, I would let everyone else draw their own conclusions from that behaviour. If someone else wanted to do it, that's their decision, but I personally try to avoid editing other peoples comments. I have suggested to Blablaa (twice now) that he strikes his comments though. Ranger Steve (talk) 15:37, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
- I warned him that if the behavior continues he will be blocked. I've got my eye on him; the next time he makes comments like that he'll be blocked. If I'm the one who issues the block, it'll be a minimum of 6 months, given his history. Wikipedia is not therapy for people who can't interact socially. Parsecboy (talk) 15:40, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
- Well said lads. Climbing down from my high horse... Anotherclown (talk) 15:58, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
- I think your concern is a valid one - we've always been a welcoming and friendly project and in my experience our members are some of the most reasonable, patient and tolerant people on Wikipedia. Unfortunately, the flip side is that our goodwill can be open to abuse, so you're right that there has to be a limit. Whatever opinion we might have of the outcome of Nick's perfectly correct block, WP:CONSENSUS is the system we agree to abide by... and WP:ROPE is perhaps also worth a read ;) EyeSerenetalk 16:45, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
- I didnt deleted my comments because i didnt wanted to conceal my words. If i had deleted them at least 2 editors would responded fast as possible with mentioning this! If somebody has eyepain with seeing my useless eruption i can delete. I was asked for apoligize, the concerns were correct so i apologized immediatly. That i didnt deleted the comment was no provocation or something like this. So again apologize to chaosdruid :-) Blablaaa (talk) 17:13, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
- "Eyepain" indeed... a rather patronizing response if ever there was one, although I expected as much. Quite simply strike your comments out using the <s></s> mark up. This course of action has already been requested of you twice by another user, so I suggest you do so. Anotherclown (talk) 17:29, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
- I thought eyepain sounds funny, in german it does :-) .Regarind eyeseren attempt to raise old stuff. nicks block was indeed unjustifies which we saw when u eye, were not able to find any edit jutifing an block. mostly involded editors later said it was not correct u as heavly involded editor supported nick , maybe u think about. only a suggestion. regarding my eruption yesterday , it was far more a reason for a block than everything done before nicks "block". So maybe i have to say thank you to parcey for not blocking me again. cheers Blablaaa (talk) 17:41, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
- I originally referred to the previous issue, not EyeSerene... and I had nothing to do with any of those discussions. Regardless it is tangential to the issue at hand... Anotherclown (talk) 17:55, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
- Anyway I note that the comments in question have now been struck so I guess that's about as much as we can expect. Anotherclown (talk) 18:01, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
- I ask that Anotherclown strike the dirty cheap shot that he directed at me and apologize to me for his unjustified personal attack. It was rude, incivil and completely uncalled for! Caden cool 18:23, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
- This is being discussed at ANI and I stand by my comments. Anotherclown (talk) 02:43, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Infoboxes at normandy articles
The infoboxes are a general problem in my opinion. Maybe here is the correct place now to raise this issue. If we look normandy we see that all german units for example, are listed in the strength section. The strength section has the task to give the reader an idea of strenghths this means he wants to compare the participating infantry tanks planes etc. But on normandy we get the funny resultes that german units which were battalion size are counted as full divisions in the box, this applies for nearly every battle. German units never get real replacements. This meant 3 german division against 3 allied division in august 44 meant mabye 4:1 infantry and 5:1 in tanks. When the reader gets the counted units in the box he will always assume they are equall strengths. This is nothing else than fooling i think. I raised this problem already but i was ignored. Now we get the next problem. when 2800 bombers and other aircraft take part in an allied operation they are never mentioned in the box, when i ask why i get the answer : " because we dont know german aircraft", the simple reason that we dont know how much german aircraft participated, is that there were 20 or something like this. why not mentioning the 2800 aircraft? same for artillery. When a german battalion sized unit is listed as full division , then i wonder that 2800 aircraft are not mentioned. The infobox on normandy article is so useless its persuades the reader some kind of equality in strenght which is wrong (there are more problems but this is the most obvious for me). Please take a look at any normandy article its everywhere. Best example was verriers ridge. 3 days before this battle, the charnwood article said the 12 SS has battalion size now and on the next article the 12 SS is again listed as full Panzerdivision in the strenght section. Thats a simple lie, isnt it? I raised the issue but got no answer, i changed it now. The strenght section is for comparing strenghtes and if the division are very unequal in strange than u cant put them in the box. thats undisputable. My idea: use the infobox only for clear facts. Dont imply something . If german strenght isnt availabe than dont count any battlaion which took part as full division!!! I want also to give some input , on german wiki all new featured articles for battle in ww2 no longer have an infobox please take a look at cholm or wjasma-brijansk for example. On german wiki they came to the conclusion that for battles in ww2 its pretty useless to use an infobox which is so easy to manipulate. ( strength section on normany for example). All relevant issues are detailed explained in the article. Blablaaa (talk) 19:38, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
- Maybe i should mention that allied division, in general, were bigger then their german counterparts in normandy. Thus even at the beginning of the campaign german strenght was lower when the same numbers of divisions were involved. Blablaaa (talk) 20:27, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
- So i wanna do a little example. Operation goodwood one of the biggest battle of normandy gives 3 allied armoured divisions and 3 german armoured divisions. 2 allied infantry divisions and 4 german infantry divisions, the german had additional 2 heavy tank battalions. So sounds german outnumbered their opponents. Every reader without knowledge will think this, i guess nobody disputes this. So now lets take a look . the 12 SS listed as full panzer division. here the quote from charnwood article: "The 12th SS Panzer Division (by the end of the battle reduced to a battalion-sized infantry unit)[75]" , so the battalion sized unit become a panzerdivision again in the infobox. Remeber the 16th LWFD? the division which lost "75%" casualties during charnwood and was "virtually destroyed" during charnwood. But now the division again become a full infantry division. in addition the 16 LWFD was never a full division, it was always an understrenght division. Now the 272nd Infantry Division, this division was also never planned as fulldivsion comparable with allied division it field maximal 12000 men. Same with other german divisions. The fact alone that german division had less manpower than allied divisions in general makes this use of the infobox absurd with the fact that german divisions got no replacements had sometime a third of the strength of an allied division , renders the infoboxes hillarious. Finally: aircraft, i guess 2000 or 3000 took part? no mention of them in the box... . Summarize, the box now lets the reader think german had more stuff in the battle while actually the opposite is fact. I guess this illustrats the problem quite well i hope. Blablaaa (talk) 20:53, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
- This issue has, if I remember correctly, come up before on occasion. It might well be worth discussing further if we hope to standardise infoboxes to some extent. Some boxes list specific units, others use military measurements (ie. 1 battalion or 1 division), others just show a manpower count. If different country's unit sizes are radically different then that adds another factor, as do the relative strengths of such units. Stuff like airpower and naval power is also often hard to incorporate. Any thoughts from anyone else on this? Ranger Steve (talk) 21:44, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
- The section is called strenghts the reader wants to compare strenghtes. If units have different manpower they are inapt for comparing menpower, sounds logic, doesnt it? The normaly way to use infoboxes is giving exact comparable numbers like nearly all eastern front article. If the menpower is not known that the manpower is unknown! Blablaaa (talk) 22:00, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
- Steve, this issue has been raised before on a number of occasions but noone has ever got back with solid figures for us to use in the infoboxes. If the various historians who have wrote about these battles have not been able to glean how many men fought in X battle, or have failed to mention it what can we do other than reproduce the information they give us?
- Case example Operation Epsom. 8 Corps own official history details the strength of the Corps before and after the battle however we have no figures for XXX Corps (their own OH does not provide such detail) so we do not know how many fought on the British side. In regards to the German side no figure is any of the sources i have. From my own OR i have a good idea of how many men fought on each side and that the German losses were infact higher - but i cant include that information due to it not being any secondary source (not to mention the fact i dont have the various primary sources to hand either).
- The Epsom example basically covers the rest of them; we could also talk about one of the most discussed battles of the campaign - villers-bocage. Not one historian has yet to provide the detail of how many men were in the 7th Armour Brigade group and they have never established what sort of manpowerthe the German fully threw at the town; nor their overall casualties.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 10:57, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
- That's what I thought Enigma. It's like my comment buried somewhere in the tangled discussion above - we can only really use the descriptions that the sources give us in their own descriptions of the battles. There is also the added problem of distinguishing roles within a unit. Even if we knew that a division had 10,000 men for example, its doubtful that all of them had a part to play in a battle. Only 2/3 say, would actually be trained combat troops, the rest would be admin and support staff. In a front line battle they would probably be well away from the actual fighting, although in others they might be involved. At Arnhem, 1st Airborne landed most of their HQ staff - admin people who hadn't handled weapons since basic training. As it happens they all had no choice but to fight, but in other battles (such as the Normandy ones, where there was a front line and a reserve area) staff were probably well away from it. It would be nigh on impossible to correctly run up a number of combat men involved in a battle unless sources did it for us, so assuming a number would be tantamount to OR. Best to stick with sources' descriptions again, unless anyone else has some thoughts? Ranger Steve (talk) 12:36, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
- enigma: "If the various historians who have wrote about these battles have not been able to glean how many men fought in X battle" , thats called unknown! Why do u add the divisions to the box while u know that german division were heavy understrength. Can u explain your thoughts please? why do u aad this stuff to they box which implies much higher german menpower. There must be a reason, if not, lets take it out of the boxes and write unknown. The aim of the strengthsection is to compare strenghths. Counting german division will always lead to wrong conclusion by the reader. Because he cant know they are heavy understrength. Please go in detail why u support this method which is uncommon on all ww2 articles except the normandy articles u work on. Blablaaa (talk) 15:52, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
- Ranger, nobody wants OR in the boxes i want correct sources numbers or unknown because german "Panzerdivision" in normandy is relative word it can mean 3000-170000 men. Its useless for comparing strengths. Its only misleading because a reader always assumes a allied panzerdivisions is as big as a german one. Blablaaa (talk) 15:56, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
- enigma: "If the various historians who have wrote about these battles have not been able to glean how many men fought in X battle" , thats called unknown! Why do u add the divisions to the box while u know that german division were heavy understrength. Can u explain your thoughts please? why do u aad this stuff to they box which implies much higher german menpower. There must be a reason, if not, lets take it out of the boxes and write unknown. The aim of the strengthsection is to compare strenghths. Counting german division will always lead to wrong conclusion by the reader. Because he cant know they are heavy understrength. Please go in detail why u support this method which is uncommon on all ww2 articles except the normandy articles u work on. Blablaaa (talk) 15:52, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
- That's what I thought Enigma. It's like my comment buried somewhere in the tangled discussion above - we can only really use the descriptions that the sources give us in their own descriptions of the battles. There is also the added problem of distinguishing roles within a unit. Even if we knew that a division had 10,000 men for example, its doubtful that all of them had a part to play in a battle. Only 2/3 say, would actually be trained combat troops, the rest would be admin and support staff. In a front line battle they would probably be well away from the actual fighting, although in others they might be involved. At Arnhem, 1st Airborne landed most of their HQ staff - admin people who hadn't handled weapons since basic training. As it happens they all had no choice but to fight, but in other battles (such as the Normandy ones, where there was a front line and a reserve area) staff were probably well away from it. It would be nigh on impossible to correctly run up a number of combat men involved in a battle unless sources did it for us, so assuming a number would be tantamount to OR. Best to stick with sources' descriptions again, unless anyone else has some thoughts? Ranger Steve (talk) 12:36, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
- The section is called strenghts the reader wants to compare strenghtes. If units have different manpower they are inapt for comparing menpower, sounds logic, doesnt it? The normaly way to use infoboxes is giving exact comparable numbers like nearly all eastern front article. If the menpower is not known that the manpower is unknown! Blablaaa (talk) 22:00, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
- This issue has, if I remember correctly, come up before on occasion. It might well be worth discussing further if we hope to standardise infoboxes to some extent. Some boxes list specific units, others use military measurements (ie. 1 battalion or 1 division), others just show a manpower count. If different country's unit sizes are radically different then that adds another factor, as do the relative strengths of such units. Stuff like airpower and naval power is also often hard to incorporate. Any thoughts from anyone else on this? Ranger Steve (talk) 21:44, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
- So i wanna do a little example. Operation goodwood one of the biggest battle of normandy gives 3 allied armoured divisions and 3 german armoured divisions. 2 allied infantry divisions and 4 german infantry divisions, the german had additional 2 heavy tank battalions. So sounds german outnumbered their opponents. Every reader without knowledge will think this, i guess nobody disputes this. So now lets take a look . the 12 SS listed as full panzer division. here the quote from charnwood article: "The 12th SS Panzer Division (by the end of the battle reduced to a battalion-sized infantry unit)[75]" , so the battalion sized unit become a panzerdivision again in the infobox. Remeber the 16th LWFD? the division which lost "75%" casualties during charnwood and was "virtually destroyed" during charnwood. But now the division again become a full infantry division. in addition the 16 LWFD was never a full division, it was always an understrenght division. Now the 272nd Infantry Division, this division was also never planned as fulldivsion comparable with allied division it field maximal 12000 men. Same with other german divisions. The fact alone that german division had less manpower than allied divisions in general makes this use of the infobox absurd with the fact that german divisions got no replacements had sometime a third of the strength of an allied division , renders the infoboxes hillarious. Finally: aircraft, i guess 2000 or 3000 took part? no mention of them in the box... . Summarize, the box now lets the reader think german had more stuff in the battle while actually the opposite is fact. I guess this illustrats the problem quite well i hope. Blablaaa (talk) 20:53, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
- Maybe i should mention that allied division, in general, were bigger then their german counterparts in normandy. Thus even at the beginning of the campaign german strenght was lower when the same numbers of divisions were involved. Blablaaa (talk) 20:27, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
- "thats called unknown!"; we could edit every single article were we do not have solid figures and write unknown in them - although that would be practically every article of the Normandy campaign and possibly quite a number more across the entire Second World War scope. However the people who have sat down and researched these fields seem quite content to suggest x number of divisions fought etc
- "Its only misleading because a reader always assumes a allied panzerdivisions is as big as a german one" That is pure speculation on your own part. The point that the divisions were of various sizes takes us into a field outside imo the scope of the articles considering they are only an overview of what has taken place, not a detailed study. Any figure is truley misleading and outside the scope: we would need to sit and explain away if the divisions were at full strength, the difference between organisation of an American, British/Canadian, and German divisions (both armoured and infantry); combat strength amd divisional slice i.e. just how many men within a division were frontline infantry, and how many men in a 60-100k Corps were actually supply/admin etc i.e. just how many people of this large force were actually engaged in fighting. People are coming to these articles to get an overview; the relevent information as best as possible is presented in them i.e. V-B, Epsom, Charnwood, and yes even the Goodwood articles; You prod about Goodwood: the simple answer is because is what the source states.
- On that subject it would seem entirely reasonable to change the Charnwood box to note elements of one infantry division because the source notes this; that particular information is actually present in the article already.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 16:42, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
- enigma: "we could edit every single article were we do not have solid figures and write unknown in them" , if the figures are unknown then they are unknown?!?
i ask u one question please answer with yes or no. are u aware of the fact that on normandy articles, counting divisions will nearly always imply the reader an untrue picture about the strength relation ? please yes or no Blablaaa (talk) 16:49, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
While i claim german units are understrength and you know this is anbsolutly correct u claim this is speculation to undermine my point. No search for consense in my opinion.... . Lets wait for other editors. If u really claim it is speculation to claim german panzerdivisions in normandy were understrenght compared to allied than i dont know. You are complete aware of this fact but you call it speculation.... . I wait for other editors.Blablaaa (talk) 17:00, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
- Considering what your asking isnt a stright forward yes or no answer, would you come out and state were you are attempting to work me into?
- However to answer your question: No, because i believe the readers are smart enough to glance the rest of the article like they would do for any other article that stated for example 1 million men vs 1 million men, they would read to find out the context of these figures; numbers alone, weather it is a solid figure of the number of men involved or the number of divisions, are basically usless without context (i.e. explaining every little detail per my previous reply, which i doubt the sources would even provide). Simpley stating "unknown" would imo be even more unhelpful (i could probably bet you bottom dollar that if we removed any sort of division count (in absense of an actual precise figure of men involved) it would be replaced by another editor or annon user who have read the article and wonder why it doesnt state xyz), and would be ignoring what the historians themselves have to say on the matter pre my previous posts.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 17:01, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
- I note how you have made three more posts between your question posing and my reply; its clear as day what i called speculation: you speaking on behalf of the thousands who read the articles every day, not the situation between divisions being understrength etc. You infact highlight your own bais with your post on '16:51, 11 July 2010'; the coin flips both ways - the sources simpley do not state if the allied divisions were at full strength etc, nor how many men were engaged in fighting. The only partial exceptions i have came across is Epsom and Charnwood: 8 Corps history shows that the Corps was just over 60,000 strong on the eve of the Epsom offensive but doesnt nail down just how many of those men were in engaged in the fighting: it talks of divisions and brigades fighting, it provides daily casualties reports and thats it. We know that I Corps was over 100,000 strong on the eve of Charnwood but do not know how many men were involved etc.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 17:10, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
enigma: "No, because i believe the readers are smart enough to glance the rest of the article" , ok this means you know the figures are misleading but u claim the reader will read the article and see how misleading they are LoL. Sorry but.... Blablaaa (talk) 17:03, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
- The infobox shows useless even misleading figures and the reader has to go to the article to see that they are useless. Good... Blablaaa (talk) 17:05, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
- This discussion is going round in circles and if i may be so bold you are putting words in my mouth to attempt to further your pov.
- If you want me to go an edit the various articles dealing with the Anglo-Canadian articles and tell everyone they had up to nine regiments per division then fine ... still doesnt get the real picture across.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 17:13, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
- I did a fast count. For goodwood 31 allied regiments and 45 battalions VS 22 german regiments and 15 battalions. Can this come to the infobox it is far more preciseBlablaaa (talk) 17:14, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
- You obviously counted too fast: Its actually nine infantry battalions, 30 infantry battalions (from at least 23 different regiments) in the Allied force...
- I did a fast count. For goodwood 31 allied regiments and 45 battalions VS 22 german regiments and 15 battalions. Can this come to the infobox it is far more preciseBlablaaa (talk) 17:14, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
- What ? who said infantry battalion, i overflew this and counted every "battalion" for both sides same with regiments. Even if i counted its doesnt change the fact that german had more divisions but far less real units. This perfectly illustrates how bias your divisioncounting ist. Your post is distraction.... Blablaaa (talk) 18:39, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
enigma: "its clear as day what i called speculation" yes u call specualtion that allied divisions had more menpower which is actually well known and you know it 2 but you cant admit because it would immediatly proove your intention. THats why i think you dont search for consense. U really dispute the fact that german divisions were smaller in size then the allied, that u dispute this shows clearly what your intention is, doesnt it? the infoboxes are misleading... please lets find a better solution Blablaaa (talk) 17:16, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
- enigma "and tell everyone they had up to nine regiments per division then fine ... still doesnt get the real picture across" counting german battalion sized units as panzerdivisions is cool but giving the correct amount of regmients which is far more precise , "does not get the real picture across"? so the more presice counting which shows the truth is bad but the oversimplified wrong counting is ok ?
- you now multiple time called me bias and povish, i did the same not one time. please lets stick as calm as possible. And also avoid posting in the middle, because it looks like i dont respond to your points. i try to address every point u make when u add additional points in the middle this is maybe not clear for other readers. please avoid this. thanksBlablaaa (talk) 17:22, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
Considering you have argued that counting the divisions is so wrong, but counting the regiments/brigades and battalions is much more precise; am sure you would agree that would still not tell you how many men were involved, would not answer the question of how under strength these formations were, nor the difference in their organisation i.e. nothing changed the same "problem" remainds. Likewise it’s essentially the same problem that arrives when stating the total number of people ala the Battle of France – it does not tell you anything about organisation, deployment, how many men were involved, etc. All methods would still require the reader to look at the article to gain a full understanding; a stright up comparison is irrlevent on a modern battlefield however at least the infobox allows the reader to gain a quick understanding of roughly what forces were put into the battle - a division is still a division, a battalion a battalion regardless of what side, each side organised differently.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 17:30, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
- enigma "Considering you have argued that counting the divisions is so wrong, but counting the regiments/brigades and battalions is much more precise" , german morphed smaller units to one unit or bolstered them to another so yes it is more precise!!. Please dont mix this problem up with the problem " how much units were involved in direct fighting" that their are multiple problems doenst make the other problem better, we are able to solve this specific problem so focus on this and dont distract from the point. THe specific problem ist the misleading counting of unequal sized formations. Blablaaa (talk) 17:33, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
- I dont think anyone here has claimed the Allied forces didnt contain more men other than you. Regardless you seem to be missing the point that different organisation and different levels of casualties still provides "the misleading counting of unequal sized formations", even when looking at brigades or battalions. Did the British and Germans organise their infantry section on the same basis? Did they have the same number of men per platoon, per company? Did they have the same number of men in the various battalion support, logistic, and admin sections? The problem doesnt disppear its clouded in a higher figure of smaller units.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 17:39, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
- enigma: "The problem doesnt disppear its clouded in a higher figure of smaller units" , when did i say my aim is to include battalions in the box? i said counting regiments and battalions is far more precise. So i said if u want quantity of units than take regiements, but this would lead to a far more correct picture with bigger amount of allied units so you will not agree to put this in the box. Your aim is to protect the status quo which is misleading in allied direction. You oppose every change which uses the same method but decreases the amount of misleading Blablaaa (talk) 18:35, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
- enigma : "Did the British and Germans organise their infantry section on the same basis?" no thats why it is so hillarious that u count s.Pz.ABt in the box and every unit which is not attached to a divisions. So you get a big amount of german units and many "high" numbers which actually totally mislead. thats why i say out of the box with this useless stuff. But the involded units in the order of battle section and write a section called "strenght" were it is explained that nobody for sure knows how much units were involved and maybe an estimation. This will stop misleading and bring readers valuable facts Blablaaa (talk) 18:50, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
- An easy axample to show how nonsense the recent method is. Allied units sometimes got whole brigades attached additionally .At the moment they are attached u only count the division. If the brigade is independent you count the brigade apart. The same amount of troops but totally different picture delivered to the reader. Like i said it is really kinda nonsense. Du you agree? Blablaaa (talk) 18:55, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
- (Inevitable e/c) I'm half-heartedly following this thread while I work. Blablaa, perhaps you don't realise but in the British Army of the Second World War, Regiments were not units of a particular size, but were formed into battalions. Thus 1 division may contain 9 different regiments; each regiment representing 1 battalion. For example, at Arnhem the 1st Airlanding Brigade was made up of 3 battalions. 1 was a battalion of the South Staffordshire Regiment, 1 was a battalion of the Border Regiment and 1 was a battalion of the King's Own Scottish Borderers Regiment. Therefore counting regiments in the infobox almost by default means counting battalions. However, the 1st Parachute Brigade was made up of 3 battalions of the Parachute Regiment. So just counting regiments is totally meaningless when considering the strength of a British Army unit. Ranger Steve (talk) 19:06, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
- In the British Army a regiment is more of an administrive thing; each regiment raised infantry battalions. A regiment could be one battalion in size it could 10 battalions. These battalions were then posted and moved around various Brigades - what you would consider a regiment.
- Three infantry battalions make up a brigade; for example the 131st Infantry Brigade was comprised of three infantry battalions all from the Queens Regiment whereas the 22nd Guards Brigade at one point was made up of three battalions from three different regiments: the Coldstream Guards, the Scots Guards, and the Rifle Brigade.
- A British infantry battalion was not organised in the same way as a German one, there were differences in the same way there was differences between the brigade and the German regiment. A British brigade.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 19:30, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
- am afraid all participants, at the moment, try to find weak spots in my edits. My points are very clear and valid but we always drift into off topic. When my points are wrong than it should be easy to attack them. I also saw nobody taking the goodwood examples. I explained that on charnwood the article claims the 16 luftwaffefelddivions was virtually destroyed and on goodwood the divisions is listed as full division . This alone is proof enough for the failure of the method at normandy articles. But i see always people attacking my weaker aspects but dodging my undisputable. If people avoid talking about my major points i assume there is no will to find consense. Attacking weak spots in argumentation is exemplaric for a battle and not for a discussion which tries to improve something. The major problem is explained with strong examples but nobody faces this examples. Sorry but i dont think we search for improvement here.... Blablaaa (talk) 19:30, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
i also want to highlight that my "failure" to assume a british regiments is equal to a german regiment, illustrates in a funny way that people in general will always think one german panzervision equals a british if they are counted in the box. Thats why people are misleaded with quantity of units particulary in normandy where german divisions were sometimes "battalionsized units". Blablaaa (talk) 19:36, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
- If we are to make progress i think you need to stop acting somewhat arrogant and claiming to be able to speak on behalf of the entire readership and always being correct. If you dont understand the differences, that doesnt mean everyone else will not either but it also means some people might; is an article on the battle the right place to discuss these differences? No, thats why we have various articles dedicated to such.
- You highlight the German armoured divisions, this is actually covered in one of the articles to do with them - the German ones may have had less tanks but they sure had more frontline manpower; this is the point, regardless of what unit may be more "precise" to count they will always mean something different to each nation involved we cant change that. The historians dont mind doing so when figures are not around so what is the issue really other than the need to be more specific - which we do see V-B, Epsom etc
- The only valid point you have thus far brought up, imo, is that we need to reword the wording on the Charnwood article to highlight that it was only part of the Luftwaffe division that was there (in the infobox) and suffered serious losses (in part of the main body of the article); i will ammend that later after rechecking the sources to ensure as close to 100% accurecy as possible.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 19:45, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
- (e/c once again) "Its of topic but if u claim regiments arent units of particular size but in the same sentence you claim the normally consistet of one battalion then u contradict yourself. But like i said, off topic :-)". It isn't off topic at all, its actually very relevant. Like I pointed out, a regiment can be of just about any size, depending on the number of battalions each regiment contributes to a division. If for example, we used the 2 brigades I mention above as an example, we would list 4 regiments. 1 Regiment would be 3 times the size as all of the others though, so it doesn't make any sense to list strength in this way. As for your following comment "am afraid all participants, at the moment, try to find weak spots in my edits", like I've told you before I am trying very hard to remain neutral and get some agreement out of this. All I've done in this thread so far (and given that there are only 2 editors other than yourself contributing, I assume you mean me as well as Enigma) is explain to you why one of your ideas is unworkable. I'm trying to gain a positive outcome here, so please don't push it. Ranger Steve (talk) 19:49, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
Getting back on track
Okay, folks, let's all get back on track here and discuss the content of the articles, not the other editors involved in this debate. I see two substantive issues being discussed here:
- What should the text of the introduction say?
- What, if anything, should be indicated in the infobox?
Comments on these are welcome; if there are other matters that need to be examined, comments on those are welcome too.
What is not welcome here, however, are attacks on other contributors. This means, among other things: no insults, no accusations about other editors being liars, and no snide insinuations about the motives of anyone participating here.
There is a constructive debate to be had here about how we can improve the encyclopedia; let's not let it descend into incivility and mere bickering. Kirill [talk] [prof] 15:59, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
- Personally I think the discussion about Charnwood may have (finally) nearly run its course (but not quite methinks). However, this issue has at least sparked some wider debate about results and infoboxes in general, so perhaps a thread should concentrate on that, whilst the thread further above, or this one, hopefully brings the Charnwood debate to a conclusion. Ranger Steve (talk) 21:54, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
Michael Brown Okinawa assault incident
I have nominated Michael Brown Okinawa assault incident for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Ironholds (talk) 19:21, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Featured article candidacy for Bombardment of Papeete now open
The featured article candidacy for Bombardment of Papeete is now open. Comments from reviewers are needed to help determine whether the article meets the criteria for featured articles; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK004 19:56, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
POsts in the middle of sections
Hi all
Is it just me or is it getting ridiculous that blaa is posting inbetween older posts requiring others to reply there and making it impossible to follow the thread of any "discussion" also I just noticed that he put words in the middle of a previous post ! [7]
Can someone clarify what the hell the position is on this - should we not simply put:
@persons name + Date + Quote at the bottom of the whole section?
I understand that there is a need for simple little posts to go inbetween - such as Trekphiler at 18:28, 3 July 2010 (UTC) when he was simply posting a small note rather than part of the discussion
Chaosdruid (talk) 19:26, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
- whats your obective? i added something to my post 5 minutes after i printed it before somebody responded , thats normal i added something to my point behind this particular point. wheres your problem? I also want to remind u that trek added something between older posts an i responded to him!!!! with this post u hurt your reputation more than mine i guess. please dont try to make problems where no are Blablaaa (talk) 19:44, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
- Kindergarden ? and so the insults start again
- I object because I had an edit conflict which I could not sort out as I couldn't see where your post was that caused it (as there is no method to your posts and their dates) you read something that gets you stirred up and you stick an answer to it right there even if the post is a week old.
- Normally people put their posts at the end, not in the middle, at the top, then the bottom, the middle, the bottom and lastly the top
- I was trying to reply to your message when I got another ec which yet again I could not find your post so just gave up.
- I am not hurting my reputation - I have asked you to be more normal on placing posts in the correct timeline before and yet you persist in this shambolic manner.
- As for your comment "I had to smile" that was put in because after searching for a few minutes and havng to look at your contributions I finally realise what the ec had been caused by.
- I no longer wish to be part of any discussions you raise as the way in which you conduct your discussions is not acceptable to me. I gave you leeway before when you used those ridiculous comments about noobish and swore but that "Kindergarden" is the final straw, especially as your bottom post was a paragraph of a thousand words.
- Chaosdruid (talk) 22:14, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
you: Is it just me or is it getting ridiculous that blaa is posting inbetween older posts requiring others to reply there and making it impossible to follow the thread of any "discussion" also I just noticed that he put words in the middle of a previous post ..... Can someone clarify what the hell the position is on this.. for me it sounds like unnessecary at all. Not to mention that another user started this posting in the middle and i only posted a response.... . Kindergarden inst insulting , at least not in german... I hope u admit that making an extra section to talk about blas posting in th middle is kinde kindergarden, isnt it? Blablaaa (talk) 22:31, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
and this Kindergarden ? and so the insults start again is also a bit "kindergarden" :-) . Dont overreact . That u got edit conflict because of my posts is not good. So i apologize for posting in the middle where u cant find it. I was also a bit confused when trek responded, but thought i will post below with enough ":::" ... Blablaaa (talk) 22:35, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
- Such comments are clearly in violation of WP:NPA and you have been warned repeatedly. I have flagged this now at WP:ANI#Repeated violations of WP:NPA by Blablaaa. Anotherclown (talk) 02:58, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Peer review for Midshipman now open
The peer review for Midshipman is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK004 23:06, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
Is there a way to bottom out his military experiences? The lead states that he was in combat in 'Nam as a US infantryman, the prose says he was a teacher there and a wiper on a Merchant Marine ship. The article on Platoon states he was basing it on his infantry experiences. There has been a cock up somewhere.... S.G.(GH) ping! 11:16, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
Forts in the United States
Category:Forts in the United States contains many different fort articles in its subcategories. But there is an unanswered question. What should actually be included in this category? Just forts that were actually used for combat defense? Army facilities having schools or training areas but not used in combat? Anything named a 'fort'? Also things named camps used by ground forces? Only Army facilities, but not U.S. Marines and so on? Hmains (talk) 17:08, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
Collaboration with the Smithsonian Institution
There's currently an effort underway to set up a long-term collaboration with the Smithsonian Institution; since we cover some of the topics that would be involved, I'm wondering whether there is any interest in the project for taking part in the collaboration efforts?
A couple of topics we should consider:
- What topics within our scope would be suitable for this collaboration? U.S. military history and military aviation seem like obvious fits—each has, effectively, an entire Smithsonian museum associated with it—but are there other good topic areas that we should pull in?
- What would be the best way of setting up collaboration efforts from our end? Do we want to create one or more working groups that would cover individual groups of topics related to the Smithsonian, or set up some more centralized structure for the entire effort?
- Aside from working on articles directly, what other forms of collaboration are of interest? For example, do we want access to images, exhibits, etc.?
Any comments on these or any other related issues would be appreciated! Kirill [talk] [prof] 18:01, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
- We definitely want acess to images, exhibits, etc. That information helps us improve on the material here, and I know that some of the things in the Smithsonian are valuable for reasons beyond simple display (The RQ-2 Pioneer that they have, for example, is the one that was aboard Wisconsin and captured the Iraq forces on Faylaka Island surrendering). On point 1, it may also be a good idea to include their science museum, if they have one, since R&D work both directly and indirectly related to the military has produced lots of civilian advances (like nylon, for example). Some of that material would fall indirectly within our scope. As for the best way to set up collaboration; I think that a special project would be the best way to go about it - unless we can obtain a rough figure for the articles that we have on there displays and such; if its over 100 and we have enough interest in the collaboration attempt I would be open to considering a full fledged task force for the project. TomStar81 (Talk) 18:14, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
- There's probably several hundred articles if we consider everything on display—and even more if we include the items not currently publicly displayed, which there has been some talk about as well—but there's probably not enough of a common theme to really create a full task force from this. A special project would probably be a good middle ground; the set of articles is (notionally) limited, and probably lends itself to a phased approach similar to what OMT is currently doing. Kirill [talk] [prof] 18:20, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
- I have worked for the last couple weeks categorizing the articles for the SI and there are quite a few articles and images that relate directly to both projects (such as aircraft at the air and space museum). There are also a lot of indirect scope articles such as the misc unnamed aircraft, weapons, equipment and vehicles related to the military, as well as military related art and images. Also of potential tie ins are first and signifant events for applicable minorities such as Medal of Honor recipients, famous firsts, etc relating to the African American museum in anacostia and the American Indian museum. As Kirill mentioned there are a lot of items not currently on display that may also be valid. The SI has about 150 million items in their collection, and they only display about 1%. --Kumioko (talk) 18:28, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
- How deep will they let Wikipedians into their archives? I agree that photographs will be one of the first and most obvious benefits of the program. Binksternet (talk) 19:16, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
- I have worked for the last couple weeks categorizing the articles for the SI and there are quite a few articles and images that relate directly to both projects (such as aircraft at the air and space museum). There are also a lot of indirect scope articles such as the misc unnamed aircraft, weapons, equipment and vehicles related to the military, as well as military related art and images. Also of potential tie ins are first and signifant events for applicable minorities such as Medal of Honor recipients, famous firsts, etc relating to the African American museum in anacostia and the American Indian museum. As Kirill mentioned there are a lot of items not currently on display that may also be valid. The SI has about 150 million items in their collection, and they only display about 1%. --Kumioko (talk) 18:28, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
- There's probably several hundred articles if we consider everything on display—and even more if we include the items not currently publicly displayed, which there has been some talk about as well—but there's probably not enough of a common theme to really create a full task force from this. A special project would probably be a good middle ground; the set of articles is (notionally) limited, and probably lends itself to a phased approach similar to what OMT is currently doing. Kirill [talk] [prof] 18:20, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
- It's worth noting that the Smithsonian Institution is also a significant, and high-quality, publisher of books on military matters (particularly aircraft). Is there any prospect of them releasing the text of their books and magazines (presumably older/out of print editions in both cases) into the public domain? In addition to the requests for photos above, maps from SI publications would also be wonderful. Nick-D (talk) 07:45, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
- I took part in the British Museum collaboration and had some thoughts about how to make this model of collaboration work for military history topics... here they are...
- There is a basic difference between the way museums present information - object-by-object - and the way an encyclopedia does. The British Museum was keen to help Wikipedia have better articles about objects in its collection, because that's what their curators care about, and also helps drive traffic to their website. For unique objects like a Cyrus cylinder, Royal Gold Cup, or a find like the Hoxne Hoard that works fine because there is a 1-1 correspondence between objects and Wikipedia articles - and also because the curators are genuine experts in the subject matter. This is much more difficult with military history because no museum is able to exhibit the Battle of Passchendaele; if a museum has a Spitfire it will be one of many, and their exhibit is not independently notable; and while they might have an exhibit about General John J. Pershing they won't necessarily feel that they are leaders in the field of knowledge about him. So I think there is an extra challenge for military history collaborations with museums. Not an insurmountable one hopefully.
- Wikipedians need to make a conscious effort to help fill the Museum's priorities - this kind of initiative will only take off if we can show to the museum staff that they are getting something out of it. It might be worth getting the Smithsonian Wikipedian-in-Residence to talk to the people in charge of their aviation and military history and get them to suggest subjects which are a high priority for the museum which will also benefit Wikipedia, rather than trying to do it the other way around.
- It's much easier to get access to experts from a museum, and to their libraries, than it is to convince museums to put a lot of photos which currently generate revenue for them into the public domain. So it works better if you think of the collaboration as an opportunity to learn about subjects, get articles peer-reviewed by experts who normally wouldn't bother with Wikipedia, and improve the factual content of the articles, than as a smash-and-grab raid on a lot of photo resources.
- If there is a Milhist collaboration with the Smithsonian I will happily take party (though, obviously, only remotely!) The Land (talk) 09:34, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
- They also have whats left of the USS Philadelphia (1776), several other named aircraft in addition to the Enola Gay such as Flak Bait, along with the hundreds of unnamed aircraft, several of which are the only remaining of their kind such as the Aichi M6A and the Dornier Do 335. Even some animals related to the military could potential fall within scope such as Sergeant Stubby and Cher Ami. Additionally, there have been discussions regarding articles regarding the museum that are "indirect scope" articles which the museum may want to collaborate on that relate to their museum (such as the SR71 blackbird, other generic type aircraft on display, possibly even biographies about artists with works on display, the Wright brothers or various indian tribes). Its hard to say at this point exactly what they are going to deem as important to them and in fact my guess is that will vary greatly depending on the individual museum within the SI group. --Kumioko (talk) 12:02, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
- Oh, wonders never cease! I was just planning a trip to DC for this autumn... If I can use my position as an editor to maybe get some "behind the scenes" access for research and photography, I would be a very happy man. I think I will brainstorm up a "wishlist" of things I would want to take a deeper look into. And, it would be amazingly pleasant to get some outside peer review by experts, though I imagine there may be some growing pains when it comes to referencing some of the discrepancies. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 22:24, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
- They also have whats left of the USS Philadelphia (1776), several other named aircraft in addition to the Enola Gay such as Flak Bait, along with the hundreds of unnamed aircraft, several of which are the only remaining of their kind such as the Aichi M6A and the Dornier Do 335. Even some animals related to the military could potential fall within scope such as Sergeant Stubby and Cher Ami. Additionally, there have been discussions regarding articles regarding the museum that are "indirect scope" articles which the museum may want to collaborate on that relate to their museum (such as the SR71 blackbird, other generic type aircraft on display, possibly even biographies about artists with works on display, the Wright brothers or various indian tribes). Its hard to say at this point exactly what they are going to deem as important to them and in fact my guess is that will vary greatly depending on the individual museum within the SI group. --Kumioko (talk) 12:02, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
- Good to see another institution follow in the footsteps of the British Museum; sounds like a lot of good could come from this. Nev1 (talk) 23:25, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
- We could also see if we could get involved with the Museum of the American Indian to try to improve our coverage of the American Indian Wars and related topics. – Joe N 23:53, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
- If anyone knows anybody at the Imperial War Museum please let me know ;-) The Land (talk) 09:42, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
- We could also see if we could get involved with the Museum of the American Indian to try to improve our coverage of the American Indian Wars and related topics. – Joe N 23:53, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
Peer review for Indian Air Force now open
The peer review for Indian Air Force is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK004 05:47, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
Siege of Godesberg FAC could use more reviewers. auntieruth (talk) 17:42, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
HMS Princess Royal FAC
This FAC needs more reviewers.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:05, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
Requested move of Gunpowder
I've opened a discussion about moving Gunpowder, which presently covers historical potassium nitrate gunpowder, to Black powder and making Gunpowder a disambiguation page for black powder and modern gunpowder. Any comments are welcome, and should be made at Talk:Gunpowder#Requested move. Thanks for reading. — Gavia immer (talk) 04:05, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Could one of you people from across the pond possibly look over this article? I have no idea where the Mississippi flows in relation to Columbus, Tennessee, Cairo and so on. I think some of the disambiguation links may be a bit off and the river geography a little nonsensical. It's on the main page for a DYK today so someone is gonna notice that I know not my American geography! Long live the Queen! :D S.G.(GH) ping! 11:37, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
US Air Force expertise needed in assessments
Just popped by the assessments section and saw the huge backlog. Someone has raised hundreds (literally) of USAF related articles. I wouldn't even know if these were notable, let alone assess them, but I'm sure someone here has the skills and knowledge to help the regulars Monstrelet (talk) 16:57, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
A-Class review for Courageous class battlecruiser now open
The A-Class review for Courageous class battlecruiser is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK004 19:19, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
A-Class review for Ernest Augustus I of Hanover now open
The A-Class review for Ernest Augustus I of Hanover is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK004 19:50, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
White Shadows's administrator candidacy
A member of the project, White Shadows, is currently a candidate to receive access to administrative tools. Project members who have worked with the candidate and have an opinion of White Shadows's fitness to receive these tools are cordially invited to comment. -MBK004 02:47, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Battle of Warburg
Please check the article de:Schlacht bei Warburg which has been reworked recently and which was qualified excellent.--Warboerde (talk) 08:35, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Gallica images
Just wanted to point out this resource: http://gallica.bnf.fr - it contains an extensive gallery of French PD images, including quite a lot of military ones! Regards, The Land (talk) 12:18, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Question
Is there any task force dealing with war crimes and atrociites during World War 2? --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 15:01, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
- The WWII task force would be the main one here, as we don't have one on war crimes or laws of war specifically. If you're looking for something with a more concentrated focus, you might consider starting a working group within the WWII task force to cover WWII war crimes. Kirill [talk] [prof] 15:52, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Popular culture in milhist articles
Broken out from "War and popular culture queries" above. EyeSerenetalk 15:50, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
At present, AFAIK, the project's guidance on popular culture articles is restricted to a paragraph under category 8 of what the project covers. The main thrust of this is about historical content of the cultural product (book, film etc.) There isn't an article guide or a specific notability guide. So two questions
- Should there be some content element we would expect to see in a MILHIST tagged popular culture article, such as a section commenting on historical accuracy, or an expectation of reference to historical sources, not just ones connected to the arts or popular reactions to the cultural product?
- Should we specify something on notability. Some fictional or artistic pieces are probably notable as they are produced by veterans and describe or reflect on the experience of war. But what of popular art - are all the current crop of historical novels about the Ancient Roman Military all sufficiently notable, or some, or none. What criteria do we use? Sales/box office, literary or other awards, public reaction to the pieceMonstrelet (talk) 18:19, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
- I've been mulling these questions over and still don't have very good answers :) However, I think the first is basically addressing the same issues as we discussed with war-related games; what are the chances that such articles will contain sourced commentary and analysis that isn't WP:OR? Item 8 of the scope on our main page states "the project generally covers only those depictions for which a discussion of historical accuracy or real military influence is applicable". This doesn't actually specify that such discussion is present in the article, only that it would be relevant if it was present, so maybe we should look at tightening the requirement?
- Re notability, our gold standard must obviously be WP:N, which states "a topic is deemed appropriate for inclusion if it complies with WP:NOT and has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources." We can expand this with our own guidelines and advice (eg WP:MILPEOPLE) but we can't weaken the site policy. With that in mind I think we could usefully set out more detailed guidelines - in fact, we're overdue a project-wide discussion on developing notability guidelines for battles, units etc so this could be bundled up as part of the wider proposals. EyeSerenetalk 09:16, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Battle of Smolensk (1812)
I wonder if anyone could advise? This article self contradicts in terms of casualties. I suppose that isn't too surprising as neither side wants to exagerate own losses. I can't find any non commercial online sources let alone an authoritive one but note that the German, French and English versions also differ. See Talk:Battle of Smolensk (1812). Any suggestions on this -and getting consistency across different versions. Thanks in advance JRPG (talk) 18:24, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
- David Chandler (The Campaigns of Napoleon, Weidenfeld & Nicolson, London. 1990. Pg 786) states French casualties to have been 10,000 and that of the Russians being between 12,000 and 14,000 men in the two days fighting. Farawayman (talk) 21:11, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
New category: Category:Battles of the Chaco War
I'm working up some stubs, translating the ledes and infoboxes (many of which have pix) from the es.wiki articles from Category:Batallas de la Guerra del Chaco, covering battles of the Chaco War, a war fought between Paraguay and Bolivia in the early 1930s. If there are any Spanish-speaking editors who want to help expand the articles with the remainder of text from es.wiki, that would be great. MatthewVanitas (talk) 07:13, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Operation Goodwood tactical outcome
Considering the big hoo har of recent over Operation Charnwood, i would like some feedback on the Operation Goodwood article in regards to the outcome. While it is no where near the finished state of the Charnwood article the few sources i was using did provide enough information to provide sourced info for stating it was a strategic victory. However in regards to the tactical side the outcome was based purely off a quote from Miles Dempsey - co of British Second Army, the guys who conducted the attack.
"Dempsey is quoted stating the battle was not tactically very good but strategically was a "great success". ...[2]"
Seems a bit flimsey when considering the previous discussions plus since last editing the article i have not had chance to go back and do more work on it and consult further sources in regards to the outcome. Any advice would be great.
Cheers EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 08:10, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
- Well... didn't the UK/Canada lose half their tanks? That could be construed as not very good 76.66.192.55 (talk) 19:07, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
- Wilmot: "Goodwood was accounted a failure by SHAEF because Second Army had gained neither a strategic break-through nor all its tactical objectives. The fact that the operation had achieved Montgomery's major purpose was ignored, for this purpose was not understood." (p. 362) He then goes on to describe how, on the eve of Cobra, two German Pz divs en route to St Lo were diverted to the British sector and reinforced with elements of a third, leaving only two Pz and one grenadier div opposite the Americans compared to seven Pz divs and all the heavy tanks in Normandy opposite the British. Wilmot would therefore support "strategic victory", though as usual it's not that simple :) EyeSerenetalk 20:25, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
- I concur that as akways these things are never just simple :)
- There is additional information, if i recall from AShley Hart that supports the strategic outcome as well that is already in the article. Am quite happy that point is covered for the time being. Its the tactical side am a little concerned with - Hart doesnt state the tactical battle was a victory for the Germans, he states that the battle was mishandeled.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 10:14, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
- I'd say Wilmot supports that (and Hastings certainly does). The trouble is, as before, neither of them use the exact phrase "tactical defeat" or "strategic victory". however, I stand by my earlier reasoning that these are common (if subject-specific) terms and don't need an exact cite as long as the text supports their use. EyeSerenetalk 10:38, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
Featured article candidacy for Japanese aircraft carrier Kaga now open
The featured article candidacy for Japanese aircraft carrier Kaga is now open. Comments from reviewers are needed to help determine whether the article meets the criteria for featured articles; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK004 22:44, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
MILMOS reorganisation proposal
Further to discussions here and elsewhere, the coordinators would like to put a proposal to our members:
- Background: Wikipedia's site-wide style guide, the Manual of Style (MoS), has recently been reorganised to provide a more logical structure and better integration with the many subject-specific style guides developed by individual WikiProjects (such as music, biographies, mathematics etc). The new MoS page structure can be seen at Category:Wikipedia Manual of Style. As is obvious from the category link, we are the only project that now lies outside this structure. However, at present our in-house guide—WP:MILMOS—addresses three areas: content, notability and style. Only the style sections would technically come under the MoS.
- Proposal: to split WP:MILMOS into three separate pages, one each for content, notability and style, and to move the style page into the new MoS structure.
Support
- As proposer :) I think this would also facilitate expanding our notability guidelines to include some of the other subjects that it has been suggested we develop guides for - units, battles, fiction etc. EyeSerenetalk 10:35, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
- Per Eyeserene. AustralianRupert (talk) 10:39, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
- Seems sensible Nick-D (talk) 10:42, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
- I don't see a downside, but none of those subcats seems to fit us ... maybe a new one for history? (Not that that's a great fit, but if we get too specific, we'll continue to be a category of 1.) - Dank (push to talk) 11:39, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
- At one point it was moved to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (military history), but a bit of a tiff developed - hence this proposal to get consensus (or not) for the reorganisation. I don't believe anyone's wedded to a particular title yet though, so anything you can suggest would be welcome. EyeSerenetalk 12:41, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
- I don't have any preference for the name, I just think we should find some kind of subcat that seems to fit in with their subcat scheme. - Dank (push to talk) 18:59, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
- So if no one is attached to a name yet, let me ask this question: Can we name it after me? LeonidasSpartan (talk) 22:05, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
- Absolutely ... when it comes to MOS, the more spartan, the better. - Dank (push to talk) 22:11, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
- Is this the time to mention WP:MILHISTFIRINGSQUAD? EyeSerenetalk 22:36, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
- Absolutely ... when it comes to MOS, the more spartan, the better. - Dank (push to talk) 22:11, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
- So if no one is attached to a name yet, let me ask this question: Can we name it after me? LeonidasSpartan (talk) 22:05, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
- I don't have any preference for the name, I just think we should find some kind of subcat that seems to fit in with their subcat scheme. - Dank (push to talk) 18:59, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
- At one point it was moved to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (military history), but a bit of a tiff developed - hence this proposal to get consensus (or not) for the reorganisation. I don't believe anyone's wedded to a particular title yet though, so anything you can suggest would be welcome. EyeSerenetalk 12:41, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
- Support The less confusing any MOS guide for users the better. LeonidasSpartan (talk) 22:05, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
- Support TomStar81 (Talk) 03:54, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
- Support, will make these guidelines easier to maintain in the long term. Kirill [talk] [prof] 16:13, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
Oppose
Comments
- I think that this is largely a good idea, but I think that it is also important to reinforce the idea that this MILMOS is still underneath the custodianship of the MILHIST project. Perhaps we should develop some sort of template to slap onto any MOS guide which is specific to any topic within our project's scope to reinforce the idea that the project as whole is still looking after that manual of style.LeonidasSpartan (talk) 22:05, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
- What we can do is maintain a copy of the milmos and ask that those wishing to gripe about some part of the mos check and see if its the main mos or our mos; then direct inquires to the appropriate group. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:54, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
- Well, the three components of the MILMOS will still be interlinked among each other and through the project pages; I don't think there's any risk of people not knowing where to go for discussion.
- As far as military-specific material on other MOS pages, the MILMOS page already cross-references most of them directly; there's probably no need to do anything beyond that. Kirill [talk] [prof] 16:02, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
A-Class review for SMS Westfalen now open
The A-Class review for SMS Westfalen is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK004 21:37, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
Discussion at WW2 Casulalties - Re Rudiger Overmans
User User:Stor stark7 started a thread re:Rudiger Overmans on my talk page, I moved his comments and my replies to Talk:World War II casualties Other editors need to get involved.--Woogie10w (talk) 22:26, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
US succession templates
Just noticed {{US Cavalry}} being added to articles, and {{US Infantry}} has been around for a while. These templates go under the main infobox to link to numerically previous or next divisions or regiments. The problem is that this creates an artificial sense of order— there is no particular precedence based on numeric designation. For example, 3rd Cavalry Division (United States) links next to 15th Cavalry Division (United States), which then links next to 21st Cavalry Division (United States). This also illustrates that articles are missing for those historical divisions.
If we really need some navigation aid for these articles, then it should be a standard navbox at the bottom of the page. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 22:58, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
- This is less of a problem than you think since there were no 4th through 14th Cavalry Divisions, nor 17th through 19th Armored Divisions, etc.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:16, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
Interesting category idea: Category:Battles and Conflicts Without Fatalities (rename for proper caps pending)
I ran across this whilst cleaning out WP:UNCAT, and the concept is somewhat interesting. Worth keeping and expanding, listify, or just delete? I do have a Speedy Rename request in at WP:CFD to fix the capitalisation issue. MatthewVanitas (talk) 16:21, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
- If we view "conflicts" as referring to military conflicts specifically, then is there likely to be any significant number of articles in the category? Off the top of my head, I can't think of many battles or wars with no fatalities (and even fewer with no casualties); this might be more suited to a list, since that won't have the size issue, and can be annotated. Kirill [talk] [prof] 16:29, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
- The Cod Wars?Monstrelet (talk) 19:46, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
- That's what I thought. I think it would be a worthy category for milhist purposes, if there was anything to put in it. Like Krill I struggle to think of many military conflicts without any form of casualty. That said, I imagine there might be some in the wider world (the great cod conflict aside) so it might have some value with a refined name. Bloodless confrontations perhaps? Ranger Steve (talk) 20:17, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
- The Cod Wars?Monstrelet (talk) 19:46, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
- I'm getting the feeling there is something that can be done with this cat, and it's an interesting idea in that it covers conflicts of a military-type nature (where one would expect bloodshed) that turned out peacefully. There's also the Pig War, where no British or US troops died (though technically not bloodless since the pig died). MatthewVanitas (talk) 11:51, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
- And the classic Emu War. That article's come on a bit in the last year I'm happy to see. Not necessarily bloodless either though! Ranger Steve (talk) 12:15, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
- I'm getting the feeling there is something that can be done with this cat, and it's an interesting idea in that it covers conflicts of a military-type nature (where one would expect bloodshed) that turned out peacefully. There's also the Pig War, where no British or US troops died (though technically not bloodless since the pig died). MatthewVanitas (talk) 11:51, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
Featured article candidacy for Battle of Yarmouk now open
The featured article candidacy for Battle of Yarmouk is now open. Comments from reviewers are needed to help determine whether the article meets the criteria for featured articles; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK004 01:34, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
Canadian Forces
A discussion is currently underway at Talk:Canadian Forces#Maritime Command, or Canadian Forces Maritime Command regarding the use of "Canadian Forces" in the article titles of the Canadian Forces Air Command, Canadian Forces Land Force Command, and Canadian Forces Maritime Command articles. Any input from the projerct would be welcome, whatever your views on the issue. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 10:53, 11 July 2010 (UTC)