Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 01:35, 16 April 2010

Home Talk Contribs Menu Archivebox

Re V-B map

Apologies from me too, only just seen your latest. I've noticed you've added the key :) The FAC seems to be going slowly again - what is it with this article that isn't attracting reviewers? EyeSerene 10:08, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

PS Forgot to mention, thanks very much for your going above and beyond to source that stuff for Verrieres Ridge. I've put it into the article. This isn't the first time you've done this (there's Hill 262 and others), so...

		The WikiChevrons
		Awarded to EnigmaMcmxc, for regularly going beyond the call of duty and voluntarily trawling through reference material to ensure that WikiProject Military history articles maintain the highest possible quality. With gratitude, EyeSerene 10:22, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Re division name consistency

I'm not convinced it's necessary to change "Panzerlehr" or variants (like "Panzer Lehr") to "Panzerlehrdivision" across all those articles. They also use, for example, "7th Armoured" instead of "the 7th Armoured Division", which is basically the same thing. What do you think? EyeSerene 15:20, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Heh, I could quite often say the same :) You make a good point though - now I think of it I've never seen Panzerlehrdivision in any source either. I wonder if, per WP:NAME ("Article names should be consistent with usage in reliable English-language sources"), the PzLehr article itself should be renamed? EyeSerene 17:32, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

You're not the only one, though I'm teaching in about 5 minutes :) Yes, the more I think about it, the more sense a name-change makes. I have no preference for a new article title - I tend to go by a combination of what's most likely to be searched for and the most common English term. I have a feeling it might not be completely uncontroversial; I'm sure the article used to be called something else, so it's probably worth proposing it on the talk page first. I also agree that, if the change goes through, the Normandy articles should be amended to suit. EyeSerene 10:24, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

PS, forgot to mention, that's an impressive piece of work with the V-B casualty section. Nice job :) EyeSerene 10:26, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

That sounds good to me; I too had a look through a few books and completely agree that Panzer Lehr is the most-used term.

If you don't mind me saying, you need to be careful with things like this - perfectly understandable, but don't let them provoke you ;) I can't do much about our friend as I'm involved, but I've requested an uninvolved admin to look at their edits at ANI, so hopefully we'll see the back of them soon. I think dealing with them long-term will probably mean WP:RBI, including removing their talk-page "contributions", but to ensure we keep the moral high ground it might be best not to jump the gun.

Finally, I've just seen Tony's comment on the V-B FAC :( I wonder if I'm too close to the subject to do it justice - I'll have another go, but do you think it might be worth pinging Roger or Maralia to see if they have time to take a look? EyeSerene 10:29, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Update: I went to the ANI page to get the link and found that Cirt has already responded :) The anon (under both their IPs) is blocked for two weeks, but no doubt they'll be back... You've clearly had enough of them, and so have I and I suspect many others too - what do you think about removing their posts as a standard response from now on? EyeSerene 10:38, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, that's my misgiving about blanking them completely (and I'm reluctant to protect talk-pages for the same reason). I see no problem with removing obviously trollish posts or redacting the personal attacks though, and although I hope it doesn't, eventually it might come to long-term blocks. EyeSerene 12:32, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

User:Roger Davies, though I think he's pretty busy at the moment so Maralia may be the best bet. EyeSerene 13:51, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Ranger Steve has commented in our discussion on my talkpage - you might like to take a look :) EyeSerene 19:06, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Operation Brevity

I must correct you - the quote is actually from Radio Berlin! There has been now for some time a vandal/fascist (User:Generalmesse) making the rounds on wikipedia with a plethora of socks inserting text about the heroic exploits of the grand Italian Army in WWII... (see alsoCategory:Misplaced Pages sockpuppets of Generalmesse). His source was all the times the New York Times,... but on closer inspection it turned out that the Times articles in question were actually the communiques of Radio Berlin printed verbatim in the Times! examples: , , , , , ,... I have not seen him doing a lot of his vandalism lately (but as the closely related sock circus around user:Brunodam proves) he is still very active in topics about Italian military history, Italians in Croatia and the Falkland Wars... anyway- in short: the quote is directly taken from Radio Berlin and cited as such in the original New York Times article - but the text of it is not from the New York Times but from the Propaganda Ministerium of Goebbles. a totally unreliable source, which can only be used in the proper context! Therefore I remove the quote now again. If you happen to stumble upon further quotes of this type - delete/revert/report. Don't bother to discuss. (btw. more of this "user" can be found by having a look at user:Giovanni Giove). --noclador (talk) 01:37, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

== Hello Enigma, very good information you have. Which Uni are you at or were you at? I went to Wloverhampton.. Bruichladdich1(talk) 02:03, 01 April 2010 (UTC)

some more proof that it is the same vandal: Generalmesse edits the article, and put the line in question there too . much later an IP puts the quote in the Military History of Italy article and a lot earlier another of his socks began the drummed up story of the bravery of the Italians at Halfaya . --noclador (talk) 02:18, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Rolf Möbius

Currently I think the person this article pertains to is Rolf Möbius. At least Agte also calls him Rolf Möbius. When I made the change I was under the impression that Mobius is definitely wrong. The internet however is full of a panzer commander of the name Karl Möbius. MisterBee1966 (talk) 12:35, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Question: The article mentions a Major Wenck and later the same? person is referred to as Wenke. Are these two different people or one misspelling? MisterBee1966 (talk) 12:43, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

V-B again

So...second FAC closed :( I'm a bit baffled as to where to go next with this one. I honestly can't see much wrong with the article, and I think the constant demands for copyediting have actually made the overall prose worse. This is no fault of those generous enough to give their time to help out; it's the result of a tweak here, a bit there, etc because due to FAC time pressures copyeditors can't look at the article in its entirety. However, if you want to go again (!) I suppose we could try a milhist PR first? EyeSerene 08:57, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I left a note on the VB talkpage. I wrote: Agte on page 203 goes into great detail listing the losses on the German side. The heavy Panzer battalion lost 6 Tiger tanks and Panzer-Lehr lost 2 of the 10 it deployed. German personnel losses are named in person for the heavy Panzer battalion (differentiating between KIA and wounded). The human losses for Panzer-Lehr are not quantified. If the English sources indicate 15 tanks lost, can we at least add a footnote stating that German records constitute for 8 losses only? Please let me know how you feel about this? Thanks MisterBee1966 (talk) 14:59, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLV (November 2009)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter Issue XLV (November 2009)
Project news The Academy Content Drive concluded on 31 October. The first place Golden Wiki went to TomStar81 for 13 entries; the Silver Wiki was awarded to YellowMonkey for 11 entries, and Patar knight was presented with the Bronze Wiki for 3 entries. All other entrants were awarded the WikiChevrons or a barnstar for their contributions. Thank you to everyone who fielded an entry! All editors are encouraged to check out the newly expanded Academy. A discussion about the notability of military people has resulted in an update to our in-house style guide. Prompted by some recent "articles for deletion" discussions, members felt that we should provide clearer guidance on the types of person that are most likely to meet Misplaced Pages's biographical notability criteria. The resulting advice, which you can see here, should be very helpful in both future deletion discussions and in deciding where best to focus article-writing efforts. Our Task Force housekeeping discussion is now coming to a close. In October a number of proposals were made for rationalising our extensive list of Task forces. Although a few areas remain to be decided, project members have approved the changes summarised here. These will be enacted shortly, so if you haven't yet had your say, now's the time!	Articles of note New featured articles: Cologne War Nikita Khrushchev Operation Teardrop SMS Derfflinger SMS Lützow John Lloyd Waddy Ton That Dinh New featured pictures: Turkish heliograph at Huj New A-Class articles: Arrow (missile) Battle of Bardia Canadian National Vimy Memorial Collins class submarine Frederick Scherger Iven Giffard Mackay List of Knight's Cross with Oak Leaves, Swords or Diamonds recipients of the Waffen-SS USS Chesapeake (1799) Walter Peeler
Contest Department The contest department has completed its thirty-second month of competition; its third month under the new scoring system. A total of 52 articles were entered by seven editors. Sturmvogel 66 came first with 168 points, followed by Ian Rose on 51 points. They are presented the Chevrons and Writer's Barnstar respectively. Honorable mentions go to Auntieruth55 (31), Ed! (26), Abraham, B.S. (26), The ed17 (17) and Piotrus (7). All editors are encouraged to submit any articles that are working on for next month's contest.
Awards and honours The A-Class medal with Oak Leaves has been awarded to Hawkeye7 for his work on Albert Kesselring, Rupert Downes and Battle of Bardia.
To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please list yourself in the appropriate section here.

This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 03:39, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

V-B

I honestly don't think there's anything glaringly wrong with the article and can't really fathom why it's having such a hard time - it's no different to other articles we've put through FAC - but of course there's always room for improvement so further copyediting is a good idea. Like you, I'm not convinced about presenting the casualties in a table. However, I think the section could possibly be condensed by summarising and footnoting some of the detail. If you don't mind me taking another crack at it, I was planning to wait a week or so and come to it fresh; what I then thought about doing was asking someone like Roger, Karanacs or Awadewit to proofread. If Steve or Maralia are willing to continue though, the more the merrier (as long as we aren't all working at the same time!) EyeSerene 08:59, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I'll be happy to have a go tonight or tomorrow if you think it'll help. I'll make sure to mention anything major on the talk page first though, just so I don't edit conflict or radically alter someone elses revisions! Merry Christmas, Ranger Steve (talk) 18:28, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

MisterBee1966 (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the Christmas cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas3}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Possibly unfree File:6th Armoured Division flash.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:6th Armoured Division flash.jpg, has been listed at Misplaced Pages:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. --FASTILY_sock 05:02, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:XXX Corps 1944-1945 shoulder flash.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:XXX Corps 1944-1945 shoulder flash.jpg, has been listed at Misplaced Pages:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. --FASTILY_sock 05:04, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

== Greetings Enigma, just seen your work on the Charnwood page. Very informative. Hope you're having a proper student new year.... and if not, why not?Keith-264 (talk) 11:50, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLVI (December 2009)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter Issue XLVI (December 2009)
From the coordinators Happy New Year to all! I shall take this opportunity to reflect upon the past year. In 2009 our project grew impressively, adding nearly 100 new featured articles and doubling the total number of featured lists. Overall the total number of articles within our scope surpassed 95,000 in 2009, and if these numbers hold steady we will surpass 100,000 articles in 2010. Thank you all for your outstanding efforts. We are currently working on several proposals to improve the project for 2010. These include bringing the Milhist Academy up to full operational status, as well as spicing up and streamlining the task force structure. Also, any help you can offer to clear the current backlog of Military History good article nominations would be appreciated. For the Coordinators, TomStar81 (Talk) 11:10, 26 December 2009 (UTC)	Articles of note New featured articles: Battle of Morotai Castle North Carolina class battleship Xa Loi Pagoda raids New featured lists: List of Brigade of Gurkhas recipients of the Victoria Cross List of World War I aces credited with more than 20 victories New featured pictures: After the War a Medal and Maybe a Job Lincoln assassination conspirators execution National Fund for the Welsh Troops USS Annapolis in the Arctic Yiddish World War I poster New A-Class articles: Battle of Bita Paka Battle of Ostrach Charles Eaton (RAAF officer) Design A-150 battleship Dutch 1913 battleship proposal Helmut Lent Henry Wrigley James Harold Cannan James Whiteside McCay Lebaudy Patrie Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-3 Thomas Baker (aviator)
Project news The Henry Allingham World War I contest has entered its second phase with the following users qualifing: Abraham, B.S., Backslash Forwardslash,Carcharoth, Dana boomer, Durova, Eurocopter, Hawkeye7, Ian Rose, Labattblueboy, Redmarkviolinist, Sturmvogel 66 and XavierGreen. Coordinator Emeritus Kirill Lokshin has been re-elected to the Arbitration Committee for a two-year term in the 2009 elections. Kirill is one of four present or former coordinators of the project to be appointed to the Arbitration Committee; he was originally elected to a three-year term in 2007. The others are YellowMonkey (2007–2008), FayssalF (2008–2010), and Roger Davies (2009–2011). The Contest Department has completed its thirty-second month of competition; and its fourth month under the new scoring system. A total of 45 articles were entered by seven editors. Sturmvogel 66 came first with 82 points, followed by Auntieruth55 with 74 points. They receive the Chevrons and Writer's Barnstar respectively. Honorable mentions go to Ian Rose (51), Abraham, B.S. (21) and Parsecboy (16). Ed! and Binksternet also fielded entries. Please submit any articles you are working on for the January contest.
Awards and honours The WikiChevrons with Oak Leaves has been awarded to Auntieruth55 in recognition of her excellent work on three featured articles, detailed A-Class reviews, high levels of participation, and for always helping other contributors. She also receives the A-Class medal for her work on Hermann Detzner, Cologne War and Battle of Ostrach. MisterBee1966 receives the A-Class medal for his work on Egmont Prinz zur Lippe-Weißenfeld, List of Knight's Cross with Oak Leaves, Swords or Diamonds recipients of the Waffen-SS and Helmut Lent. Hawkeye7 and Ian Rose both receive A-Class medals with Oak Leaves for their work on Iven Giffard Mackay, James Harold Cannan and James Whiteside McCay, and on Frederick Scherger, Henry Wrigley and Charles Eaton (RAAF officer) respectively.
To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please list yourself in the appropriate section here.

This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 02:30, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

42nd (East Lancashire) Infantry Division

The first reason for my abusive comment was that your change was ahistorical. From formation through its major combat life it was firstly the East Lancashire Division and then the 42nd (East Lancashire) Division, and the article reflected this. It may indeed have been formally called the 42nd (East Lancashire) Infantry Division for its brief WWII existence, until it became a tank division and was then disbanded. That is not sufficient grounds for renaming the article and merely replacing all occurrences of "42nd (East Lancashire) Division" with "42nd (East Lancashire) Infantry Division" - that is just plain lazy and inaccurate. You should comment in the appropriate sections that for a brief period at the start of WWII it was known as "42nd (East Lancashire) Infantry Division". The second reason for my abusive comment is that any idiot can move articles and make wholesale text replacements. What is far more important is to actually add some content - where is your content about the "42nd (East Lancashire) Infantry Division" ? When was it formed, when was the new name adopted ? What did it do in France ? etc. What I'm trying to say is not that a single word like "Infantry" makes much difference in itself... but historical articles need to accurately portray precisely what entity we are talking about at a particular point in time, and use the terminology as it was used at the time. Rod. Rcbutcher (talk) 04:08, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Great Britain World War II Armoured Division Structure 1940.png

Regarding the recce regt: it corresponds to the Armoured Car Regt of Organisation III - so if you think it is better to change the symbol and the text to a simple Armoured Car Regt and remove the recce symbol, I will do that. Regarding the makeup of the support group: obviously we should do two graphics one for Organisation II and one for Organisation III - but there are some questions: the text at British Army during World War II#Armoured division says:

• "2x field artillery regiment, one anti–tank regiment and one anti–aircraft regiment." your source says:
• 1x RHA Rgt. 1x LAA/Anti Tank Regt. two motor battalions and for the organisation III your source says:
• 1x RHA RGt and one Anti-tank regt and one LAA regt...the source I used for the graphic (besides the article on wikipedia) is this and it says:
• 2x Artillery Rgt. and 1x mixed Anti–tank/Light Anti–aircraft Regiment (+ the 2x motorised battalions)

so... could you please help me settle on the exact structure for the support group that I should put into the graphic, before I begin to work on it. thanks, --noclador (talk) 14:22, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I am willing to look into everything that is sourced and perfection in all our articles is my ultimate and only goal :-) so, whenever you need some info (i.e. Italian or German Armies) or find an error, I will always be ready to help and/or correct my graphics accordingly! :-) --noclador (talk) 15:01, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I am on a business trip until Thursday evening and will sit down for wiki-work as soon as I get home; excuse the delay regarding the correction of the graphic, but today and tomorrow my free time is very limited. --noclador (talk) 19:24, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I changed the graphic now according to the information in the article British Armoured formations of the Second World War - as the info was a lot I created a new graphic named Great Britain World War II Armoured Division Structure 1939. Only one problem remains: for the Machine Gun Company there is no space left in the 1944 graphic... so either we throw something out, lengthen the Div. troop branch of all 3 graphics or do not include the Machine Gun Company... the decision is up to you. --noclador (talk) 03:03, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

• Armoured Division Structure 1939
• Armoured Division Structure 1940
• Armoured Division Structure 1944

Lengthened and slotted in :-) --noclador (talk) 08:20, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much EnigmaMcmxc for the Graphic Designer's Barnstar :-) and anytime there is more graphics needed- just let me know :-) --noclador (talk) 17:21, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

British Armoured formations of the Second World War

Wow, I've got this on my watchlist, and it's looking great. Nick-D (talk) 07:11, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Same from me :) EyeSerene 08:30, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Greetings Enigma, would you mind having a look at the Epsom discussion page? I've put a question on and I would be interested in you opinion. Ta.Keith-264 (talk) 10:57, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

re: Villers-Bocage

You are most welcome; it was about time I was able to (somewhat) repay EyeSerene! :) If you would like further clarification/explaination on any points, or would like me to have another look then to do hesitate to ask. I wish you luck when you decide to have another crack at FAC, and look forward to supporting the article's elevation. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 12:01, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Ah, okay. In the "Planning" section there was an emdash that had spaces around it, and per MoS emdashes should be unspaced. All fixed now, though. :) Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 12:14, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

No problem. I did make some tweaks the other day, but the PC I was working on decided to update and restart before I'd saved them (bloody Microsoft crap). I'll get on it asap :) EyeSerene 12:20, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

re: Tractable/Hill 262

I'll take a look. If both are using McGilvray, the Hill 262 article is likely to be the more definitive. It was a while ago, but IIRC I noticed the same thing and made some changes to Tractable while I was writing up stuff for Hill 262 from McGilvray; obviously I wasn't thorough enough :P EyeSerene 09:15, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I've tweaked the article and added a note to the talk page. It's something that will need looking into in more detail, but perhaps not while the article is Today's Vandal Magnet :) EyeSerene 09:53, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Just seen the book by VIII Corps on offer at £5.20, snapped it up.Keith-264 (talk) 21:47, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Elkin.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Elkin.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Misplaced Pages (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Misplaced Pages page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hammersoft (talk) 22:02, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File:Elkin.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Elkin.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Misplaced Pages articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Hammersoft (talk) 22:02, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

re V-B casualties

No argument with that :) I'm currently going through the stuff you've added to the talk page and incorporating it into the Analysis section. Bearing in mind that I haven't finished, what do you think? (One question btw, the sentence I've added a fact tag to, I wasn't sure if that was your commentary on the talk page or still D'Este) EyeSerene 10:51, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

OK, sounds good. I think it's a point worth making because D'Este et al's claims are so clearly at odds with the actual facts. It would be annoying if we couldn't source that and ran into WP:OR difficulties. EyeSerene 11:13, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks very much! I've just about finished with the analysis section, though I wasn't sure about the ref for that 7th Amd Div history bit at the end so that still needs a cite. It would be good to finish up with a little more to counterbalance D'Este et al - something along the lines of "Viewed in these terms and given Monty's strategic goal of drawing down the German forces to the point where a breakout was feasible, V-B was less of a disaster than many analyses have claimed". Obviously if nothin like that exists, we'll have to live with it :) I'll check Hastings tonight anyway, though I don't imagine he'll have much to say that D'Este hasn't already said. EyeSerene 15:52, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Whee! 8 Corps has arrived. Loadsa maps and some good stuff dishing the carpers who had already got the 'the British were rubbish' jibe going. Apropos somewhat less than apocalyptic comments about V-B, Badsey's essay in 'The Normandy Campaign sixty years on' may help.Keith-264 (talk) 00:03, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Keith :) Dunno how you chaps feel about it, but I think a lot of the problem with writing the Analysis sections in these article is the sources are so limiting in what we can actually say. There are lots of authors that discuss the Normandy campaign in general terms, but if we were to apply their words to individual actions in a way that they don't, the "using two sources to reach a conclusion not explicitly stated in either" clause of WP:SYNTH would give the FAC folks palpitations. DMorpheus (I think) suggested a while back that we try writing an overview of the historical treatment of the campaign, and although he's apparently dropped off the radar I think it may be worth a shot. A proper discussion of the attrition/manoeuvre argument, what Monty did/didn't intend, the forward German defence, the actual usefulness of Caen, the influence of the "Bomber Barons" etc - all related to the phases that historiography has gone through - would be useful, though not an easy article to write. Your thoughts? EyeSerene 09:57, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

There's the makings of a historiographical article in the Operaton Epsom page. It's difficult when you've done your homework (and can see how derivative and tendentious many of the secondary sources are) to avoid OR and commentary so putting it in a specialist piece may help but won't alter the dilemma. My new 'Operations of 8 Corps', p.79 & 80 reproduces Monty's 'Notes on Second Army Operations 16th July - 18th July'. It's obviously a description of an attrition operation where 8 Corps is a flank guard to the Canadian attack on Caen south of the river. The next paragraph of narrative has, '....Above all it proves that there was never any question of a headlong gallop 'into the blue' by three armoured divisions without, it be noted, any infantry formations supporting them and before the capture of Vaucelles provided, in any event, the firm base permitting such an undertaking to be launched.' Clearly even in 1948 the custard pies were flying. One might speculate that the V-B gig was being run the same way - that armoured operations were supposed to take place in the vicinity of an infantry firm base so that D'Este et al's judgement that it was an attempt to seize Caen is polemic. Can a writer make such a claim and get published? Morphy thought that a clique of pro-Monty crackpots was distorting the narrative in these pages and the 'clique' thought they were putting right myths and legends in a scholarly manner by careful attention to sources. When the sources are inadequate they bring the possibility of a narrative into question.Keith-264 (talk) 10:41, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Well said chaps! I agree with you Keith; when you consult items such as the orders they paint a very very different picture of what Goodwood was and wasnt ... all this talk of the great swan to Paris etc are just clearly not there. What also seems to be at odds are casualties figures - the estimates for German losses; whent he primary sources are consulted the results of Epsom dont look as bad as they do at first glance.

Anyhoo, i believe we deffo need this article; i could start putting something together but i think we need a guideline/plan.

Section 1: The original plan, Section 2: Monty's grand scheme for things, Section 3: revisionist views. Does that sound like a good start?

The more of these articles we do the more I think such an overview article is necessary (incidentally, there's a proposal on the milhist coordinators' talk page to turn Cam's Normandy Team into a milhist special project, so it's quite possible that the articles in this area will attract wider attention in the near future; feel free to comment). I agree with Keith that the section we wrote for Epsom would make a good model to follow: the campaign as it was seen at the time ("Didn't we do well?"); the revisionist phase ("Bit lucky really, weren't we?"); and the post-revisionist phase ("Actually, we did do quite well"). If we could set the various controversies in that context and show how views have changed over time, that might work. However, I like your structure too, so I'm easy :) EyeSerene 13:15, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Not to sure if you should be annoucing things like that E!

I will check out the proposal and chime in too, btw love your overall summary there made me lol :p --EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:08, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Heh :) The coords page isn't just for coords, we welcome any input (and besides, who else should be discussing the proposal if not the editors it'll affect?) EyeSerene 14:16, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I thought your comments made a lot of sense until I misread 'milhist' as 'nihilist' :O)Keith-264 (talk) 14:23, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I meant the easy comment E :p--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:40, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Nihilist... hmmm... that would be why I'm easy, I suppose :) EyeSerene 17:27, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

66th Division and breaking link

Hi EnigmaMcmxc, hope you had a good Christmas holiday. I'm surprised to have to write to you re this, but anyway: when you removed the 'East Lancashire' from the 66th Division link page, you broke the link to the 66th Infantry Division (United Kingdom) article. Please try and avoid this in future. Best regards from Aotearoa New Zealand, Buckshot06 (talk) 09:24, 2 February 2010 (UTC) Greetings Earthling; in the Great War the effort to break into enemy defences was usually a slow costly business on a narrow part of the front, which was susceptible to enfilade from the flanks and which cut up the ground captured making a breakout so slow that the defenders could rebuild field defences faster than the attacker could advance. SA Hart's analysis of Monty's Colossal Cracks sums it rather well; narrow front attacks in depth allow the defender to concentrate resources in a small area which gets more and more congested and ploughed up and wide front attacks don't have the weight to overcome C20th weapons which deny areas to the attacker with firepower rather than manpower.Keith-264 (talk) 08:45, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

There's more at my page so I don't have to duplicate my answers.Keith-264 (talk) 16:31, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Much appreciated :) EyeSerene 13:51, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLVII (January 2010)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter Issue XLVII (January 2010)
From the coordinators It's only a month into the New Year, and we've already made changes to the project's infrastructure, merging and improving several task forces (see below). Much content within the project's scope has also been improved: eleven new featured articles, two featured lists, two featured pictures, a featured sound, and seventeen A-class articles. Thanks and congratulations to all editors who contributed and/or nominated these items. In other news, the elections for new project coordinators are coming up in March. Think about whether you would like to run or not, and self-nominations will be coming up at the beginning of next month. Lastly, our project's A-class review process is desperately in need of new reviewers. Please consider looking at least one and leaving comments, no matter how small or trivial. It will be greatly appreciated by the article's nominator(s). For the coordinators, —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 03:32, 3 February 2010 (UTC)	Articles of note New featured articles: Battle of the Nile Bodiam Castle Charles Eaton (RAAF officer) Frederick Scherger Helmut Lent James Whiteside McCay Johann von Klenau Peter Heywood The Battle of Alexander at Issus Thomas Baker (aviator) Walter Peeler New featured lists: List of Asian American Medal of Honor recipients Order of battle at the Battle of the Nile New featured pictures: Return of the Great White Fleet SMS Moltke (1910) New featured sounds: It's a Long Way to Tipperary New A-Class articles: Alexander Pentland Battle of Osan Battle of Winterthur (1799) Cedric Howell CFM International CFM56 Florida class battleship Friedrich Freiherr von Hotze HMS Lion (1910) List of battlecruisers of Germany‎ List of Knight's Cross with Oak Leaves recipients: 1940–1941 Max-Hellmuth Ostermann Operation Windsor Petlyakov Pe-8 Robert Peverell Hichens Smedley Butler USS Hawaii (CB-3) Vernon Sturdee
Project news Congratulations go to Abraham, B.S., Nick-D, and Durova, who placed 1st, 2nd, and 3rd, respectively, in our annual Military Historian of the Year contest! Thanks to all who voted, and congratulations to our runners up: Auntieruth55, BilCat, Hawkeye7, Ian Rose, MBK004, MinisterForBadTimes, Parsecboy, Sturmvogel 66, and The ed17. Our thanks go to all editors who participated in our recent task force housekeeping discussion and to EyeSerene who implemented the technical side of the approved changes. The new line up is as follows: The Military science and the Military technology and engineering task forces have been merged to form the Military science and technology task force. The Indian and Pakistani task forces have been merged, and re-scoped, to form the South Asian military history task force. The Taiwanese task force has been merged into the Chinese military history task force. The Lebanese task force has been merged into the Middle Eastern military history task force. The Romanian task force has been merged into the Balkan military history task force.
Contest department The Contest Department has completed its thirty-third month of competition; and its fifth month under the new scoring system. A total of 91 articles were entered by ten editors. Sturmvogel 66 came first with 152 points, followed by Kumioko with 98 points. They receive the Chevrons and Writer's Barnstar respectively. Honorable mentions go to Auntieruth55 (87), Abraham, B.S. (48), Parsecboy (41), and Ian Rose (41). Binksternet, Radeksz, Ed! and D2306 also fielded entries. Please submit any articles you are working on for the February contest.
Awards and honours The A-Class medal has been awarded to: Auntieruth55 for her work on Johann von Klenau, Friedrich Freiherr von Hotze and Battle of Winterthur (1799). Sturmvogel 66 for his work on Sd.Kfz. 10, Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-3 and Petlyakov Pe-8. The_ed17 for his work on Design A-150 battleship, Dutch 1913 battleship proposal and USS Hawaii (CB-3). The A-Class medal with Oak Leaves has been awarded to: Abraham, B.S. for his work on Walter Peeler, Thomas Baker (aviator) and Cedric Howell. Parsecboy for his work on SMS Nassau, Florida class battleship and List of battlecruisers of Germany.
To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please list yourself in the appropriate section here.

This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 02:56, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Re V-B

A very apposite quote. I've come to the opinion that while our friend is active we're not going to make much progress. I'm involved, so I've requested other eyes on the situation at the milhist coords page; I think we might have to resort to page protection + further blocks to get things back on track. There are still sections of the notes you've added to the talk page that I'd like to include (particularly re whether the attack was ever going to achieve its aims) and I'm working on that Caumont Gap map, so there's a little way to go. We'll get there though :) EyeSerene 10:50, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Ack, just seen your latest. Sorry about that - I added the refs and meant to go back over them to consolidate, but forgot. EyeSerene 18:45, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Cool - I think once that's done, we'll be about ready for FAC no. 3 :) EyeSerene 15:47, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

That should make someone very happy :) EyeSerene 13:09, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

M4 Sherman sources.

Way back at the end of November last year, you added a bunch of references citing Buckley, Reid and Hart in the M4 Sherman article, but didn't seem to add full citations for the books. Could you add them please? Hohum 20:00, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Re Epsom

Interesting find. Though I say so myself, I think we all did a damn good job on that article :) EyeSerene 08:54, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

being Friends

hm i know that i gave u a deadly blow on keiths battle ground but i think its enough now. maybe we start beeing friends despite this humilation. our task is improving articles and offer knowledge for the readers so we should not waste our time with smashing u to the mud. friends now? Blablaaa (talk) 20:40, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Despite your humiliation am sure we can attempt to co-operate without having to point out your flaws all the time :)--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:15, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

oki doki Blablaaa (talk) 21:26, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

sachs

the dairies of 503 are destroyed so nearly every information about normandy and 503 is from freiherr von Rosen and Herrn Jeackel. the 2 are the only primary source i guess. its high likly that trew is quoting v. Rosen. its from a german Forum where more than one admin has contact with these veterans. they know nearly every tank and commander. iam not sure if this is enough for wiki... if not delete my edit. i guess it was 313 Sachs ( 3 rd company 1 st Zug 3rd Tank = 313 ) Blablaaa (talk) 16:11, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

to make it clear v. Rosen ---> user of forum ----> forum ----> me Blablaaa (talk) 16:19, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

ramming incident

while goodwood, a allied sherman rammed a king tiger and disables him. its not in the article now but funny, isnt it? maybe u can put in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blablaaa (talk • contribs) 16:23, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

there are many fotos. iam not wondering about because its was a remarkable picture, but iam not sure about copyright, i searched already the commons section for the 503rd article but there is no german picture. Blablaaa (talk) 17:40, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

] Blablaaa (talk) 21:14, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

goodwood

why incorrect? Blablaaa (talk) 20:37, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

schneider

btw iam not sure that u become happy with his books ^^ Blablaaa (talk) 02:03, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Since i dont own any his books i dont have a reason to become unhappy with them either is there .... ?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 16:22, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Nominations for the March 2010 Military history Project Coordinator elections now open!

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on 8 March 2010! More information on coordinatorship may be found on the coordinator academy course and in the responsibilities section on the coordinator page.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:26, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLVIII (February 2010)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter Issue XLVIII (February 2010)
From the coordinators March, as you know, is an election month for our project, when we pick the coordinators for the next six months. We are seeking motivated individuals willing to devote some of their time and energy to the project so it continues to grow and prosper. Also, I am making a personal appeal to each of you, the members of this project, to come out and vote for the candidates that run. These users will be responsible for managing the assessment process, answering questions, and making sure that the project's other needs are met. We have approximately 1,000 users who identify as being a part of our project, yet on average only about one-tenth of that number participate in elections. Moreover, as we typically hold referendums on major issues affecting the project along with these election, those who do not vote miss the opportunity to give their opinion on matters affecting the project as a whole. Remember, one vote always makes a difference. For the coordinators, TomStar81 (Talk) 23:47, 6 February 2010 (UTC)	Articles of note New featured articles: Admiralty Islands campaign Alexander Pentland Anthony Roll Battle of Winterthur (1799) Cedric Howell HMS Calliope (1884) The Disasters of War New featured lists: List of battlecruisers of Germany List of National Treasures of Japan (castles) New featured pictures: Australian military encampment, 1918 Injured Arriving by Boat at Balaklava USS New Jersey, 1918 New A-Class articles: Battle of Taejon Bombardment of Papeete First Battle of Maryang San Henry George Chauvel List of Knight's Cross with Oak Leaves recipients: 1942 Michael J. Daly Nguyen Van Nhung No. 1 Wing RAAF Oswald Watt Red Tail Project Siege of Godesberg (1583) SMS Goeben Yermolayev Yer-2
Project news A discussion has begun concerning our military history manual of style's guideline recommending preemptive disambiguation on the naming of military units. As the outcome of the discussion will likely effect a number of pages within our scope we are seeking input from the community on whether the guideline should be changed. Late last year, several largely inactive task forces were merged. However, the mergers of the Australia and New Zealand task forces did not take place as there was no consensus for a new name. To resolve this, a discussion has begun and all editors are encouraged to participate.
Contest department The Contest Department has completed its thirty-fourth month of competition; and its sixth month under the new scoring system. A total of 82 articles were entered by eight editors. Kumioko came first with 110 points, followed by Sturmvogel 66 with 87 points. They receive the Chevrons and Writer's Barnstar respectively. Honorable mentions go to Auntieruth55 (59) and Ian Rose (36). Binksternet, Cirt, Radeksz and YellowMonkey also fielded entries. Please submit any articles you are working on for the March contest.
Awards and honours Brad101 has been awarded the WikiChevrons with Oak Leaves in recognition of his excellent reviewing and work on a sizable number of nautical articles that fall within our scope, producing a number of high-quality articles for the Military history and Ships WikiProjects. The A-Class medal has been awarded to Anotherclown for his work on Operation Coburg, Battle of Bita Paka and First Battle of Maryang San. The A-Class medal with Oak Leaves has been awarded to MisterBee1966 for his work on Max-Hellmuth Ostermann, List of Knight's Cross with Oak Leaves recipients: 1940–1941 and List of Knight's Cross with Oak Leaves recipients: 1942.
Editorial: Reliable sources in military history Across Misplaced Pages, guidelines have been set up so that editors can vet sources for themselves. Links to some of these and a guide for checking if a source is reliable can be found in an excellent Signpost dispatch written by Ealdgyth (talk · contribs). However, for the majority of military history-related topics, we strive for more than just a basic reliable source. Specifically, we aim for peer-reviewed articles and books over, for example, most websites. Contemporary news articles or accounts can and should be mixed in (if possible) to give a picture of the general view point of the time—were they calm, afraid, unsure of what was going on? Another major tenet is neutrality. If an editor rewrote the article Dieppe Raid using only the official Canadian history, we would have a problem; while it does contain a thorough and in-depth overview, a point-of-view can still be read. For one, it gives an undue amount of focus to Canada's input in the planning of the landing, and it would probably give an undue focus to their troops if a majority of the landing forces hadn't been Canadian. Granted, this is a book written to document that country's role in the Second World War, so you would hope it focuses on them, but this same reason makes it unusable as the primary basis for an article. In this case, you would like to utilize a few recent, peer-reviewed books and journals, the official British, Canadian and German histories, possibly a few books written by historians from the aforementioned countries, and newspapers from that time period. Obviously this is ideal, but you need to represent all three sides in this (the United States would be a fourth, but they played only a minor role in the planning and invading). This neutrality aspect applies especially for battles and to a lesser degree biographies, but it can be utilized in virtually every article in our scope. For example, it could be beneficial to obtain Japanese accounts of B-29 Superfortress bombing raids or non-Puerto Rican peer-reviewed sources for that insular area's role in the Second World War. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) Notes It should be noted that certain sites like Combined Fleet or Navweaps, which are authored by recognized or published experts in the field, are not "most websites." Stacey, Colonel C.P. Six Years of War: The Army in Canada, Britain and the Pacific. 1, Official History of the Canadian Army in the Second World War. Ottawa: Queen's Printer, 1955. For example, some of the Canadian newspaper articles written about the raid are listed on their War Museum's website here, while a London Gazette supplement written after the war can be seen on their website. Anyone with access to the archives of The New York Times can view the stories printed by that paper on the raid by searching their archives, and the Google News archive lists many newspapers, some of which were scanned by Google and are available at no charge; most of the non-free material requires a subscription to ProQuest.
To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please list yourself in the appropriate section here.

This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:33, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

charnwood

Wood is a WP:RELIABLE source. When reliable sources differ, both/all/a representative range should be included. So Wood has to be included. If he is not saying that the claims were wrong.Wood is a respected historian, he has the experience and credentials to know when to trust primary sources. Blablaaa (talk) 21:30, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

on bocage u use british claims... . and i dont know what wood does, but he is a realiable source. we also have sources that say german reported only 75 tanks lost for goodwood and atlantic that doesnt bother u . We have to include him because : "Wood is a WP:RELIABLE source. When reliable sources differ, both/all/a representative range should be included." Blablaaa (talk) 22:02, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

i dont want to have trouble, when i came to wiki i insited on logic claims, than i learned wiki means reliability not truth. so i stopped insisting on right or wrong. i try to follow the guidelines. and wood has to be included, but i recognized that u use your arguments for british casualties but not for germans. on goodwood german reported far less tanks destroyed than the articles claims. i do not dispute this anylonger regarding the wiki guidelines about secondary sources.but in the same moment i insist on german claims infoboxes too. and iam sure iam correct. why only british POV ? i dont want trouble with u, iam not here to annoy u i will edit kursk later two not only charnwood. cheers Blablaaa (talk) 22:13, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

"The objection is not Wood, i havent said Wood is not relibable so please remove you silly strawman arguments from the debate. The page quoted is an entire German report that Wood has reproduced; the report alone (which are known to be unreliable (not the HISTORIAN or his BOOK)) claims the Germans destroyed this many. The Official Campaign history shows that 80 was the limit and that includes destroyed and damaged; a figure supported via other sources." i brought this argument many times, but i was explained that it doesnt madder, because wood is the historians and he decided who to trust, if he prints the german reports than we have to include. anything else is research Blablaaa (talk) 22:18, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

for the german losses on charnwood german sources give 18 tanks lost but u added a figure of buckley : Buckley reports that the 12th SS Panzer lost 10 Panthers and 22 Panzer IVs destroyed during the operation. he claims 32 destroyed while only 18 were reported. what happend here? no damaged he says destroyed, are this british claims ? Blablaaa (talk) 23:02, 6 March 2010 (UTC) i said already that i was wrong with presenting my opinion about your historians. its ok now. Blablaaa (talk) 22:46, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

maybe u review what i wrote above :-) normally iam against wartime claims and all this things, but here on wiki i changed this because wiki doenst support truth it supports reliabilty of historians, and why should the majority of this historians be british ? i see that u have many german POV books but u never use them for british casualties. why? u always u british sources for german losses but not german intels, why? it doesnt madder... u inlcude the historians which u want its ok, but respect when other people do the same. can we find consense? Blablaaa (talk) 22:41, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

i dont bitch about anything or historians. i did and i was wrong ( on wiki) . and now do the same and include all reliable historians regardless your opinion Blablaaa (talk) 22:35, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

can u make the edit? i think about ordering a book of reynolds. can u recommend ? Blablaaa (talk) 22:31, 6 March 2010 (UTC) soviet claims are included in articles when they are in reliable books. i was against this but this doesnet madder. to be honest i dont know what happend on charnwood but i see there is a number not included, the german number and all range should be included when it is published by reliable secondary sources Blablaaa (talk) 22:20, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

which soviet claims do u mean ? Blablaaa (talk) 22:22, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

hm i dont think i do this, i will do bigger edits later in other articles, i only told u that about charnwood i did not the article i only wanted to explain u. when german intels say less tanks destroyed than this doesnt madder for u . that some many of your sources support british claims is maybe because u only use british books, i saw that also books of reynolds are included in the article but u dont use them for british casualties. why? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blablaaa (talk • contribs) 22:25, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

maybe u calm a bit down ? or we both. Blablaaa (talk) 22:37, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

wood as reliable sources has to be included... again i cant understand you, u always include british claims even when they higher than german intels, and here u have a problem when the same should be done with german claims... Blablaaa (talk) 22:44, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

i dont know what a strawmen argument is. but i see your arguments are exactly mine on eastern front were i got mad about nonsense figures. but always users explained me wiki guidelines, and its ok . i will not longer dispute "reliable" sources. not for germans not for soviet not for western allies. please do the same. u include british claims on articles when german intels shows they are incorrect so u already did this "fringe" stuff so now for both sides. its not our job to judge sources. i dont want to be pointy. Blablaaa (talk) 23:00, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

can u explain, the german losses for me please? Blablaaa (talk) 23:07, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

regarding the weight on goodwood. u simply take many british historians all using the same claims, if u go to german books and so on u have tommorrow 5 historians claiming lower numbers for german and higher for british . whats your point? the good wood historians use british archives for german losses this brings always higher losses. same on eastern front, i always use german sources for german losses and krivo for soviets. u simply use british historians for german losses, do it in reverse and u have higher british casualties and lower german. simple... iam the one without pov i say include all.... Blablaaa (talk) 23:12, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

u have books of reynolds why u never use him for british losses please tell meBlablaaa (talk) 23:13, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

i dont know what strawmen argument means :-) , can u explain buckley claim which is 2 times higher than german intels on their tanks ? Blablaaa (talk) 23:15, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

so the SS records show 18 tanks destroyed and 32 tanks destroyed for the same time frame? and wood says german reported 20 tanks lost, maybe 2 damaged + 18 destroyed. so two historians saying the same number and another is claiming other historians said +30 , interesting :-). iam very sure reynolds did not claim 30 tanks lost for charnwood. Blablaaa (talk) 23:22, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

what are u talking? i asked u were the german losses are from. i will order reynolds book, was interested before so now i have a reason more. and u said it correct reliable sources, wood is one so we include him. and i cant join your games about who is bad who not, because it will bring me a block. u have to play alone this time... Blablaaa (talk) 23:29, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

by the way: about trusting historian, only one can be correct, and i choose which one i trust. this is not relevant for wiki... historians are always wrong and incorrect. if not there were no different figures... and we have to include all of these figures, u want to make the edit on charnwood or should i?`i dont want to be reverted than Blablaaa (talk) 23:34, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

enigma whats your problem i never said exclude buckley claim. i said its interessting that u have multiple sources claiming that they are based on the same german intels. whats so hard ? one must be wrong , and i dont think reynolds gives 30 for this particular days. maybe iam wrong but who cares ? include wood's text and everything is ok. i defend nothing i started this conversation to explain u that we have to include wood and u started with your opinion and so on . u explain me so much things i dont know why... . include wood in the article, and when i have reynolds we will include him. i thought its nice of me to talk with u before i include wood. Blablaaa (talk) 23:43, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

when we include german claims than its misinformation of the reader when we include british claims which exceed german intels than this ok because what? i would accept your point if u would only use intels for BOTH sides but u have diffenrent ways to handle casualties claims this says everything.... i say include all, british claims and german ones. can i edit now ? Blablaaa (talk) 23:46, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

i dont say german destroy xx tanks i say include all range, u never had a problem with including the highest british claims, this is no strawmen argument this is only dubios. i dont need a "strawemen" argument because wiki says include all possible range. Blablaaa (talk) 23:54, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

sorry for unnice conversation, i didnt wanted to push my opinion or something else i claimed nothing. i supported no claim or something else i only said include all, british and germans. british are already included so now german. and about historians this are my personnel opinions and not relevant here sorry for writing them. Blablaaa (talk) 23:59, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

dear enigma i dont support one of these sources. and iam sure that the 80 are more likly than 103, but thats not the point. can we find consense whats your suggestion ? Blablaaa (talk) 00:04, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

i will add the figure now, please do not revert Blablaaa (talk) 00:19, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

i explained already, that there are multiple historians claiming this figures is because they are using british data, when u use german historians u will get higher numbers. but u dont use german historians u have reynolds but u dont use him for british casualties WHY ? this is for all your articles u dont use german pov books for british losses but use british povs for german losses, thats why u have always more historians supporting one figure. please tell me why not inclunding reynolds for british losses ? make it neutral include them all, the reader can pick himself Blablaaa (talk) 00:27, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

yes i added a reliable historian. and yes i dont believe him. thats wiki, u add many figures which contradice themself because u present ranges. Blablaaa (talk) 00:35, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

dear enigma i have no position about this operation. i said before. and i also said that i was for truth before and that i understood that all reliable historians has to be included to be neutral. and i also explained my position about the multipl historians supporting "your" opinion. u always decided which historians should be included for figures .... Blablaaa (talk) 00:39, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

"ok do you have some sort of evidence that i have withheld information from articles on purpose? That i have picked and choosen what source to use and what not to use?" i dont want to accuse u . Blablaaa (talk) 00:49, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

ok : u have books of reynolds who is known as pro SS, its rare that u use him, and when only for neutral or pro british, u dont use him to ciritze british discseions or something else and so on. Blablaaa (talk) 00:54, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

he is pro SS like many of your are pro british? did u not realize that most historians have a pov ? u avoind saying why u dont use him he is relaible, explain please Blablaaa (talk) 01:00, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

iam making my self looking foolish because u cant explain why u dont use reynolds for negativ comments about british and only for pro nad neutral? Blablaaa (talk) 01:05, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

No, your making yourself look foolish for two simple facts:

1) We have used Reynolds critiaisms when appropriate

2) We dont always have to use him, considering others have covered the same issue; it would mean doubling up on refs for no real reason i.e. Buckley who notes the poor use of tanks during Charnwood and the various sources that critise the bombing.

The most ironic thing of all is that before i noted some, i.e. forumites, consider him somewhat pro-SS he was just another evil Britisher to you. Again this highlights that your only here to push pro-German POV...not balance the record (i.e. your slating comments in regards to he use of a secondary source via a profesional German tanker, tank expert and historian.)--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 17:54, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

u are not using reynolds if u dont like him. u only use his opinions when it fits. but this is ok enigma. and regarding the pro ss i readed critics about his book and some told him german POV, thats why i "know" hes german POV, he is only interersting for me because he wrots book about german units lol. surprise??? Blablaaa (talk) 22:26, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Ive been asked to be nice to you .... but your a fecking idiot! Please dont bother coming back here if you havent got anything constructive to say...--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:52, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Recent talk page comments

I know that User:Blablaaa can be uncivil, but I don't think that the tone of your recent comments on their talk page is helpful. Nick-D (talk) 23:48, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Re VB looting etc

It's probably worth mentioning, though if you're concerned about the neutrality and speculation of the source you could attribute. Maybe something like "Marie records that after the Germans reoccupied V-B, some soldiers took reprisals against the civilian population in isolated incidents of looting and arson, including the burning a number of houses and shops, and the town hall. Forty notes that such lapses in discipline were severely punished." Your call :) EyeSerene 14:07, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

On a related note, how close do you think Operation Goodwood would be to a possible drive for GA/A/FA? Cam 05:01, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

The Victory Campaign

I saw your note at Operation Normandy - is this the e-book version you're referring to? If not then, well... here's another copy for you! Ranger Steve (talk) 18:19, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Coordinator elections have opened!

Voting for the Military history WikiProject coordinator elections has opened; all users are encouraged to participate in the elections. Voting will conclude 23:59 (UTC) on 28 March 2010.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:45, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Coordinator election

Thank you for your support MisterBee1966 (talk) 14:50, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Likewise. Just a quick note to thank you for your support at the election, very much appreciated. See you around the Milhist pages! Ranger Steve (talk) 20:37, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

VB

Happy to. Should have some time this evening, so I'll start nitpicking then! Ranger Steve (talk) 09:31, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

You're very welcome. Best check my edit summaries for info on the edits - feel free to revert things, they're more suggestions than anything else. Ranger Steve (talk) 12:57, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLIX (March 2010)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter Issue XLIX (March 2010)
From the coordinators I am pleased to report that the March coordinator elections have concluded, and that 15 members have been selected to serve as coordinators from April to September. Special congratulations go to AustralianRupert, Dank, MisterBee1966, NativeForeigner, Patar knight, and Ranger Steve, all of whom are newly elected coordinators. As we start this new tranche we welcome all returning coordinators, and wish those who decided not to stand for reelection luck as they move on to new things. In other election news, a motion made to extend the coordinator tranche from its current six-month term to one full year gained consensus from the election participants. This will take effect in September, during the next election cycle. For the IX Coordinator Tranche, TomStar81 (Talk) 05:02, 27 March 2010 (UTC)	Articles of note New featured articles: 21st Regiment Massachusetts Volunteer Infantry Battle of Osan Bayern class battleship Dutch 1913 battleship proposal Karl Aloys zu Fürstenberg Mary Rose No. 1 Wing RAAF USS Congress (1799) New featured lists: List of Medal of Honor recipients for the Boxer Rebellion List of Medal of Honor recipients for the Vietnam War List of United States Military Academy alumni (Confederate States Army) New featured topics: Battlecruisers of Germany New featured pictures: Cavalry At Balaklava New A-Class articles: Allan Walters Army of the Danube Battle of Dürenstein Byzantine-Sassanid War of 602–628 HMAS Sydney (R17) Horses in World War I Lê Văn Duyệt Michael P. Murphy Roderic Dallas USS Triton (SSRN-586)
Project news Operation Normandy In May 2008 a small group of editors, operating from a page in Cam's userspace, began work on improving Misplaced Pages's articles relating to the pivotal Second World War Battle of Normandy that took place in northern France between 6 June and the end of August 1944. Milhist has now adopted this collaboration as our third special project. The aim of Operation Normandy is to bring all core topics—official operations, battles, and the invasion beaches—to featured status by the 70th anniversary of D-Day on 6 June 2014. More information can be found on the project page; any interested editors are most welcome to sign up and help us meet this challenging goal! Henry Allingham World War I Contest Our Henry Allingham World War I Contest ended on 11 March with the following results: in first place was Sturmvogel 66; in second place was Ian Rose; in third place was Dana boomer; and the finalists were Abraham, B.S., Carcharoth, and XavierGreen. The contest produced an incredible 238 recognised article improvements, of which 6 were Featured articles, 13 were A-Class articles and 22 were Good articles. In addition 43 newly created or expanded articles were successfully submitted for the 'Did you know' section on Misplaced Pages's main page. Our warmest congratulations go to the medallists and finalists, and our grateful thanks go to all participants and particularly to Eurocopter for organizing the contest. Would you like to get more involved in the project? There are many open tasks that could use your help. The project's review department is always in need of input at peer reviews, A-class reviews, FACs and FARs; these can be found here. Also, the project maintains a list of deletion debates for military-related articles that have been nominated for deletion; project members are encouraged to provide their opinions in this forum so that consensus can be established. Finally, if content creation is more what you are looking for, each of the project's 48 task forces maintains a list of requested articles. Your comments are invited in the following ongoing project discussions: Pre-emptive disambiguation. Since 2006 our in-house style guide has recommended disambiguating the titles of articles about military units whether another article of the same name exists or not. The continued need for this practice is under discussion. Merging the Australian and New Zealand task forces. This is the final call for editors to have their say in choosing a name for the shortly-to-be-merged Australian and New Zealand task forces.
Contest department The Contest Department has completed its thirty-fifth month of competition. A total of 66 articles were entered by ten editors. Kumioko came first with 105 points, followed by Lordoliver with 79. They receive the Chevrons and Writer's Barnstar respectively. Honorable mentions go to Auntieruth55 (75), Ian Rose (53), Parsecboy (35), and Historical Perspective (31). Binksternet, Cirt, Radeksz and YellowMonkey also fielded entries. Please submit any articles you are working on for the April contest.
Awards and honours The WikiChevrons with Oak Leaves has been awarded to: Nick-D in recognition of his long and distinguished service as a coordinator of this project from February 2008 to March 2010; sterling efforts on "big picture" subjects, including ten featured articles; and his tireless participation in discussion and review. Sturmvogel 66 in recognition of his distinguished service as a coordinator of this project, extraordinary performance within the Henry Allingham World War I Contest and other extremely valuable contributions to the project. The A-Class medal has been awarded to: Auntieruth55 for her work on Siege of Godesberg (1583), Karl Aloys zu Fürstenberg and Army of the Danube. Kumioko for his work on Smedley Butler, Michael J. Daly and Michael P. Murphy. The A-Class medal with Oak Leaves has been awarded to: Ian Rose for his work on Alexander Pentland, Oswald Watt and Roderic Dallas.
Editorial: Translating article writing to real life I (Ed) am a college student in the United States, and as part of attaining my desired degree, I chose to take a course in Arab-Islamic history. We began in the early 600s and spent some time on the origins of the Islamic conquering of the Sassanid Empire and partial takeover of the Byzantine Empire (c. 634–750). From there, we have moved through the various ages of history, and the class recently began discussing the Ottoman Empire and other Islamic regions of more recent times. As we began discussing the Ottoman Empire's role in the First World War, our professor mentioned that they were blockading the Bosphorus, using it as a chokepoint to cut off needed supplies traveling to Russia's only warm-water port, Sevastopol. An astute classmate, realizing this meant the use of warships, wondered what naval technology was like during this time. The professor turned and asked me to answer the question, as he knew I had been studying naval history and believed that I knew more about the subject. The point of this anecdote is not to boast, but to provoke some thought. By virtue of the research Misplaced Pages writers must do to write complete, referenced articles, many of us are acquiring knowledge in specialized topics that can surpass even learned scholars. Misplaced Pages might even provoke some of us into becoming learned scholars through the subjects we find here. To profile one such case, take a look at Parsecboy. Beginning in May 2007, he came across a few essentially empty stubs on German battleship classes. Nearly 3 years later, he's written or collaborated on more than forty articles rated as good or higher, including over a dozen featured articles and a featured list; the majority relate to German warships. The work Parsecboy has done for Misplaced Pages has had a tremendous impact on his academic career: to complete his undergraduate degree, Parsecboy is currently writing an Honors Thesis that will analyze the British and German battlecruiser squadrons during the First World War. Parsecboy plans to attend graduate school and continue his research in the area, culminating in a dissertation. He comments that "without a doubt, I would not have had nearly as much knowledge and interest in the topic, nor would I have known where to begin researching if I had not become so involved with the topic here on Misplaced Pages." The knowledge you acquire through writing Misplaced Pages articles will remain with you for the rest of your life. Try to find a way to use it to your advantage. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) and Parsecboy (talk)
To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please list yourself in the appropriate section here.

This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:16, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Allied war crimes during World War II

Hi, are you interested in working on this article? It's disgraceful state has been bugging me for a while - at present much of the material on the Western Allies appears to have been cherry picked and doesn't put events into their proper perspective (eg, that these forces rarely committed war crimes). Much of the material appears to have been added by Stor stark7 (talk · contribs), who has a history of misrepresenting sources and spamming this kind of stuff across multiple articles. Nick-D (talk) 11:21, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

RE:Vokes

I don't have that one, i can check a few places and contacts of mine to see if they might though... Cam 22:42, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

tacticel victories

Tactical_victory : "A tactical victory is a victory in which the losses of the defeated outweigh those of the victor. A tactical victory may also be a victory that results in no substantial or long-term gains." Grüße Blablaaa (talk) 23:48, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

u asked how it could be a tactical german victory, i pointed on the "destruction" of the 2st airborne. u contested my comment with explaining me that german lost all "strategic" points. regarding the definition of tactical victory and your comments i thought it would be helpful for u. to be honest my knowledge about marked garden is limited and i dont dispute yours i only provided an possible answer to your question. Blablaaa (talk) 01:35, 16 April 2010 (UTC)