Talk:Invasion of Normandy/Archive 3

message: It seems that this article, entitled Battle of Normandy, goes too far beyond the scope of the battle. It seems clear in most histories of the early days in Northwest Europe that the battle for Normandy began June 6 and ended July 24. After that period the difference in the nature of the fight was distinct, a clear separation between different battles. Indeed, this is briefly acknowledged in the article, but the article should be changed. Specifically, it should be split to have a "Battle of Normandy" article, and an article entitled the "Battle of France" which is what most historians call the time from July 25 to the drive to the Seine before the Allies began to disperse their efforts with operations such as Market-Garden. Furthermore, after July 25 the fighting, at least entirely in the American Sector, was in Brittany, NOT Normandy. Although the British continued to fight in the Norman countryside, it was still the beginning of a distinctly different phase in the efforts of the Allied forces. This issue must be addressed, especially since the article is already designated as "featured." This status should not be given to an article with a mistake of that magniutude, even though the subject matter is critical history.—Preceding unsigned comment added by User:Benjaminrobertfield (talk • contribs) 
:At least one of the official histories (I believe Victory in the West (I have neither this nor ETO on hand right now)) gives the battle of Normandy from June to the end of August. The same applies to any histories looking at the entire campaign rather then just an American contribution or POV. So this does not appear to be a mistake.--Caranorn 14:13, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Also take a look at talk:Battle of Normandy#Start and End Dates Of This Campaign bellow.--Caranorn 14:19, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Article Split

message: I had listed Vichy France as an enemy combatant during the Battle of Normandy in the infobox, but it has been deleted.  The Vichy French government did participate in the fighting in Normandy, if only in supportive roles as an occupation government and supplying some manpower to the Wehrmacht.  If I am mistaken, feel free to take it back down... Nf utvol 16:12, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You definitely have to add a source for that I will once again remove it for now. As a note, all others listed as participants fielded at least a division (Norway only provided some naval support iirc, so I will delete that too particularly as Belgium and the Netherlands probably fielded more troops and are not listed).--Caranorn 16:41, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, right, I'll try to dig up the book I originally read that in, otherwise I'll search for an internet source. Nf utvol 04:36, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Combatants List 

message: There are three there, pretty much side by side, and it breaks up the article. Since I am by no means an expert on the subject, and I'm sure others will know which ones to keep, its best if one or two are deleted. Three is overboard, and a second image would best be made either smaller, or moved down the article, or deleted. Disinclination 04:21, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Delete a picture from the Omaha section 

message: Just so you know the Canadian Flag shown here is not the flag that was used by Canada during the Second World War. The ensign issued in 1921 was the flag currently used by Canada during 1944. Thanks, somebody fix that... -- Ryan RP
:This is bad, that image is used in many WWII articles and I have no clue where to ask for a bot to take care of the changes. For the time being I will only change the image for this article and hope someone else comes along and takes care of the others. Heck, I find it even used for 18th century articles.--Caranorn 12:33, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not so. According to Canadian Red Ensign, the 1921 ensign (which is the one widely used, including in this article) was used until 1957. even then, the changes were minor -  the Irish harp slightly modified and the maple leaves red instead of green. Unless the Canadian Red Ensign article is wrong, we don't have a problem. Folks at 137 17:04, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I already replaced the images in this article, so you did indeed find the correct ones, but many other WWII articles still have the 1957 ensign...--Caranorn 17:15, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Canadian Flag incorrectly portrayed

message: I almost feel a fool bringing this up, but this is a great article on a very important topic that is ruined, yet again, by the sprawling list of references in popular culture, or, in this case, the slightly more relevent 'dramatisations'. None of it is referenced, which may sound like I am nitpicking, but I think some of it may be wrong. For instance, I'm not a fan, so I may well be incorrect, but I can not find this music video by Iron Maiden- all I can find are fan videos. I think this section really should be dealt with, as it is damaging an otherwise excellent article. J Milburn 21:19, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oops I now see the problem. I only checked whether the song existed, no clue whether they made a video clip. I will revert myself and leave your fact tag. Not a fan either, so I have no clue about the video.--Caranorn 22:56, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dramatisations 

message: Isnt this article too long only the first half is really about the beaches of Normandy. The rest is about elsewhere. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 58.7.56.76 (talk) 13:12, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The article is about the entire Battle of Normandy, not just the Landing phase.--Caranorn 13:44, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too Long 

message: in the battle box it shows germany only, and in the allies it shows poland and othr stff. i know for a fact there are othres, i would apreicate if someone would as them
:Italy and Japan never participated in the battleWardhog 17:26, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  axis allies missings 

message: I wanted to mention another wargame (board game) which portrays the Normandy Invasion.  Advanced Squad Leader (by Avalon Hill, and now Multiman Publishing) has numerous scenarios which allow players to recreate battles within the Normandy Invasions.  In addition, there are several historical scenarios for Advanced Squad Leader using maps created from aerial reconnaissance photographs of those battlefields.  Since this is a wargame not a published book or journal, what references are required to add this game to the list?  Kihmbar 15:44, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd tend to say the game should deal with the Battle of Normandy in particular like for instance AH's Longest Day. If ASL has a specific Normandy module (I stopped following the game a while back) it might be worthwhile adding that to the list, but I would not add ASL as such.--Caranorn 16:20, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wargames 

message: Two of the video games (Killzone and Unreal tournament) mentioned "loosely depict" the invasion so I removed them. That section is not needed anyway and I would be in favour of removing the whole games bit. I would like other opinions. Wardhog 17:37, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd disagree to the entire removal, but do agree with removing any material not specifically and more or less seriously treating the Battle of Normandy. In the previous thread I mentioned AH's Longest Day as a good example of a game that fits well at the end of the article as it 1) has the Battle (in it's entirety) as it's subject, 2) is well researched including an excellent bibliography, and is 3) reasonably well known. In short, I'd agree with removing the "loose depictions" but not to removing all games. Note the section could probably be trimmed drastically, I just don't know many of the computer games well enough to tell whether they indeed take a serious look at the battle or just superficially use it...--Caranorn 18:35, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of Games etc. 

message: Were there no Marines on the beach, or what? --76.201.16.51 18:41, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  There were no US Marines. There were lots of British and French marines. DMorpheus 20:29, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, back in the days of sail, marines were posted in the rigging to snipe at other ships as they fought....back in the days when ship-to-ship fighting was done at pistol-and-sword range with boarding parties and such. In 1944, no. US Marines were present as very small contingents on US ships, but not as part of the landing force. British and French Marines were part of the amphibious landing force. DMorpheus 16:20, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: US Marine detachments are aboard every ship of the US Navy in which an admiral flies his flag, and those considered "capital ships". They are functional parts of the ship's company but are not land combat forces.--Buckboard 04:42, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Marines? 

message: Shouldn't Juno Beach go under a seperate header? The current article divides the beaches into the US and British beaches, but in 1944 Canada had already been independent for almost 80 years, although still under obligation to participate in most of Britain's wars. Thus, it is my belief that there should be three divisions (or more if other nations are represented): British, Canadian, and US. Thank you Crisco 1492 02:17, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Canada was only indepedent politically after the Statue of Westminster, so you're wrong on "80 years", and you're wrong on your belief that Canada was obligated to fight in Britain's wars, since the declaration of war came on 10 September 1939, a week after Britain's, due to debate in Canada's Parliament. Nothing compelled Canada to join the war.68.146.200.201 03:16, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

text: totaly should be(Esskater11 04:13, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

text: No, Juno Beach is in the British Sector, the Canadian forces belonged to a British Corps (Ist iirc) and British Army (2nd).--Caranorn 11:08, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you Caranorn.  The Canadians, while an independent nation, fought under British command. Oberiko 12:23, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, but "fought under British command" is not the complete picture. Most large "British" formations were amalgams of Empire units. The Canadian Army in Europe was part of 21st Army Group (commanded by Montgomery), but from time to time it included significant British units. Senior RAF officers were "Empire" men: the air defence of London during the Battle of Britain was commanded by Keith Park, a New Zealander and Smuts, a South African, was a member of the War Cabinet and appointed Field Marshal (which implied responsibilities within the British Army). There's no way that the UK could have fought a world war without help at all levels from the Empire. My point is that Canada and Britain were parts of an integrated whole. Folks at 137 17:36, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The point is that 3 Cdn Div was part of 2 Brit Corps for D-Day. The rest of your post is irrelevant.68.146.200.201 03:15, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Just a question

message: This article has way to much focus on the initial landings when, in fact, it has to cover all actions up to the liberation of Paris.  I would suggest the article use the following structure:
* Prelude
** Background (quick summary of the war to this point)
** Plans for Overlord
** Allied preparations
** German preparations
** Allied deception operations
* Operation Overlord
** The invasion (naval assault, naval landings, airborne landings, etc.)
** Securing the beachhead
** The breakout (Goodwood, Cobra, Totalize etc.)
** The end of Overlord (Falaise, Paris, etc.)
* Analysis (casualties, overall position of forces)
* Aftermath (drive to the Siegfried Line)
* In media and history (films, games, books, museums etc.)
Any comments? Oberiko 13:41, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed structure

message: Since this is a featured article, and presumably checked and double-checked, finding a significant error is a bit disconcerting. I corrected three--the operation names of the US airborne landings and the location of a battle--all of which were easily checkable. The names attributed are those used--incorrectly--in a video game which is where I strongly suspect the errors originated (repeated many times in related articles by the same author, and and all the articles leading back to the same video game), and that compounds the egregiousness of the error in my mind (encyclopedia research by video game...). The veracity of the work is at stake here, if that matters to anyone.--Buckboard 20:56, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That material seems to have been in the article for a while now, I have very little knowledge of the airborne operations, so I can't comment (or detect errors on the subject).--Caranorn 21:12, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: A word of caution

message: Im having a hard time beliving the picture is true the quality or the color photo looks to good for in the 40's most vietnam pics look worse then that.(ForeverDEAD 03:48, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It comes from Archivesnormandie 1939-45, which in turn claims that it comes from the National Archives of Canada.  Seem to be reputable sources. --MediaMangler 07:52, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

text: The photo does seem very 'clean' and balanced for its age.  However, the quality of photograph depends much more on the specifics of the camera/lens/film used to shoot the picture than the age.  Also, the storage of the output media will have a great effect on ageing.  --Stestagg 17:00, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Never new that, and they say u wont learn anything from wikipedia(ForeverDEAD 05:49, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I can confirm the picture is from 1944, I have found it in a book from 1983 with the following caption: In the quarries at Hautmesnil, 8 August, on Falaise-road, these soldiers from HLI of Canada proudly exhibit their trophy. The picture seems to be from the Public Archives of Canada.--Caranorn 20:59, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've seen other B/W photos of the same two soldiers holding the flag, it even mentioned their names, I'll try and find that information Bleh999 07:51, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pic with two candians holding Nazi german flag 

message: Just to explain why I reverted some of the recent additions...
Roosevelt, Churchill and Stalin bit: The old text seemed better, I added a fact tag to Churchill unofficially informing the Soviets, this needs to be sourced.
850.000 in Rundstedt's Command: Are you certain the 60.000 Ost troops are for that entire command and not just for those troops actually engaged in Normandy? It's not a good idea to mix sources like that (note I have Keegan's book lying around somewhere, but the french edition, so I'm not sure I can find the reference).
The repartition of Divisions: I just standardised the text there, though I fear there could be an overlap concerning troops in Germany and the West.--Caranorn 15:28, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I replaced the Ellis numbers by those from Wilmot, I decided to also replace Eastern Front by Soviet Union as all others are countries, if you feel this misrepresents the source go ahead and correct it again. I couldn't find my copy of Keegan this afternoon, I will look once more tomorrow, at worst I will have to get a copy from a library.--Caranorn 20:48, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  recent additions 

message: I just trimmed down that section drastically. I mostly removed links that were either not dealing with the Battle in general (some of the links I dropped might belong into sub-articles), in french without translation (I read french easily, most viewers probably don't) etc. There were also a number of duplicates, near duplicates (two different links to the same site) and dead links. If I went too far in trimming feel free to read relevant links or revert my edit.
Now the list still has to be sorted, most important and general links at the top and least important or specialized at the bottom I believe. Some entries also require a better summary. I will try to do these tommorrow, but certainly wouldn't mind if someone else is faster.--Caranorn 21:11, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links section 

message: Let's try to nip this little edit war in the bud.  Those claiming that the combatants should be listed in alphabetical order should please take note this would mean that Canada should be listed first, followed by Free France then Poland.  Since that is not the order that has resulted from your edits, clearly you are not basing your edits purely on alphabetical order.  While the supreme commander for the allies was Eisenhower, it can be argued that the commander of this battle was Montgomery (and the land and sea supporting commanders were also both British).  Using that to justify keeping the United Kingdom first in the list of combatants is defensible, but claiming alphabetical order just makes you look silly. --MediaMangler 10:54, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I know, call my revert yesterday a brain fart, can't quite explain how it happened. I'd still prefer UK before US, but I won't be reverting those kinds of changes.--Caranorn 11:05, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK.  Sorry if I over-reacted.  I've just seen a number of edit wars develop with the participants only communicating in edit summaries and hoped to head that off here.  I've been looking at infoboxes for other battles, trying to determine if there is an established convention for the order of combatants.  Trying for such consistency is probably a lost cause, but I'll keep looking for at least a little while.  --MediaMangler 11:34, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Order of combatants in infobox 

message: Why in the bloody hell, the word "liberated" is used? I'd rather use "bla bla bla was took by the allies". 84.249.216.57 02:00, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We at wikipedia incorage u to be bold, go ahead and change it. But please do so with regards from the comunity(ForeverDEAD 03:25, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Numerous quotes from primary sources (de Gaulle, Pershing, on America's involvement in WWII, taken from Ambrose's D-Day the climactic battle), as well as secondary sources (MRD Foot in the Oxford Companion to World War II, Norman Davies, the title of A Dansette's book on the war: History of the liberation of Paris, John Keegan's history) call it a liberation. And the Wikipedia article on liberation independently lists the French campaign as an example of liberation. Make sure that when you reword the article, that the new wording is verifiable from reliable sources. --Oshah 13:58, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of the word liberation 

message: *http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Falaise_pocket&diff=156691696&oldid=155401005
*http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Falaise_pocket&diff=156707703&oldid=156707652
*http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Falaise_pocket&diff=156724081&oldid=156710751 etc.
Take watch on this. --HanzoHattori 18:25, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the note. It's been reverted every time so far. Parsecboy 18:56, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Falaise - Anon repeatedly posting fantasy German figures