Talk:Battle of Anzio

message: Unless I am reading it wrong the intro seems to blame Lucas rather than Clark.  I don't know enough to have an opinion either way (and my opinion would count for naught lacking citations anyway).  I was  wondering if that was a consensus among historians so well known that it did not require explanation.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.63.9.46 (talk) 04:06, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Blame consensus in intro?

message: In Anzio (beginning from March 3, 1944) fought the battalion "Barbarigo" of the Italian Social Republic: 1,180 soldiers. More than 563 were the Fallen of this unit. Near Nettuno there is a Cemetery for the Fallen. On June 1-4 1944, at Castel di Decima (Rome), fought the parachute regiment "Folgore" (1,500 men)of the RSI to protect the German disengagement.
The "Barbarigo" battalion precisely fought in the Nettuno zone, not in Anzio, and the Cemetery for the Fallen ("Campo della Memoria") is in the territory of Nettuno.--Marco Riggi Nettunense (talk) 12:55, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  A battalion of the Italian Social Republic (RSI) in Anzio 

message: * Angelita was the name of a little girl, a war orphan abandoned child, found by soldier Christopher S. Hayes of Royal Scots Fusilers. She became the platoon mascott, but few days after a grenade killed her.  Anzio's people erected a monument in Angelita's memory, unveiled in the International Year of the Child (1979).
:: According to D'Este this story is a myth. The trooper who 'found' the girl was not in Anzio at the time and the rest of the Regiment had no knowledge of the incident. I am not sure if the memorial exists or not but the story is bogus according to D'Este's Fatal Decision: Anzio and the Battle for Rome. DMorpheus 21:16, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Angelita myth? 

message: I'd meant to add a bit more to my explanation of my new para in 'Epilogue'. Churchill's justifies his position in his WW2 biography and I can accept his justifications. I wanted to put something in there to state and link to his view, as there's a couple of sentences in the page which, to some extent, case some doubt on the point/purpose/use of the operation and the quality of Churchill's judgement in the matter. Which is fine of course, but I thought there should be defense on behalf of him and a pointer to said defence. Of course, the items I've included are not O.R.; they're taken from his journal. I hope what I've said is reasonable and ok.
Roger. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Roger M.E. Lightly (talk • contribs) 18:09, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re: Epilogue entry 20/3/7 

message: I'd like to rename this article to "Battle of Anzio", are their any objections? 
:It makes sense since Shingle was just the landing and the article has been expanded to cover the subsequent operations in the bridgehead, the breaking of the Caesar C line and the capture of Rome. However, you need to be careful how this is done because by just renaming the article, all the numerous links elsewhere to this page will go dead. We need to continue to have an Operation Shingle page redirecting to the new Anzio page (unless you fancy tracking down all the Shingle references and changing them!). I'm no expert on Wikipedia technicalities so I think you need some advice from someone who understands the unintended consequences of the different options. Stephen Kirrage talk - contribs 12:43, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Moving

message: Should this be a redirect or a new article? It is a stub on pl wiki (:pl:Bitwa pod Anzio).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk  18:27, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Battle of Anzio]]

message: Sgt Rogers lost his life but won his VC at Anzio; why is there no mention of this in the article?
Regards Robin Forster  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.254.84.111 (talk) 12:29, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anzio M.A.W. Rogers VC  

message: I searched for the word "canada" and "canadian" in the article, and only found Canada listed under Belligerents and in the Categories section of the article. Was the Canadian Army actually part of this battle? And if so, why is it not mentioned throughout the text of the article? Sixer Fixer (talk) 13:34, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Canada's involvement was through First Special Service Force which was a joint US / Canadian brigade. Stephen Kirrage talk - contribs 07:58, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps this ought to be clarified. john k (talk) 15:12, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Canada's involvement 

message: I would propose that this article is not 'start class' but should be upgraded to A or at least B class1812ahill (talk) 16:45, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Start Class rating for this article? 

message: I'm going to address the tag on the intro. I think I see what the problem is; the general significance of the battle and the train of events has been inundated by a flood of detail causing a terrible miasma in the general comprehension. What I want to do is cut through the swamp with overall conduits and reclaim the general understanding. I'm probably catching you by surprise but by the time you can react I hope to be in Rome. Naturally if you see any way to improve my attack and consolidate our position please do so, but it looks as though we have to get the pumps going in the swamp. And by the way this is far beyond a start class; we've been hanging around these fields for quite a long time now. I was thinking of building a stone house here if we can win the battle for the marsh.Dave (talk) 13:18, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Addressing the tag

message: Bobby Benson in Robert Wise's classic film, "The Day the Earth Stood Still," takes spaceman Klaatu to the cemetery where his father is interred. He tells Klaatu his father died at Anzio.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.98.136.119 (talk) 17:45, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anzio in popular culture 

message: My grandfather was with the 30th Regiment of the 3rd Division in the first wave of this operation and his Regiment alone suffered 995 casualties on the first day (as referenced by the regimental history book he owned and I now possess).  The 3rd Division thus did not suffer 955 casualties on the first day if one of its three regiments alone suffered 995.  My guess is that this was a transcription error along the way where 995 casualties for the 30th Regiment became 955 of the entire 3rd Division.
By the way, anyone have an idea as to the exact location of "Ponte Rotto"?  I don't think this "broken bridge" exists anymore as I failed to find it when I visited the beachhead and Cisterna area a few years ago on the 65th anniversary of the Anzio breakout.  I think I was in the right general area, but I want to make sure I was roughly where he won his D.S.C. for bravery on May 23rd, 1944.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.56.4.26 (talk) 00:35, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incorrect Casualty rate for 3rd Division on first day of Buffalo (May 23, 1944) 

message: I have taken out the American English banner above because the article is for the most part actually written in British English and this has been a consistent feature since at least 2007 and certainly well before the time when the banner was unjustifiably (in terms of WP:RETAIN) added in 2011. The addition of the banner in 2011 had no effect on the English usage in the article and the only current exceptions to British spelling in the article are the (correct) use of "Armor" in the proper names of US Divisions and the date format which is more commonly used in US English. There is also an inconsistency in words ending in -ise / -ize. Either is acceptable in British English (-ize is actually preferred by the Oxford English Dictionary but other dictionaries and the majority of users tend to use -ise) but one or the other should be used consistently within the article. Frankly, there is no justification to change the article's language and no need for any banner which gives unneeded prominence to such an unimportant issue. Stephen Kirrage talk - contribs 22:28, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Language

message: Considering that scope of article seems to be whole almost half year long Battle of Anzio (which also redirects here), I think that article should be also accordingly renamed, as I think that "Operation Shingle" covers only landing operation itself, not the prolonged fighting afterwards.--Staberinde (talk) 10:33, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article name 

message: :Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *Support or *Oppose, then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.
*Support The nom is clearly right about the scope of the article. Neljack (talk) 02:28, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: Why are you adding cats to the Operation Shingle redirect? This seems to violate WP:RCAT. Explain. "For commonscat" isn't an edit summary that makes any sense to me. Chris Troutman (talk) 01:04, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redirects don't get categories 

message: There's been some recent edits to generally correct the name of the "Battle of Anzio" to "Frontline of Anzio and Nettuno".  Looking at these changes, and the articles at Anzio and Nettuno, I would suspect that the changes are more technically accurate.
But that's not the deciding factor at WP.  Per WP:COMMONNAME, we don't "correct" the names of things, but follow the common and sourced naming.  Thus we continue to have an article called Holy Roman Empire and not the more correctly named Schismatic German Association.
Some of the additions of "and Nettuno" might be helpful, but others may just be confusing readers.  From what I remember, the headlines and history books in America just said "Anzio".
I'm for trimming these back.  --A D Monroe III (talk) 23:48, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Frontline of Anzio and Nettuno" 

message: For the listing of forces, the 504th did not land by itself, but with its usual combat team in support. The 376th PFAB, and C company 307th AEB.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.247.138.52 (talk) 02:50, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  504th 

message: The intro mentions the Germans turning off drainage pumps to entrap and cause an epidemic, yet there is no discussion of this in the article proper.  Did this actually happen during the battle?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.223.116.151 (talk) 14:06, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: The area was prone to flooding and this made it a Malaria-prone locale.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.150.18.228 (talk) 10:01, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Drainage Pumps 

message: "...the companies of the 6th Battalion, Gordon Highlanders (of 2nd Brigade) were beginning to crumble and later lost 319 men as prisoners, three complete companies.[24]"
With three rifle companies generally making up a British infantry battalion, and the battalion - at full strength - being in the region of 800 men, a little clarification or rewording is needed. Did the remnants of the entire battalion surrender? Regards EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 17:09, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  6th Battalion, Gordon Highlanders clarification needed 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Battle of Anzio. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927034342/http://www.dodgeglobe.com/stories/013006/opi_20060130011.shtml to http://www.dodgeglobe.com/stories/013006/opi_20060130011.shtml
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:51, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I have new information on the SS Lawton B. Evans involvement in the Battle of Anzio and images of the crew should it be incorporated into this article?Wikiinfomation (talk) 03:03, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: How many and what Liberty ships arrived at Anzio on January 22 other than SS Lawton B. Evans? What ones other than SS Lawton B. Evans were involved in the battle?Wikiinfomation (talk) 02:42, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this one ship is getting disproprtionate coverage in the article; most ships there did pretty much the same things.  Anmccaff (talk) 20:50, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lawton B. Evans 

message: Can you support this with -any- contemporaneous cites?  Anmccaff (talk) 16:07, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  Bill Mauldin wrote a memoir, "The Brass Ring" that gives the whole history of Willie and Joe and also details his time in Italy, including Anzio. There is no particular connection between Anzio and the characters; they were stand-ins for all US Infantrymen, they were created before Mauldin's unit (45th ID) even went overseas, and they do not appear in all his cartoons. DMorpheus2 (talk) 16:16, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Yepper. Stock characters. A point often forgotten is that Willie and Joe "reversed", the personalities traded places, more or less, fairly early on. I think there is a real Anzio connection, though; the cartoon with Willie pointing out the good view the Germans had over the entire allied position at Anzio.  Anmccaff (talk) 17:09, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  By "Anzio connection" I did not mean to imply that none of Mauldin's cartoons were set there; lots of them were. I just meant that the characters did not originate at Anzio and it is completely random that some of the cartoons are set there; i.e., if Mauldin had been assigned to the Aleutians they would have appeared there instead. He usually drew settings from wherever he happened to be assigned or visiting at the time. DMorpheus2 (talk) 15:48, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, Mauldin's cartooning was essentially a trailing indicator of his own, and his unit's experiences. The main point I was raising was that it wasn't a "series" called "Willy and Joe," as a certain type of comics fanboi seem to think they are. Anmccaff (talk) 18:00, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mauldin "series?" 

message: Preserving here by providing this link. Please also see WP:MILPOP. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:25, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unsourced section on popular culture 

message: My father, Lieutenant Grayal L Farr was a platoon leader in the 1st Armored Division's 81st Reconnaissance Battalion (later Squadron). The "jeep patrol" that made it to the outskirts of Rome was probably his section of four M-8 armored cars. 
His battalion landed D+2 and he was immediately dispatched up the highway towards Rome with instructions to keep moving 'till they contacted German forces. From the outset radio contact was poor. They moved quickly, encountering only a few small units of Germans who happened to be along the route. By the time he had good communications he was reading Roman street signs. He was ordered to return to the beachhead immediately. On the way back he encountered and had brush contacts with German units also moving toward the beachhead. 
This is all recorded in an issue of "The Cavalry Journal." 16:18, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  First units to Rome 

message: This article primarily uses shortened footnotes. I plan to convert the remaining ref/citations to shortened footnotes so that the citation style will be uniform & consistent. Peaceray (talk) 14:15, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: ! Peaceray (talk) 20:23, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shortened footnotes 

message: I am removing the following text as apocryphal & without a reliable source:
:
Please note that I tried to search using the following criteria but found nothing reliable.
*
It may be that there is something in a book that Google has not indexed. If you can find a reliable citation for it, please add it back to the article. If not, please leave it out; we do not need to give credence to a fiction.
Peaceray (talk) 19:20, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removing Audie Murphy's apocryphal comment on MG John P. Lucas 

message: No mention currently of attacks on the Gustav line to draw German forces away from the beachhead? GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:02, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Allied preparations