Talk:Brandenburgers

message: somthing's fishy with the example about the fall of Maikop, it's reported here that it fell the 9th of august 1941 which is completely wrong (it actually happend in late 1942). The germans were nowhere near maikop in 1941. Maybe the dates are wrong? Yet since the information in the example is not correct I that it should either be corrected or removed. andreas_td 14:14. Mars 1, 2006 (UTC+2)
Dates were completely wrong. This Folkersalm's raid occured in October 1942. This has been corrected.--ansbachdragoner 23:36, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: question regarding section "Operation Barbarossa - Ostfront"

message: Hello, I have made some articles about Operations to Ireland that involved Bandenburgers.  You can find them all listed at IRA Abwehr World War II.  Fluffy999 16:50, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Abwehr II.

message: Where is the source on the 'Motto' "Hie Gut Brandenburg Alle Wege"? Because it absolutely makes no sense in German... "Hie" is no word and "Alle" can't be capitalized in this 'context'. Besides, the German Wiki-page on the topic does not mention any motto at all. 88.217.32.22 (talk) 23:00, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regiment Motto 

message: "invasion of Crete, ..  infiltrate India, " have the writer of this topic any source of that and from where has he this information? --87.183.251.250 (talk) 19:32, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  operation areas Brandenburger 

message: "Despite the increased size, the Brandenburgers were still highly skilled. The training was physically and mentally demanding, with focuses on foreign languages, small unit tactics, parachuting, .."
a lot of the soldiers of Brandenburger are Germans who lived befor in countries where the planned operation area will be, they speak the language and they know the living in this countries, that will be speciellty of them. Some only one bataillon will be trained for parachuting, not all of them --87.183.251.250 (talk) 19:39, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Training and Structure 

message: "Again, the Brandenburgers were to play a role, with a large 54 man team from III./Regiment Brandenburg (the Sudeten and Slavic battalion) seizing the vital dockyards at Orşova on the Danube a day before the opening of the campaign."
I have seen this statement on several other sites. There is only one small problem - Orșova has been part of Romania since 1919, and in 1941 Romania was an ally of Germany. From who did the Germans seized the docks? From an allied country? 
 it states that: "Dressed in civilian cloths a detachment of 54 Brandenburgers of the II. Battalion took “Iron Gates” at Orsova on the Danube during the invasion of Yugoslavia. This allowed German river traffic to continue during he campaign." Doesn't this mean that they actually secured the opposite bank of the Danube instead of conquering a dockyard from an allied country? Flavius T (talk) 23:25, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Brandenburg actions in Operation Marita 

message: please not all words can be given an s if you mean more than one, in german correct the unit and the soldiers will be named Brandenburger not Brandenburgers --87.183.231.233 (talk) 06:08, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  re-name Brandenburgers vs. Brandenburger 

message: Brandenburgers  atrocities against civilian population are completely missing in the article.
--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 00:46, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Their atrocities are missing in the article 

message: Brandenburgers - 91.65.17.225 (talk) 21:17, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, some of the information was helpful. --Hyperboreer 00:27, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  More Brandenburgers (German version) 2003:F3:23C4:6563:E1AD:DC8A:82A5:78C0 (talk) 23:55, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Just saw this on en.metapedia.org

message: I reverted to the more or less sourced version diff; please do not restore material without providing citations. Please see WP:V and WP:BURDEN, and follow these policies and guidelines. 
As an aside, Slideshare is not a reliable source. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:38, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: please do not restore material without providing citations. The material in Wikipedia must be verifiable, per WP:V. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:22, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

text: Could you please indicate which references were added? The only one I can see is Slideshare, which is not RS. The vast majority of the content in the article as it stands is uncited. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:08, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

text: No, I would not call Gordon Williamson (writer) a reliable source. And citations are required for all content; it's not up to the judgement of editors whether to add citations or not. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:34, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

text: could you please indicate which cited material was removed? K.e.coffman (talk) 18:53, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

text: Well, feel free to add those points. But the rest of the material, I'd say 90%, was not cited. I'll restore the better cited version so it can be taken it from there. K.e.coffman (talk) 16:15, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

text: The problem is that unsourced material was restored, contravening WP:V and WP:BURDEN. I plan to submit this disagreement to WP:3O and see what they say. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:51, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

text: Please, slideshare is not reliable. Anything hosted on it has no guarantee that it has not been modified. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:20, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know "Slideshare" but it may have editorial oversight problems; I leave that to others; as for Gordon Williamson, I would not consider him an RS historian; but a popular author who has pov problems. Kierzek (talk) 15:04, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

text: I also agree that Gordon Williamson cannot be assumed to be a reliable source, especially on topics such as this given his POV regarding the military of Nazi Germany. As Lemongirl942 notes, the version of the book being referenced here cannot be assumed to reflect what's in the actual book. Moreever, the source is a blatant copyright violation of a book published by Osprey Publishing, which Wikipedia should never link to. Nick-D (talk) 10:27, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unsourced content 

message: The account that was edit-warring the above changes has been blocked for abusing multiple accounts: permalilnk. 
K.e.coffman (talk) 01:24, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Blocked account

message: For uniformity sake, consensus is needed as to the causal use of the unit name in the article. Sometimes the name "the Brandenburgers" or "Brandenburgers" are in italics and other times, not. If written as the formal official German name of the unit at a certain time, then yes, italics per MOS should be used; but otherwise in causal reference to the unit, in general, I believe italics should be removed. Thoughts? Kierzek (talk) 13:04, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Given I am not sure what the protocol on Wiki is regarding naming conventions, let's just go with whatever you decide is best here, Sir. I am OK with either disposition myself.--Obenritter (talk) 17:40, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I would say italics are not required. Reducing italics would also improve readability, but I don't feel strongly on this point. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:49, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Italics are used for non-English language terms that don't appear in an English dictionary like Merriam-Webster. Having said that, this is a word that is spelled the same in German and English, so I don't see the point of italics. Peacemaker67  (click to talk to me) 23:56, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: It has been changed accordingly. Kierzek (talk) 21:34, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need for name in italics? 

message: This edit has removed citations: diff. If this material is covered in Hamilton 2016, then please add a citation. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:03, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent edit 

message: I am removing the line from the last sentence of the Operations section that mentions the Brandenbergers simply disappearing at the end of the war.  This sentence uses [43] Higgins' book on the Maikop Oilfields raid as a reference as a source but the book does not mention the Brandenberger's "Simply disappearing."  This seems to be some one's romanticized fantasy about their escape end of the war.   If anyone has a source please include and re-add.  128.92.140.26 (talk) 14:46, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disappearing at the end of the war