Talk:Bombing of Dresden/Archive 7

message: Currently, the article lists number of victims "reputable estimates are 25,000-60,000". I dispute this
formulation. What does "reputable" mean. Are Columbia encyclopedia and Encarta encyclopedia disreputable??
As much as I do not like Microsoft, I can't agree that they are. And Columbia is an elite US University,
is its encyclopedia not reputable? They both list number of victims from 35,000-135,000. This figure was
disucssed here extensively Talk:Bombing of Dresden in World War II/ Archive 1, that was before
this current edit war started, and the figure 35,000 - 135,000 was in the article for 2 years. I think
it should clearly be listed as one of reputable source (or do not use reputable, but list the figure and
the source, Wikipedia should not make judgements according to NPOV policy. User:MarkSop 05:47, 12 Feb 2005 (UCT)
I agree. Unlike in the Tsunami, in Dresden didn´t show up more and more dead bodies. Instead, they found around 1.800 more dead bodies in 1945, around 300 later and then nothing more. But you´re right, no one knows how many were burnt completely in the firestorm. That´s why some even serious sources always come up with these big figures, although they are all estimations only, none of them based on documents. Look up which sources they give, then perhaps quote them telling the reader that they are not verified yet. - Here´s the name of the exact source for the buried:
*"Lagebericht 1404" (situation report) of Berlin police on March 22, 1945 approves the "Tagesbericht 47" (daily report 47) of that same day in its first unmanipulated version (the one without the faked added zero at the end): They counted 18.375 found dead and estimated they would find 25.000, maybe up to 35.000 as whole number.
*The acts of the "Bestattungs- und Marstallamt"
(Burial Office) found in the  "Stadtarchiv" (city archive) of Dresden in 1993 (not 1995, my mistake) approve around 25.000 dead, which were buried until April 17, 1945. In this number are those victims of the February 14 and 15 raids already included. 
*Then you can say: Minimum was 25.000 plus those found in 1945 later, making it at least 27.000, plus those missing or burnt (careful: speculation) about at least 10.000, making it somewhere between 37.000 maybe 40.000. That´s what most historians I read of suggest. 
No original research: does not mean to just copy numbers of encyclopedias who estimate only themselves, I think. These figures above are commonly presented by most German experts, including the historical commission of Dresden who searches again right now. It´s the most reliable we´ve got so far IMO. Greetings, Jesusfreund --217.229.122.239 17:14, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Number of victims 

message: Hopefully, I'm not offending any of the neutrality considerations by editing the reconciliation section. I think it is surprisingly lacking in content, at present. Have added a bit about the cross made of nails from Coventry, which was originally on the roof of the cathedral, being given to the Frauenkirche. However, I've been unable to find out who has made the donation. Might be the church, might be the state. --MJW 81.154.1.63 22:19, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Na siehmaleinerguck! Meinst du, dass die Freunde das nicht selber wissen? --Brummfuss 00:30, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Reconciliation

message: Hi, it seems that our article is making efforts though many people with a half portioned knowledge try to fumble with it. By the way, I'd like to know where youve got these number from: 22 hospitals and 72 schools (cited in oure german article). It's a pretty paradise for nurses and teachers on 15 squarekilometers of a city - or was it square miles? Greetings from Dresden, I look outside the window, and nothing is destroyed. Is it real? --00:30, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: German Article

message: Overall, the purpose of the article is apparently to make the point that the bombing of Dresden was certainly a war crime. Other points of view are either buried in long passages or simply deleted out of hand. This makes for an unbalanced article. 
#It should be made clear that Churchill originally approved the bombing - with or without misgivings. And that he only AFTERWARD started to call it bad. (Unless of course he didn't actually approve it at first - in which case this should be documented.)
#The section originally entitled "Was it ... a crime?" (later, it became "Controversy") should INCLUDE one or two statements from moralists or others asserting that the bombing was not a war crime. When a question is used to introduce a section, all relevant answers should be given, not merely the SINGLE POV which a particular group of advocates is pushing.
I think I've been pretty patient so far. But I'm considering going to the next step in conflict resolution: creating an RFS. I'd rather discuss the issue here, but I'm not getting much of a response. You're leaving me little choice, Philip. Consider this my last attempt. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 20:04, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)
:Uncle Ed I like you wording but along with the Taylor comment in the opening section I would like to go back to the original wording in the initial paragraph as was agreed in a straw poll 2 months ago. Because exactly what happend before that is happening again the first section is getting bloated with POV. I would like to move both additions into the Controversy section. If you look through the archive you will see that it was throughtly debated at the time Philip Baird Shearer 20:24, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Things missing from the article

message: I have once again removed Philip's opinion about the implications of what Grass and Jenkins said. They called Dresden a "war crime." I do not know what the implications of that are, as I am not an expert on military law. Even if I were, I would still have to quote someone else if I wanted to discuss the implications. Philip will not do this. He just keeps inserting his own views. I am therefore bringing this section to the Talk page and I am requesting a reference, and I will keep on removing it until a reference is supplied:
 This implies that those allied commanders who ordered the action and the airmen who carried it out should have been tried as war criminals. As no Axis personnel were tried at the post-war Nuremberg Trials for participating in the decisions on, or execution of, assault by aerial bombardment on defended enemy territory, there is no legal precedent available to indicate that these actions constituted a war crime.
Philip might like to note that his opinion piece contradicts itself. Just as there is no legal precedent to indicate whether Dresden constituted a war crime, there is similarly no legal precedent to indicate that calling it such necessarily implies that the pilots, navigators, and bombers be tried. SlimVirgin 21:41, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)
Also, I'd like to note this: if Philip's claim is as obviously correct as saying "the Thames flows through London" (which he argues above), then it will be easy to find an authoritative source for it, which is all I'm asking for. SlimVirgin 22:26, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)
:I agree, it looks like original research to me. Jayjg (talk) 22:31, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Personal essay removed for sixth time

message: Hopefully, I'm not offending any of the neutrality considerations by editing the reconciliation section. I think it is surprisingly lacking in content, at present. Have added a bit about the cross made of nails from Coventry, which was originally on the roof of the cathedral, being given to the Frauenkirche. However, I've been unable to find out who has made the donation. Might be the church, might be the state. --MJW 81.154.1.63 22:19, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Na siehmaleinerguck! Meinst du, dass die Freunde das nicht selber wissen? --Brummfuss 00:30, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Reconciliation