Talk:Omaha Beach/Archive 1

message: This article used to be much more interesting.  Photos.  Links to famous people who were near the beach on D-Day.  Dramatizations.  Now it is boring.  I'm gonna put it all back with a big regression edit.  Anybody who made the wholesale deletions can come out of the closet here, or just go quietly away.  Beanbatch 21:39, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Recent Quiet Deletions

message: I moved the following from Battle of Normandy but I don't have time to merge it in. 
However, there was another reason why Omaha beach became known as 'Bloody Omaha'. There were things which had to be done before the US infantry division arrived. Firstly, the US Air Force had to bomb German defences and Omaha beach. They bombed the defences so that the infantry would meet less opposition and they bombed the beach to create craters so that if the infantry needed to take cover, they could. The bombers missed by about 1 km. Also, the infantry expected tank reinforcements. The 741st tank division was, of course, a tank division not a naval one so they did not have much sailing experience. Therefore, their commanding officers just told them to aim for the steeple on the Cathedral at Coleville. Because of this, the 6 foot waves hit the sides of the ships not the front or back and had more surface area to hit. Therefore the ships sank 30-35 metres under the sea. If they had turned the ships around, because the Normandy coastline is diagonal, they would still have landed and the waves would have hit the front and back of the ships and the ships would have been safe. It would have made all the difference to the 741st tank division and the infantry they were meant to support. As a result, the battle was hectic, and the Americans had an extremely hard time capturing the beach head. The US troops had no tank reinforcements, no craters to take cover in and he German defences were strong and intact.
Only 2 out of 27 troops who were supposed to land at Omaha actually did. 1 in 10 men were shot as they streamed up the beach. 
DJ Clayworth 20:15, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The 741st Tank Battalion was not a "division" but a battalion--a unit of some 50 M-4 Sherman tanks. The bulk of its tanks were equipped to "swim" themselves to the beach without using landing craft--they were not "ships" but land vehicles. Omaha was a series of landing beaches, not one location. Most units landing at Omaha did not land on their assigned beach but did come ashore somewhere in the area referred to collectively as "Omaha Beach".--Buckboard 13:10, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Moved text

message: I've removed this, it was listed in the dramatisations section. Perhaps somebody confused D-Day/Normandy as a whole for Omaha beach. The only connection with the beaches I can recall was the Brécourt Manor Assault in episode two, but that was to silence guns aimed at Utah beach.--Mongreilf 08:11, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Band of Brothers

message: Unless I'm missing something, this video game mentioned has nothing to do with Omaha Beach or WWII.--Broux 12:40, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Conker's Bad Fur Day

message: I don't think Hein Severloh killed nearly 3,000 people. If that were true then nearly 90% of all American deaths on Omaha Beach would have been caused by him if there were 3,336 deaths as the stats say. 
The article that is referenced says he "may have accounted for about 3,000 American casualties, almost three-quarters of all the US losses at Omaha."
from that I have to believe that the article has its numbers wrong. Has anyone else seen anything about this person with any stronger estimates.
No, the German Wikipedia has an article on Heinrich Severloh and they mention nothing about the number of casualties he inflicted.  It just states he manned an MG-42, inflicted heavy casualties at Omaha, and was nicknamed "The Beast of Omaha."  And the periodical cited is hardly official.Mojodaddy 21:48, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As written it's acceptable if melodramatic. However, there were not 3336 deaths on Omaha--but total casualties. As pointed out elsewhere, the two are not the same, and the most common ratio of wounded to killed is 3:1. (Marine casualties at Tarawa in the Pacific were approx 3500, with 1000 killed, and casualties at Omaha were comparable.) Omaha is a big place (4 miles in length) and a single gunner's field of view would not have encompassed more than a single landing beach among the seven beaches. The likelihood of causing up to 75% of all casualties is grossly exagerrated, no matter what some "analysts" are quoted as saying.--Buckboard 13:17, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hein Severloh 

message: The grammar usage throughout the "Bloody Omaha" and "Breakthrough" sections is noticeably poor. Mojodaddy 21:52, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Grammar 

message: I hope this is a worthy effort. Aiming for a more encyclopedic entry, though it probably makes for dry reading and difficult comprehension. Any suggestions for making it easier to read/understand? Maybe splitting the whole into more pages? I will try and improve it in due course. Unless there is a big outcry against this version I plan on giving the same treatment to the breakthrough stage of the battle. --FactotEm 20:27, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nearly there. Need to add section relating to conditions on the beach until the draws were opened, reinforcement landings, establishment of the bridgehead and some 'tidying up'. --FactotEm 14:56, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Significant Edit of "Bloody Omaha" section 

message: On the basis that the map of Omaha beach originally added to this article had a GDFL-compatible license I've produced some manipulated copies to better illustrate the beach cross section and sectors where these come up in the article. Hope that's OK. --FactotEm 16:25, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Map image copies 

message: Some members of the Military History WikiProject have very kindly given some of their time to a peer review of this article. Their comments can be seen at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Peer_review/Omaha_Beach. I've made a start on incorporating their suggestions and I'll continue as I can in the limited time I have available for a while now. --FactotEm 10:46, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer Review 

message: The article describes Omaha as a "tragedy" (3rd paragraph, 1st sentence).  On what basis?  Heavy losses?  The beach was taken.  The "tragedy" statement begs for some follow-up analysis comparing losses, effectiveness, and strategic value, but no such analysis is offered in the current article. --Unabsorbed 18:09, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Or just re-wording? I queried the use of "tragedy" with the author of that change (see here). I didn't take it any further but still think the previous wording was more appropriate. --FactotEm 15:08, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tragedy? 

message: I'm not sure that it is appropriate to add qualifiers to the 'result' statement in infoboxes, and I will assume good faith for now for the recent attempts to do so. On the basis that technically the victory at Omaha Beach was neither "Phyrric" or "Costly" I have reverted the latest edit to do this. The justification for this is that allied planners expected considerably more casualties during the landings than actually occurred. The total casualty figures (killed and wounded) for all beach landings is between 5,000 (according to the Wikipedia articles) and 10,000 (source: D-Day Museum - http://www.ddaymuseum.co.uk/faq.htm#casualities). The planners estimated before the invasion that "a successful landing would cost 10,000 dead and perhaps 30,000 wounded, but were steeling themselves for much heavier casualties." (source: BBC - http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/worldwars/wwtwo/dday_beachhead_01.shtml). Compared to the anticipated casualty figure of 40,000 therefore I'm not sure that trying to qualify the situation at Omaha Beach in this manner is accurate. If there is a reliable source that does actually qualify the victory in this manner by all means add it in, but I ask that it is done so in the main article rather than the infobox. Thanks. --FactotEm 10:39, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't believe any qualification is necessary.  Info boxes do not require 'opinion' (and thus then referencing).  Statements of fact are required only.  Thus I agree completely with you Factotem, and I wll revert attempts at qualifying the stats too. Gillyweed 11:15, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Phyrric" and "Costly" American Victory 

message: The article doesn't say where the invasion force came from, which I believe to be Trebah, near Falmouth in Cornwall. Vernon White . . . Talk  22:41, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Trebah page has that photo as well... good source would help immensely. Jmlk17 00:23, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Where from?

message: On 10 September 2007, User:TomStar81 deleted the Gallery section from this article.  Will he or she please expain why.Anoneditor 01:41, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would suggest you contact them directly on their talk page; might get answered quicker. Jmlk17 02:51, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This was a result of the A-Class review that was completed recently. I have to say that I agree with the deletion. As far as I can tell images should appear in the body of the article and serve to illustrate the narrative. A gallery section tends to divorce the images from the prose. Having said that, your first picture of the Les Braves sculpture might work well as the last image in the article. Also, the 'assaulting the bluffs' section cries out for a bunker image but I have been singularly unsuccessful in finding a suitable and usable one from the period. One of the modern day images that used to be in the gallery might serve this purpose well. What do you think? --FactotEm 11:29, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am actually going to tend to agree with Factotem myself here. Jmlk17 06:31, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Fair point. The article ends with a paragraph on Omaha today. The problem with creating a sub-category for this is that there is not enough information there to warrant its own section. In both peer and A-Class reviews comments were made about short sections. I personally would also be concerned about too much information on Omaha today in an article that is specific to an historic event, especially as the article already pushes against size guidelines, but that would be a matter for concensus. I'm going to go ahead and insert the first second Les Braves image because I think it serves the article well as a terminator and because it also includes a sweeping view of the beach. Does this represent a reasonable compromise? One thing I would say is that from my reading so far gallery sections do seem to be frowned upon. --FactotEm 09:00, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree on the compromise, FactotEm.  I would have thought that the photo of the monument to the battle would also go in, but, as you say, there may already be space limitations.  Thanks again for your interest in this.  One thing that really struck me when I was there is how the look of the beach today fails to provided any comprehension of the enormity of the invasion there. Anoneditor 16:04, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Every now and then I just have to walk away when someone, often arbitrarily as far as I can tell, changes what are sometimes very carefully constructed sentences in articles I've worked on. It's taking some getting used to but that's Wikipedia for you I guess. --FactotEm 09:00, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Gallery deletion

message: Now that this has reached FA status, I'll discuss any significant changes before I make them.
I'm not sure that the dramatization section has a place in this article. Specifically it does not appear to meet the MILHIST MoS guidelines on the inclusion of popular culture references. Unless there are any objections I intend to delete this section. --FactotEm 10:59, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: On the basis of no opposition, the above referenced guideline and the Wikipedia guideline on trivia sections I've removed the section. --FactotEm 15:04, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dramatizations 

message: The article has many good points. Nevertheless it is marked very much by a military style, concentrating on the purely military point of view ("untested" battalions, "weakened" by "heavy casualties". It would be more suitable for wikipedia if it had a less military style. We should say "hundreds were killed" not "heavy casualties were sustained" etc.  Similarly, the references should include autobiographies of ordinary soldiers, not only the official sources. 86.207.169.207 10:47, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It has been said that the narrative can be a bit dry, is that what you mean about "military style"? Some care has to be exercised in the choice of words, specifically ensuring that what is narrated is supported by the source. Thus, to take your example, if the source talks about casualties (which includes killed, wounded and missing) we cannot assume that it can be accurately transposed to "killed", or indeed that the correct scale is hundreds ("heavy casualties" could mean tens or thousands, depending on context). Also, is there anything missing from the article that a specifically autobiographical source would add? --FactotEm 12:03, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

text: The military style is often used as camouflage to sound ultra-factual and discourage any questioning of assumptions. That is why military memoirs are so often deceptive. Valetude (talk) 21:09, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  military style 

message: The image of the assault taken by Robert Capa has been removed. I'm assuming that this was done because it was a copyrighted fair use image, but I understood that the fair use rationale justified its inclusion. What gives? --FactotEm 13:20, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Copy of response made on my talk page: "It is indeed a great picture, but it is an unfree image, and it does not add anything to the article that a free image could not do. Danny 13:31, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It shows the actual assault. Per Wikipedia:Non-free_content section 1 there is no free alternative that does that. --FactotEm 13:42, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of Capa's Image 

message: The BBC has just broadcast a documentary  where the historian for the US Army's 29th Infantry Division said that latest estimates for the casualties are between 4,500 and 5,000. Does anyone know how many people actually died there, or died of their wounds? -- SteveCrook (talk) 03:29, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: From what I've read/heard/seen, it was about 2,000-2,500 killed, with about the same wounded.  Not entirely sure myself though... Jmlk17 03:39, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: They said that they were the accepted figures until fairly recently. But now they've done more research and revised the figures upwards quite a lot. They also mentioned that allowances were made for up to 6,000 casualties on Omaha beach alone -- SteveCrook (talk) 07:14, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's sorta weird... I've been searching for a bit now, and can't find any good sites with any decent numerical information. Jmlk17 07:57, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Remember that casualties = killed, wounded and missing. The official figures covered the extended campaign, not D-Day itself, which is why the figure is so difficult to pin down. I don't have time to track through the sources (internet cafes are expensive), but one of the articles current sources does list the casualty figures published by the two Divisions involved for D-Day, and when I was expanding this article, the current figure given was the most reliably accurate I could find for the 6th of June. --FactotEm (talk) 14:58, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I, too, have seen many different numbers for the total casualty count. However, in this article, there are some inconsistencies. The table at the top-right of the article indicates 10,000 Allied, 4,200 Axis casualties. In the "End of Day" section, we see numbers listed totalling ~5,000 Allied, 1,200 Axis casualties. I don't really care which number we go with provided a) it's backed by the most recent/credible source, and b) it's consistent throughout the article. Thank you. Urstadt (talk) 21:14, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Casualties 

message: Reverted the latest attempt to qualify the outcome in the infobox as pyrrhic - see Talk:Omaha_Beach/Archive_1#"Phyrric" and "Costly" American Victory for comments on this. --FactotEm (talk) 18:22, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Pyrrhic" victory 

message: How did people get photos of the battle? Wouldn't they be shot and killed?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.47.187.170 (talk) 19:40, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: They basically just had to get in there and shoot (photos, not guns).  And unfortunately, some did may the ultimate price. Jmlk17 23:38, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The first photo in the article was taken by the crew of the landing craft, but Robert Capa, a civilian, famously went in with the early assault waves (the second wave I think). Unfortunately we can't include any of his photos in the article because they are copyrighted, but there are a few of his Omaha Beach images in the wikipedia article on him. The story goes that he risked his life only for an over-excited lab technician back in England to screw up the developing process, and only a handful of the pictures survived.--FactotEm (talk) 10:33, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photos 

message: Should there be a mention of him?  I feel that his actions warrant a shout-out of sorts 24.44.50.109 (talk) 03:55, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a reliable source issue that tends to preclude mention of his alleged exploits in this article. The subject was thrashed out, almost literally, here. --FactotEm (talk) 08:45, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Heinrich Severloh]] 

message: I've undone this edit, which added another map to the end of day section. My reasons are...
*The existing image adequately illustrates the situation at Omaha at the end of the day;
*The new image was general in scope, including all 5 D-Day beaches, rather than specific to Omaha;
*It's representation of the situation at Omaha, of a single contiguous lodgement, is at odds with the narrative and the existing map, which shows isolated footholds;
*The additional image ended up sandwiching text, which is a MoS no-no.
--FactotEm (talk) 08:59, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's surprising to see this historic image rejected this way.  What this map depicts is the situation as it was known to headquarters at the close of the day on June 6, 1944.  It is normal for this type of document to differ from later analysis because not all of the relevant intelligence information had been received and processed yet.  This in itself is noteworthy in a way that cannot be compared to maps that are simply nonspecific or wrong, because what this represents is the information available to commanding officers at the time when they made decisions.  There can be no better visual representation of that important perspective than a reproduction of the actual map used on that day.  The success or shortcomings of a military operation often relate to the quality of intelligence.  So I ask the editors of this page to consider that the article is considerably more informative with both types of image--historic and modern recreation--available for the reader to cross compare. DurovaCharge! 10:00, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: And if this article was about the Allied intelligence relating to actions on D-Day, that would be a valid point. It is, however, an attempt to describe the actual progress at Omaha Beach, for which post-event analysis proves to be more accurate as a source. Having said that, I can see your point in including the map to illustrate the confusion generated on the day. It cannot however go into the End of the day section. That section is too small to accommodate both images, and the current map illustrates the narrative, whereas the new map contradicts it. Would you be happy to replace the preceding aerial view image with this new map, suitably captioned to convey the confused state of Allied intelligence? --FactotEm (talk) 10:39, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture addition 

message: Could anyone tell me what the x shaped metal things used on the beachs are called?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.26.1.211 (talk) 01:19, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you thinking of Czech hedgehogs, by any chance? EdJogg (talk) 01:30, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  X shaped metal things?

message: Is it just me or are the actual quotes missing from the two grey boxes? I mean the ones that were probably meant to give statements of "Captain Richard Merrill, 2nd Ranger Battalion" and "Unidentified lieutenant, Easy Red sector". Looking back through history they seem to have been missing for some while now. Betabug (talk) 12:18, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, they seem to be there now. EdJogg (talk) 14:11, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quote boxes without actual quotes? 

message: Anyone who looks in a map sees that this town is far east from Omaha Beach (while Vierville sur mer is really on it). Where did one see this localization for the beach?189.24.161.19 (talk) 23:35, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  St. Honorine des Pertes???? 

message: I have once again removed this statement:
…AT OMAHA BEACHES DURING THE PRE-LANDING PHASE, NOT ENOUGH NAVAL GUNFIRE WAS PROVIDED” by a factor of 10, resulting in an excessive number of American casualties.<ref> http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USN/rep/Normandy/Cominch/ Amphibious Operations Invasion of Northern France Western Task Force June 1944 Chapter 2-27. From Hyperwar, retrieved 2008-06-02</ref
While the reference indeed says what is in capital letters, the subsequent comment  by a factor of 10, resulting in an excessive number of American casualties. is not stated in the reference and consists of OR.  I think the discussion in this section indicates that there were issues with naval support and therefore sticking this statement in, without integrating into the text or explaining it does nothing for this article.  It is an FA and we need to be particularly careful how we edit new material into it and not simply stick in new ad hoc references as they are found.  Interestingly, just below this statement in the reference is a report from German authorities explaining how effective US/Anglo naval power was!  Gillyweed (talk) 22:59, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  I understand that you seem to have a personal view about this.  Your last sentence seems to confirm your position. However, WP is not a place for personal arguments.  The thing is, you can't simply synthesize statements viz: that firepower was too low ' by a factor of 10, resulting in an excessive number of American casualties.  The source does not say this.  The source says specifically that "the amount of naval gunfire to be delivered in a given situation cannot be arrived at mathematically" and yet that is what you have attempted to do.  Please review WP:SYNTH, WP:OR and WP:3R.  Thanks. Gillyweed (talk) 23:01, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thank you for revising your statement.  I have moved it to better integrate into the text, other wise it does not fit with the narrative.  I hope you think it is now sufficient. Gillyweed (talk) 01:41, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Naval Support 

message: I have read in several books on the subject of WWII and Overlord that the main reason most of the DD tanks didn't make it to shore was that they were put to sea much farther out than intended (as well as the rough weather, of course; but it was just as rough on other beaches and they largely made it ashore there).  Moreover Gen. Bradley's staff had refused (something to do with insufficient time to train crews, I recall) the British offer of other kinds of specialized armor such as flail tanks for clearing paths through the minefields and AVRE vehicles armed with Petard mortars to destroy obstacles, casements and pillboxes.  These decisions would seem critical to the outcome on Omaha, yet neither are mentioned in this article even as suggestions or propositions that had been made but disproved by historical research.  Why?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.32.35.99 (talk) 13:53, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Largely because the article seeks to document what actually happened on the day, rather than provide any kind of in-depth post-event analysis of why things happened the way they did (which, I think, would over-extend an already lengthy article, not to mention fill a huge article all by itself). BTW - as I understand it, the DD tanks were launched further out to sea than at other beaches, and thus exposed to the rough weather for longer, with disastrous consequences, in order to keep out of range of the big guns at Point de la Percee. FactotEm (talk) 19:08, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Mmmm, this isn't a particularly long article really, and analysis about the failure of the DD tanks, and reasons for various other failings and problems do need to be examined. There's been some very good stuff recently done on this exact area of research; William Buckingham has something on Omaha, for example. Skinny87 (talk) 19:37, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Before I worked on this article, my understanding was that the lack of tanks cost the assault troops dear. I was actually quite surprised to learn that they "…saved the day. They shot the hell out of the Germans, and got the hell shot out of them.", and that a number of them survived the day, so to talk about "the failure of the DD tanks" doesn't seem accurate to me. To be sure, they suffered high casualties in the assault, but so did the engineers, yet the lack of success by the engineers in clearing the beach obstacles doesn't seem to get nearly as much post-event comment as the lack of tanks. In truth, as I see it, both suffered dearly, but both achieved enough to, in their respective ways, contribute in making what could have been a disaster for the Americans a success, albeit the most costly of all the beaches. I prefer to have the article simply state what happened on the day, and if there is to be any post event analysis, then spin that off into a separate article, which could cover the lack of other specialised tanks, the failure in intelligence, the alleged inadequacy of naval support, the failure of air bombardment, the alleged cowardice of British assault craft crews, and all the other, often parochial, armchair-generalling after the event that inevitably accompanies these things. FactotEm (talk) 20:13, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see why there needs to be a seperate article - it could easily be covered here in a few paragraphs. Off the top of my head it would probably cover the failure to get the DD tanks to shore; the reasons behind the American forces lacking the specialized armour the British forces had; alleged cowirdice of British crews, although that will have to be very well sourced to show it probably didn't happen/wasn't widespread; and If I remember correctly, Buckingham has a good section on why there were such heavy casualties on the beaches - something to do with poor organization in terms of splitting up platoons and fireteams when they were training. Oh, and some comparison with the other beaches might be an idea. I'll dig out Buckingham as soon as I can - I'll be away for two/three days - and Adrian Goldworthy's book which deals specifically with Omaha (about 600 pages!). Skinny87 (talk) 20:29, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough. I look forward to seeing the results. FactotEm (talk) 20:34, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

text:  There was a documentary on UK TV a few years back that looked into survival rates among the DD Tanks in terms of actually making it to the beach.  As I recall, the conclusion was that, along with the distance issue, the launch point for the Omaha tanks meant they were trying to swim diagonally to the swell rather than travel with it. This made them much more vulnerable to swamping.  --Sf (talk) 08:33, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  DD tanks and other specialized armor 

message: I've removed references to dramatizations from the lead. This is why...
1. Before reaching FA status this article had an extensive and, IMHO, entirely irrelevant 'Dramatizations' section (it even included a reference to Conkers Bad Fur Day), which added nothing to the understanding of what happened at Omaha Beach.
2. Video games and Hollywood fiction do not, it seems to me, have any place in articles such as these. They do not appear in other works on the subject, why should they here?
3. They go against Wikipedia guidelines on Trivia (at least, the last time I looked at them).
4. Their placement in the lead is entirely against the purpose of the lead, which is to summarise the main body, not introduce information that is ignored in the main body (relevant or not).
FactotEm (talk) 19:17, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, and I've removed such sections from this article before. Unless they are very well cited and relevant, they have no place in articles. Skinny87 (talk) 19:33, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dramatizations (II) 

message: Last line above the contents:
"The Americans unaware of modern warfare were very lucky that the Belgian forces came to the rescue and the operation ended well."
 
What's that all about?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.251.157.196 (talk) 16:20, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Belgian forces? 

message: Hi again, all, esp Factotem, I think I'm gonna finish the job I started a couple years ago now... lol
Apparently I never commented on the talk pages? Anyways, I think I can tell where I left off, so I'll start copy editing again where I think it needs it. Seems like this worked out pretty well last time, let's see what happens now. :) Eaglizard (talk) 06:45, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Howdy! 

message: I as a grandson of a World War II American vetran would like to know why the fuck this article is written in BRITISH ENGLISH? This was primarily an American fought battle and as such should be written exclusively in American English.
Or is it that the damn British are re-writing our history for us now? Is that it? --Yoganate79 (talk) 03:33, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Seeing as you asked so nicely. Because it took the considerable efforts of a Brit to do justice to such a tremendous feat of arms and bring it to the FA status it so thoroughly deserves, and whilst(!) that Brit made every effort to use 'armor' in preference to 'armour' and the like, he still got it wrong in some places. I see you have set about correcting this. Fill yer boots. FactotEm (talk) 21:36, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: As an American who was in the US Army, and read a few history books, I would rate your "British" efforts as: Outstanding, keep up the good work, America can use the efforts of more like you! Frank (talk) 18:14, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia rules are quite clear. If an article is written in standard English it should not be changed to American English, and vice versa. To quote from the Wikipedia Manual of Style: "When an English variety's consistent usage has been established in an article, it is maintained in the absence of consensus to the contrary". There is no need for a racist anti-British outburst here.Royalcourtier (talk) 00:53, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Per WP:ENGVAR when a subject is closely associated with the US, as this one is, it is appropriate to use US English in place of British. Sorry, but British English is not more "standard" than US  English by any Wikipedia policy or guideline or manual of style.  It is just as if some British English speaker had started an article on Abraham Lincoln, or if a US English speaker began an article about London. It can  be changed to the more closely related variety of English. If it is about a topic with no close association to either country, it should remain in whatever version was first used. The article already used American spellings "defense" and "armor." I changed one use of "colour" to "color" for consistency per WP:ENGVAR.  Edison (talk) 02:46, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: British English

message: I am not committed to the reference being there, just that I played the game and it gave a pretty good feel of the battle, so I thought it might be a good reference for people to understand the battle. Just thought it would help as there are not a lot of games around on the subject. I did make some entries on a couple of battles, not to advertise as I don't have any dog in the hunt except the games were fun. I can take those out if it is felt warranted. 
Sdguitarman (talk) 00:28, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: This link is not relevant; links should provide valuable information beyond what is provided in the article. A link to a gaming site does not do this. You also have to pay for the game, and the game is limited to a certain type of computer. See wp:ELNO.-- BC  talk to me 03:54, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  I entered a reference to a site with world war two games and Omaha Beach and it was deleted