|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Operation Epsom article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
|Archives: 1, 2|
|Operation Epsom is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.|
|This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on June 30, 2009.|
|Current status: Featured article|
|This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot I. Threads with no replies in 90 days may be automatically moved.|
- I have checked and double checked the sources i have on this operation and their doesnt appear to be any. New information is welcome however.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 17:57, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
Do you think that this,
"....the clash of two modern armies [is] one huge battle spread over space and time, in which the smaller battles fought by the army corps...[would] form the tactical encounters of traditional battles. These large numbers of battles that would take place far away from one another as the individual corps or groups of corps came into contact with the enemy would be welded together by the commander-in-chief into a 'complete battle'. The individual [smaller] battles would be given significance by the commander-in-chief's plan. Just as a commander of old gave units particular goals on the battlefields of days past, a modern commander-in-chief would give specific goals to his army corps. Each would play a part in the overall plan. 'The success of battle today depends more upon conceptual coherence than on territorial proximity. Thus, one battle might be fought in order to secure victory on another battlefield.'"
- I believe the opening sentance is possibly spot on; although i think you could make the same connection between the ancient battlefield and the modern depending on how you look at it. I couldnt really comment on the last part though.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:51, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
banal? this sentence dont fits for allied in normandy. i guess its more for complex and faster operation like barbarossa. the many little operations maybe secured victroy in cean but were not neccesary. he talks about offensive actions with many little actions at the same time with little place for failures... my opinion... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 19:26, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Removed redundant citations from the infobox, put casualty data in a new section, ce'd several sections, moved citations from mid-sentence to improve flow and generally spring cleaned.Keith-264 (talk) 14:39, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
This was messaged to me: "Re your recent edits on Epsom etc, pls refer to the talk pages before editing again, you're adding information from one source among many and it needs to be incorporated in the text, not used to contradict material already there."
I added those tank numbers because i noticed that none were in the article so i don't see how this contradicts existing material?! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Justsomequickedits (talk • contribs) 18:21, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, perhaps I used the wrong term, the point I was trying to make is that with such comprehensive articles, a new source needs to be incorporated a bit more carefully. I could see that you'd tried to take Enigma's request into account but if you check, you'll see that the material in the infobox isn't cited; that's because it is in the main body of the article and the infobox refers to it. Your data needs adding to the casualties section and possibly the analysis section first. I'll leave a message for Enigma too. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 18:36, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
- Napier, S. (2015). Armoured Campaign in Normandy June–August 1944. Stroud: The History Press. ISBN 978-0-75096-270-4.
Yes i added the book into the list at the bottom of the article. I have the kindle edition which has no page numbers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Justsomequickedits (talk • contribs) 19:00, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
- Bugger! That will be difficult. It looks like a reliable source but we definitely need the page numbers to use it. I had a look on Amazon but there's no look inside. PS have you seen Sign your posts on talk pages: ~~~~? Regards Keith-264 (talk) 19:32, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
It is possible to read some pages of the book on google.books. Sadly they have no page numbers either. I was consulting the amazon help pages and it looks like it isn't uncommon for kindle book to have no page numbers. I could provide the relevant "position" numbers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Justsomequickedits (talk • contribs) 20:31, 4 May 2016 (UTC) Justsomequickedits (talk) 20:34, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
- Could you write the information here? If so, I'll ask on the Milhist talk page for someone who has the book to add the page numbers and we can put the material into the article with citations and then add it back to the infobox. PS have you seen Sign your posts on talk pages: ~~~~ ? You need to add four ~ after your comment. RegardsKeith-264 (talk) 20:50, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)This discussion has been had before and never reached a conclusion. Some people seem to think that location numbers from a Kindle book aren't reliable. Personally I think that is rubbish as the location number will remain the same regardless of reader, font size etc and location numbers are as reliable as a paper version. As long as you specify it's a Kindle edition of a book and add the location number using the
|location=parameters I don't see an issue. Nthep (talk) 20:59, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
"In their first battles, the British armoured units suffered significant casualties. Using informations from the war diaries of the units involved and the daily 21st Army Group summaries, the total tank lost can be determined" A table follows "In the attempted breakthrough, exactly 150 tanks had been knocked out or required repairs needing more than 24 hours"
When the author says knocked out or needing repairs more than 24 hours he means casualties of the Z and Y category which means no light casualties ( Category X ) which could be repaired at the regimental workshops. I can't copy paste out of the kindle app and have to type it manually which isn't feasible for every citiation. For the German forces his numbers seem to match what is already in the article so i didn't copy this paragraph. German casualties in Napirs book generally are the net loss of operational tanks and thus don't differentiate between damaged or destroyed tanks. 21:16, 4 May 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Justsomequickedits (talk • contribs)
- That seems ok but I'd like to see something of his sources, because this is a perennial point of conflict between sources. I'll see if there's a library copy available. If you can add the numbers and definitions of the type of tank "casualty" here rather than the labourious reproduction of a chart with any dates, that would help, PS please add four ~ after your edit. RegardsKeith-264 (talk) 21:46, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
You can check the section of his book via google.books. Is it allowed to post links here? (talk) 21:56, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
- Found that but I don't speak German so I don't know what the location is called.Keith-264 (talk) 22:43, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
The location is displayed when you read a book via kindle. Unless you have the kindle app and buy the book you can't see the location, i'am afraid. The location for the British tank losses is 4315. Location in the German Kindle app is called Position. The entire system feels ridiculous to me anyways. Why not just page numbers.... Justsomequickedits (talk) 22:51, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
- It would be simpler. I'll have to stop until tomorrow, I'm a bit knackered but thanks for taking the time and trouble.Keith-264 (talk) 23:21, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
What is the name of the section the information is part of, or if a section title is not available, what is the chapter? Part of the sfn template allows for this, and doing so has not came up as an issue in GA or A Class reviews. For example, see my use of Forty on the 80th Infantry (Reserve) Division (United Kingdom) article. Regards, EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 12:27, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
The informations from Napiers book are currently not correctly presented: "150 tanks damaged or knocked out" is not what Napier says in his book. The 150 are heavily damaged or knocked out tanks, the figure excludes lightly damaged tanks. Given the general distribution of X casualties of other battles its likely that the total number of damaged + knocked out is 200-250 but the number is unknown so it should just be added that light casualties are excluded. For the Germans the figures are correct since those include every type of casualty. Justsomequickedits (talk) 15:06, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
- Looking at the source on Google Books, Napier does not speculate on "lightly damaged" tanks. What has been entered into the article accurately reflects the information Napier presents. Notating that a "lightly damaged" criteria is missing (not specifically stated by Napier, nor defined as to be meaningful) is misusing the source to attempt to artificially inflate the statistics and render them unhelpful considering such criteria is not defined.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:05, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
The book stats that those 150 were either heavily damaged tanks or tanks knocked out/destroyed. The author goes to great lenghts to explain the difference between X Y and Z casualties in earlier chapters. Quoting the author as saying 150 damaged or knocked out would be incorrect the author himself says "exaclty 150 tanks had been knocked out or required repairs needing more than 24 hours". Besides that, the current version is also factual incorrect since the meaning is unequivocally destroyed and tanks so heavily damaged they were struck off from the unit inventory. The number for "lightly damaged" tanks is unknown. While in itself this doesn't seem like an issue it is problematic that the German numbers use a different methodology. The article doesn't reflect that. You guys seem to be senior editors here and i think its up to you to decide i just wanted to lay out the facts and my opinion on the matter. Maybe iam just overly anal. "150 heavily damaged or destroyed tanks" would certainly be more factual correct. The information box maybe can't refeclt such details but the article can i assume. Justsomequickedits (talk) 18:31, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
edit: Quote user EnigmaMcmxc " Notating that a "lightly damaged" criteria is missing (not specifically stated by Napier, nor defined as to be meaningful". Thats incorrect he specifially excludes "lightly damaged". Justsomequickedits (talk) 18:33, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
- Have you read the footnote that goes with the details in the Casualties section? Keith-264 (talk) 18:35, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
- You have to infer (from what Napier wrote) that he decided to exclude "lightly damaged" tanks. I would argue - based off reading the few pages related to the discussion - it was not brought up because it was irrelevant or pretty much meaningless. The different methods of counting casualties is not just a part of the realm of tanks, the same issue crops up with how infantry casualties are counted (in particular what the Germans and British though infantry casualties were in the First World War etc.). Napier does not specify the number of "lightly damaged" British tanks, therefore we should not add a note to state he avoided talking about the issue but there probably was some.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:02, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
Might I suggest that recent the good faith attempt to sort out the citations created a mess and that replacing the motley of citation styles with sfn refs would be the most efficient way of sorting it out. NB it might help if you set up a page like User:Keith-264/common.js and install importScript('User:Ucucha/HarvErrors.js'); harv errors show up in red (the citations section is covered in red).Keith-264 (talk) 07:58, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
- Napier, 2015, loc. 4315