Sourcing
editPolicy requires that articles reference only reliable sources; however, this is a minimal condition, rather than a final goal. With the exception of certain recent topics that have not yet become the subject of extensive secondary analysis, and for which a lower standard may be temporarily permitted, articles on military history should aim to be based primarily on published secondary works by reputable historians. The use of high-quality primary sources is also appropriate, but care should be taken to use them correctly, without straying into original research. Editors are encouraged to extensively survey the available literature—and, in particular, any available historiographic commentary—regarding an article's topic in order to identify every source considered to be authoritative or significant; these sources should, if possible, be directly consulted when writing the article.
Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject.
Common sources of bias include political, financial, religious, philosophical, or other beliefs. Although a source may be biased, it may be reliable in the specific context. When dealing with a potentially biased source, editors should consider whether the source meets the normal requirements for reliable sources, such as editorial control and a reputation for fact-checking. Editors should also consider whether the bias makes it appropriate to use in-text attribution to the source, as in "Feminist Betty Friedan wrote that...", "According to the Marxist economist Harry Magdoff...," or "Conservative Republican presidential candidate Barry Goldwater believed that...".
Bias in sources Questionable sources are those that have a poor reputation for checking the facts, lack meaningful editorial oversight, or have an apparent conflict of interest.
A common argument in a dispute about reliable sources is that one source is biased and so another source should be given preference. The bias in sources argument is one way to present a POV as neutral by excluding sources that dispute the POV as biased. Biased sources are not inherently disallowed based on bias alone, although other aspects of the source may make it invalid. Neutral point of view should be achieved by balancing the bias in sources based on the weight of the opinion in reliable sources and not by excluding sources that do not conform to the editor's point of view. This does not mean any biased source must be used; it may well serve an article better to exclude the material altogether.
Normandy
edit"Fought in Poland and with outstanding dash in France, where it was mainly responsible for the successful advance to Le Harve."
- German order of battle, 1944 : the regiments, formations and units of the German ground forces London : Arms & Armour Press; New York : Hippocrene Books, (1975).
- D'Este, Carlo Decision in Normandy London : Penguin, 2004.
- Operation Bluecoat
- Operation Goodwood
- The battle of Normandy had reached an apparent stalemate. Though the Allies had successfully invaded the continent of Europe and were well established ashore, the Germans had been able to form a defensive perimeter about them that was exceedingly difficult to penetrate. Operation Goodwood was Montgomery's attempt to break the stalemate and drive past Caen, to engage in an armoured battle in the plains before Paris. To achieve the breakout, SHAEF provided the services of the 8th Airforce and Bomber Command to pulverize a section of the German defensive positions. He also was given the use of a massive amount of artillery, which provided an advancing barrage once the bombs had stopped. Montgomery then planned to drive three armoured divisions through the gap. Montgomery's attempt to breakout was unsuccessful. Montgomery declared he was satisfied with the result. Eisenhower declared he was not. [1]
- Air Marshall Tedder, Deputy Supreme Commander at SHAEF, was very upset over the failure to make a break out, and wanted Montgomery to be dismissed for the failure. Probert p. 38
- Probert, Henry (1991). High Commanders of the Royal Air Force. HMSO. ISBN 0-11-772635-4.
- The pre-attack air bombardment by 1,676 heavy bpmbers and 343 medium bombers dropping 7,700 tons of explosives upon the defenders was the heaviest air assault ever attempted. Forest Pogue, official historian of SHAEF Pogue Supreme Command p. 188
- The Goodwood effort was an attempt to break out. von Luck p. 193
- The heavy tank battalion of Tiger Is was completely out of action for several hours, but by afternoon a number of the tanks had become serviceable again. von Luck p. 199
- Ambrose, Stephen, Citizen Soldier. New York, New York: Touchstone, 1997
Note: recommend not using Ambrose as a source due to controversy, but one could use Ambrose's sources as sources.
- First Battle of the Odon (Operation Epsom)
- Second Battle of the Odon
Tendenitious editing in Battle of Kursk page
editA number of editors have been having difficulty on the Battle of Kursk page with editor EyeTruth. The chief problem has been reverting edits despite consensus of opinion from other editors being opposed to his edit change. The reverts can be seen here, here and then here on 25 June. And again here and here.
References
edit- Notes
- Citations
- ^ Ambrose p. 58
- Bibliography