Talk:Operation Varsity

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Operation Varsity article.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

	Operation Varsity has been listed as one of the History good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
Article milestones Date Process Result May 1, 2008 WikiProject peer review Reviewed May 1, 2008 Good article nominee Listed Current Status: Good article

	Germany Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles related to Germany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project and help with our open tasks.
GA	This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

	This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
GA	This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information and associated task forces: This article is currently undergoing an A-Class review. This article has had a peer review which is now archived. Associated task forces (nations and regions): British military history task force Canadian military history task force German military history task force United States military history task force Associated task forces (periods and conflicts): World War II task force

The following user(s) are actively contributing to this article and may be able to help with questions about verification and sources: Skinny87 Climie.ca (Primarily formatting, refs, & MoS) This in no way implies article ownership; all editors are encouraged to contribute.

Contents 1 Largest in history 2 Good Article 3 Improvements 4 Casualties 5 Peer Review Request 6 Order of Battle 6.1 Allied OoB 7 Questions about some of the text 8 B-Class & Thanks 9 GA Nomination 10 GA-On Hold 11 A few points 12 Safekeeping

[edit] Largest in history

Operation Varsity was not the largest airborne operation in history. The largest airborne operaion was operation MARKET GARDEN. It took place in the fall of 1944. It involved three divisions: The US 82nd and 101st Airbone divisions, and the British 1st Airborne Division, reinforced by Poles. (Band of Brothers, Stephen E. Ambrose) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackroyfan (talk • contribs) 02:34, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Varsity was the largest single airborne operation. Market Garden was three geographically distinct drop zones; for a similar reason, the jump into Normandy isn't the single largest, because the forces were also split apart geographically. Hope that helps. Parsecboy (talk) 05:31, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Good Article

I intend to make this article a Good Article, but it will require a lot of work. If whoever edited this article previously could tell me where they found the quote from the US Military Academy which stated that Varsity was the ideal airborne operation, I would be very greatful. Skinny87 (talk) 21:59, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Added in {{Fact}} tags to make it easier for me to see where I need to add citations and begin rewriting the article. Skinny87 (talk) 10:38, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Improvements

This is a list of improvements the article needs. Editors are welcome to add or detract from them!

1. Order of Battle - Is it required? It looks messy right now and I'm unsure how to add to it or clear it up
2. Battle Section - Needs expanding quite a bit. Can't do much until I get to my books back home
3. Casualties - Need citations in the Infobox
4. Pictures - No pictures as of yet, not sure where to find any.

Skinny87 (talk) 19:11, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Casualties

From Major Ellis, British Official Campaign history

Pg 291

Places 6th Airborne losses by nightfall at around 1,400 men dead wounded or captured out of the 7,220 who were landed. Ellis notes that these losses were lighter then expected.

He also states "-but a quarter if the glider pilots were casualties" unsure if he means out of the total of 1,400 men or not.

The Division claimed around 1,500 POWs.

17th Airborne, Ellis same page states they landed 9,650 men, incurred about 1,300 casualties and took around 2000 POWs.

Ellis also claims 21 transporters out of the 114 involved (think he means 17th airborne only) shot down and 59 damaged. 16 bombers from the 8th Airforce flying supplies also brought down.

Page 292

states that on the 24th 56 aircraft was lost in total.

Page 294

17th Airborne suffered from the 24th-29th March 1,346 casualties--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 11:01, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Enigma - Does Ellis state how many casualties 6th Airborne took between the 24th and the 29th, so I can add that to the Post-Battle section? Skinny87 (talk) 11:16, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Just checked the OH again, Ellis doesnt mention anything else on casualties sorry--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:43, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Glider Pilots

I have just read somewhere on the net , that a lot of the Glider Pilots were R.A.F. pilots on secondment to make up for the casualties to the Regiments during Market Garden , this may account for the high casualty rate as they I presume would not have been Infantry trained . I am having problems relocating the article but I am sure the search was "Glider Pilot Regiment" JS1 (talk) 07:57, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I believe Ellis backs this up, ill double check again tonight to see if i can confirm.

[edit] Peer Review Request

I noticed the peer review request on the Military History main-project page. Since I've got quite a bit of feedback (most of it good), so I'm going to use the talk page of the article instead. I've skimmed through the article and fixed a few minor niggles (adding a "br" command in the infobox for casualty statistics, etc). Anyways:

• I'm not entirely satisfied by the Citation Density in certain sections, particularly "Background" and "Aftermath". Y Done
• I think you need to expand the "Battle" section. You've done a great job of explaining the background and Aftermath (almost too good on the aftermath, which I'm getting to), but very little when explaining the actual battle. Y Done
• I've reformatted the last ref on the "Bibliography" section with WP:CITET templates. I'd also suggest finding the ISBN #s for all of the books sourced. If you need assistance with this, feel free to message me on My Talk Page. Y Done Skinny87 (talk)
• I think the lead warrants some expansion. Y Done
• This article would benefit from the addition of some images, maps, etc. It's generally difficult to read massive blocks of text without losing track and becoming somewhat bogged down by it. In addition, you've got a lot of quotes within the article's text. I'd suggest taking these out of the main sections, and putting them in a quotebox. I've pasted the template for a Quotebox at the bottom of this section. Y Done (Quotes, not Images/Maps as of yet) Skinny87 (talk) 11:51, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
• I think that the aftermath needs to be split up. In all honesty, that section is huge. I've been editing wikipedia for over a year, and I have yet to see an "aftermath" section that was that big with a continuous text. Although it may benefit from images (see above), I think that the aftermath would benefit from being split into several subsections to allow for more flow. Y Done (I think) Skinny87 (talk)
• Last (for now), I think that the order of battle should be incorporated into the text itself. However, if you're unable to find the OOB for German forces, I'd just scrap it altogether. Y Done

You've done a very good job on this article in the last three days. Cheers! Cam (Chat) 01:10, 22 April 2008 (UTC) Y Done (Allied OoB scrapped and edited into text, German OoB all but done) Skinny87 (talk) 11:51, 27 April 2008 (UTC) If you have further questions, or would like assistance with any of the suggestions above, feel free to contact me.

Feel free to use this template. Just copy your quote into this section And add your source here.

I've been helping Skinny87 here and there with this article, and we are trying to find some good images that can go in the text. We've only found a few thus far, but they have uncertain copyright status, so they're a no-go at this point. I have emailed the Fort Bragg historian, who may be able to provide us with some PD photos or maps. We'll have to wait and see on that aspect though. I've got some good books, but unfortunately, all the photos they have are of the amphibious crossing of the Rhine, none of the airborne forces. Parsecboy (talk) 04:02, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Wow! Thanks everyone, this is so great! I can use all of this information and criticism to improve the article, and thank-you for the prompt responses! Skinny87 (talk) 08:41, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

There are three citations labeled "Ibid", which books did these come from? --EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 12:55, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

That would be the book directly above them. Also, does Ellis mention any 6th Airborne casualties between the 24th and 29th like he does for the 17th Airborne? Skinny87 (talk) 12:58, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Thought so, was just checking just in case. I dont recall Ellis stating the losses past the first day for the 6th Airborne like he did for the 17th. I will check once am home though, am at work bored lol--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 13:01, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm in the same position really - can't get a hold of any of my books until Thursday. Skinny87 (talk) 13:09, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Reference 13 needs to stay as 'Ellis' otherwise it looks like it came from Harclerode, when it didn't. Ibid is only used when a book has been used and a citation from the same book is used after it but before a completely new book. Skinny87 (talk) 13:15, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I knew this would happen. When you edit, move, add, merge or simplfy new citations the order gets shifted around.
Is "Ibid, p. 564" from Harclerode? Do you know where the other two are the same?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 13:20, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Which is why the use of these terms (ibid, op cit and so on) is deprecated - see WP:FN. David Underdown (talk) 13:27, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Order of Battle

[edit] Allied OoB

Units

• US XVIII Airborne Corps
  • British 6th Airborne Division
    • 6 Parachute Battalions, 5 British, 1 Canadian
    • Air Landing Brigade
  • US 17th Airborne Division
    • 6 parachute battalions

Aircraft

• C-47 Skytrain ("Dakota"): 540
• C-46 Commando: 72
• Gliders: 1,300
  • Airspeed Horsa :392
  • General Aircraft Hamilcar: 14
  • Waco/Hadrian

Just saving this here for future reference. I've scrapped it altogether in the article and I'll start adding in the actual numbers and units into the 'Battle' section. Skinny87 (talk) 08:51, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Questions about some of the text

The best German formation the Allied airborne troops would face was the First Parachute Army, although even this elite division had been weakened from the losses it had sustained in earlier fighting, particularly when it had engaged Allied forces in the Reichswald Forest in February.

-From the last paragraph from the Background section. Highlighted section being the problem.

I havent edited it out just yet as am unsure ... first, the army was presumably made up of several divisions and second which division is the elite part referring too (as i seriously doubt the entire army was)?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 10:31, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

My fault, I meant 'formation' and I've changed it now. Skinny87 (talk) 08:58, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I wouldnt worry too much about it :)--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 10:31, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

---

were transported in 836 C-47 Dakota transports, 72 C-46 Commando transports, and more than 900 Waco CG-4A gliders. The 6th Airborne Division consisted of some 8,000 personnel transported by 42 Douglas C-54 and 752 Douglas C-47 transport aircraft,

I have removed the link from "Douglas C-47" in the article as it linked to the same article as the "C-47 Dakota" did. However my question is, are these the same aircraft or are they different models/versions of the basic C-47?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 10:40, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

They're the exact same aircraft. Douglas is just the manufacturer, while Dakota is what the Brits called them. They were Skytrains in American service, but most people know them by the British name. Parsecboy (talk) 12:48, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

lol thanks ... am no good when it comes to planes! Should both terms be used within the article then, i.e. 6th airborne using C-47 Dakotas and the 17th airborne with C-47 Skytrains? Or just pick one and stick with it?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 13:11, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

We should probably just stick with Dakota, as using both might confuse the average reader, and most probably wouldn't recognize Skytrain. Parsecboy (talk) 13:18, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] B-Class & Thanks

I would like to take a moment to say thank-you to all the editors who helped me bring this article up to B-Class status. It is very much appreciated. Here's hoping we can get it to GA status! Skinny87 (talk) 10:38, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] GA Nomination

I have nominated the article for Good Article Status, as I believe it has a fair chance of becoming a GA Article. As a note to whoever reviews this article, please note that no pictures or images can be added until the Imperial War Museum fixes the technical problems it is having with its online collection system. The only images of Operation Varsity that can be ratified/verified are on this site, but the website is currently unavailable, having been allowed to expire by the IWM. Skinny87 (talk) 17:20, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Images aren't a requirement for GA. If any of the editors/reviewers give you heck about this, let me know. We've been encountering this problem for some time (editors who think images are a requirement). Now, if you were to go for FA, then you would require images, maps, & diagrams. However, GA doesn't need that. Just a note. Good luck with the nomination! Cheers! Cam (Chat) 05:55, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I know its not a requirment but i think a map of the drop zones/battle area would be an excellent addition, is there not one laying around anywhere?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 08:43, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Speaking of maps, I've just come across this one, which I just uploaded: Image:Operation Varsity map.JPG. It's not the best map, but it does show the general area, and it's public domain, so that's always a plus. If and when we find better ones, it can always be replaced. Parsecboy (talk) 13:11, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

If someone could add that image to the article, I'd be very greatful. I'm working on adding/uploading some images at the moment Skinny87 (talk) 14:28, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I've found several suitable images, by searching 'Operation Varsity' on this site IWM, but I have no experience uploading the images or with copyright. I believe the images there can be used, referring to the boilerplate/copyright info on the image located [[1]], but I have no idea how to upload them. If someone else could, I would be extremely greatful. Skinny87 (talk) 18:28, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] GA-On Hold

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

I am going to have to put this article on hold. It is well written, but the references need to be put into the correct format, and there are very few images to illustrate it, save a few maps. I'd suggest getting possibly pictures of the battlefield, and any other pictures you may find. Cheers, ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ ^{Drop me a line}§ 13:09, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

What is wrong with the reference format? The approach used in this article is fairly standard, with brief details given in the notes, and then full information given in the references section (using the standard cite templates).

What exactly is the correct format, the way they have been done is the same why they are dozens of articles. Am somewhat confused.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 13:32, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Use the CiteWeb format, and cite all of it. ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ ^{Drop me a line}§ 13:41, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Am sorry but am really confused, the referances are all using the cite book which seems approbirate, where and what is the exact problem? :S--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 13:57, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I believe that the reviewer is referring to the unformatted internet sources, ref 2, 5 and 20. Please see Template:Cite web for examples of how to use the correct format. Also, note to the reviewer: images are not required for Good Articles, but this article does include two, both of which are in the public domain. As it stands now, both images are correctly tagged and the captions are suitable, so it does not fail criteria 6. María (habla conmigo) 14:03, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. Geez, what part of GA's DON'T REQUIRE IMAGES do they NOT UNDERSTAND????? Cheers! Cam (Chat) 00:42, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, I tried to clean the references up but I must've done something wrong. Perhaps someone else could cite them in the proper way? Skinny87 (talk) 15:44, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I fixed your previous try so you can use it as an example; the <ref name=""> tag just got in the way. It should be:
<ref>{{citeweb template}}</ref> or <ref name="whatever">{{citeweb template}}</ref>. María (habla conmigo) 16:20, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Ohhh, thanks! I'll get onto that in a little while. Skinny87 (talk) 16:26, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Right, they're all done. That should be the last thing in the way of achieving GA status. Skinny87 (talk) 18:07, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Passing GA-ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ ^{Drop me a line}§ 20:16, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Not bad going guys, it was only what 15 days tops from Skinny stating this was his intention and for it to be realised :) --EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 12:03, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Btw cheers María for showing how to do those cite templates when citing sources, will come in handy for a few other articles am working on.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 12:05, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] A few points

I hadn't read the article since its expansion, so I have a couple of comments.

"The operation is notable for being the last Allied airborne operation of the conflict"

This needs serious qualification (well, serious to me). Allied as in joint-nationality operation or Allied as in United Nations? Conflict as in World War II or conflict as in European Theatre of Operations? There was a parachute assault on Rangoon on 1 May, 1945.

How would 'last major/large-scale Allied airborne operation of the conflict?' sound? Skinny87 (talk)

Edited to read 'large-scale' Skinny87 (talk) 17:21, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate the need for a "Post-War Criticisms" section, however the first part of the section is not very persuasive.

"…one historian, Barry Gregory, wrote frankly that ‘Operation “Varsity” was not entirely necessary...’ Thus it can be said…" First off, one historian is hardly a consensus, and someone might want to add whichever book Gregory wrote that in to the References, where it is notably absent. I thought that such structures as "Thus it can be said", or "It is arguable that" were frowned upon in Wikipedia anyway.

Can you point me to where such a policy says that? If it does I'll remove and rewrite those references. I'll add in Gregory's book immediately, as I can't believe I missed that! As to Gregory being a consensus, I didn't think it had been written that way, but let me take a look. Skinny87 (talk)

The earlier reference to "some historians who have analysed the campaign" surely needs to be expanded. I'm sure this'll go down badly, but can a better source be found than Max Hastings? The quote in the box reads just like a piece from an editorial he might have written as a newspaper editor - an over-dramatic blurb.

Perhaps a tad overdramatic, but I don't see what's wrong with Hastings, even if he is a tad populist. I did try and balance the criticism with a positive quote box. Skinny87 (talk)

The part about aircraft and the criticism of the C-46. There were of course many problems with that aircraft - however it was most definitely NOT a new aircraft in 1945. New in theatre perhaps, but this ought to be qualified.

I'll qualify it immediately, good catch! Skinny87 (talk) 17:06, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Those are my beefs with this article as it stands. I'm sure they are refutable, but I see that this article is headed for FA one day so I'd like to see it as accurate as possible. Cheers, --Harlsbottom (talk|library)

Righto, I think I've addressed all your points. I've removed Hastings as the positive quotebox I thought was there isn't (blame me not ooking at the article for a few weeks!), I qualified the first and last points, and got rid of the bits about 'Thus it can bed said' and so forth - looks shorter but much better now. I'll try and add in Gregory's book as soon as possible - I have it, but I'm not at home where the books is at the moment! I hope that's everything, but any more comments would be more than appreciated, thanks! Skinny87 (talk) 17:15, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

And in fact I've managed to find Gregory and added it in to the References Section! Skinny87 (talk) 17:19, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks for the quick response! The part about wording - to me at any rate it read like the editor of the article was making the argument rather than the historians, hence my comment. Thanks for addressing everything else, it all sounds fine. Cheers, --Harlsbottom (talk|library)

[edit] Safekeeping

'Operation Varsity was a folly for which more than a thousand men paid for with their lives...' [1] British Historian Max Hastings, Armageddon - The Battle For Germany 1944-45

"Forward on Wings of Flame to final victory"[2] The British Prime Minister Winston Churchill wrote these words in the autograph book of Field-Marshal Montgomery after witnessing Operation Varsity