Talk:Operation Mincemeat/Archive 1

Glyndwr Michael

I notice that the picture of "Martin"'s grave has the inscription about him being Glyndwr Michael. I imagine this was added in the mid-1990s after it "emerged" that he was likely "Martin". Just curious who added it, as the identity of "Martin" has since been revealed as another? Pennywisepeter 16:08, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Doing a little research I found that modern rat poisons kill by causing internal bleeding which would have certainly tipped off the pathologist if the rat poisons of 1943 had used similar methods. A little more digging revealed arsenic was a common (though not universal) was common in rat poisons available in 1943 but pneumonia is NOT one of the listed symptoms of arsenic poisoning. The HMS 'Dasher' story has similar problems. It is said that John Melville died as when the ship "blew up" (suggesting an explosion of some sort), but the synopsis of the pathologist report shows no indication of any of the things (flash burns, bruises) one would expect from the body of a person that died in when a ship "blew up". I think some effort into seeing if the accounts address these issues or they are ignored should be made.--BruceGrubb (talk) 21:35, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

HMS Dasher was sunk by an internal explosion - doesn't mean the entire crew would have suffered burns etc. The Dasher theory sounds entirely plausible to me, and the article needs to be tidied up to remove the inconsistencies between the Dasher paragraph and the earlier one about the rat poison victim.68.44.187.12 (talk) 18:09, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Older posts

How could the Germans have possibly have been stupid enough to fall for something like this? Did they not have a map of the Med. Sea? Did they not realize that it would be much easier for the Allies to invade Sicily? Captain Jackson 19:23, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Of course it's easier to do that. But logic is one thing, Hitler's mindset is another. While Mincemeat sought to deceive the Germans on where the true invasion site would be, it also played on Hitler's legitimate fear of an invasion of the Balkans, considered as a "soft underbelly". And if you think that Mincemeat was a one shot deal, think again: prior to the Normandy invasion on June 6, 1944, the Allies played up Hitler's fears again with Operation Zeppelin, part of Operation Fortitude. This operation sought and succeeded in deceiving the Germans that the Allies were going to invade the Balkans, thereby diverting a considerable part of forces intended to defend the Normandy area to defend it. RashBold ^Talk 20:41, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Remember also that Churchill had a track record of instigating and supporting 'bold' military actions in unexpected places - For example the Dardanelles campaign in WWI. The soft underbelly phrase was coined by Churchill as well. Lisiate 02:57, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

No, it absolutely would not have been "easier" to invade through Sicily. You have to remember that the whole idea was to reach the German industrial heartland in the Ruhr as quickly as possible and to knock out most of the enemy's ability to continue the war. One invasion point carefully considered was the Netherlands, which had deep harbors -- but Allied tanks couldn't negotiate the dunes and the Germans could always open the dikes. Denmark was considered, but hauling the entire (huge) invasion force up and down the narrow approaches was not possible, and it was too far from existing Allied supply lines. The Germans mostly expected the invasion to come through the Pas de Calais, which was the closest point to Britain, so they had already heavily fortified the cliffs and put five panzer divisions there, compared to one in Normandy. The south of France was too far from anywhere to be useful. And if the Allies had invaded "the long way" through Sicily, they would have had to stage it all in North Africa and then fight their way up the length of Italy, with Germany having plenty of time to concentrate all its forces ahead of the invasion. And remember that all the top Allied planners at the time gave the invasion only a very small chance of success in the first place, based on a long history of disasters in such attempts, from the Armada on. No, Normandy was one of only a very short list of realistic choices. It's amazing that they were able to fool the Abwehr, who were far from stupid. (Remember the utter failure of Cockade the previous year.) --Michael K Smith^Talk 16:06, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

The purpose of the Talk page is to discuss issues relating to writing the article--not to arguing about the merits of a WWII plan itself or wondering what was in the minds of the Germans at that time.QuizzicalBee (talk) 18:20, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

---

Some of the information under "Precedents" is innacurate. The deception plan at Alam Halfa in 1942 did involve a jeep and a map, however no corpse was used. I know this having interviewed the Chief Intelligence Officer under General Horrocks at this time, who arranged, oversaw and literally witnessed this incident. 11 July 2006.

No, the information is correct. See, in particular the detailed account given in this link. RashBold (talk · contribs) 00:54, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I added the link to the IMDB movie of the operation - The Man who never was. Dougsnow 08:25, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Various edits

There was not enough room in the edit summary window, so I will put a bit more detail here;

1. Added a brief mention of the film in the intro.
2. Reduced the number of 'citation needed' tags.
3. Reduced the number of 'Allied'/'Ally' 's (three in one line).
4. Reduced the number of 'Churchill' 's (three in one line).
5. Replaced 'was never' (a bit clumsy) with 'have not been'
6. Reduced contractions per MOS ('couldn't', 'wouldn't', etc).
7. Wrote ranks in full at first mention.
8. Introduced Hilary Saunders.
9. Deleted 'in the annex' - the annex to what? The article doesn't say. I don't know; anyway, it is irrelevant.
10. Reduced the 'and's.
11. Added the 'Use British English tag; this article only involves the British (as far as English speakers are concerned).

There are many others, but these few give an indication that there is still a lot of work to be done on this article.

RASAM (talk) 23:04, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

HMS Dasher section: Assumed fact. No citation for "official" Navy recognition

The HMS Dasher connection section is an important part of the story.

There have been many many attempts to discredit the idea that Glyndwr Michael's body was used in Operation Mincemeat.

But this section seems to me to be mostly uncited.

For example the 2007 Scotsman article citation seems to apply to the entire section.

The article does not, it seems to me, provide a citation for official Navy-wide recognition of a Dasher crewman as the body:

It is believed to be the first time Britain’s armed services have recognised his role.

It appears to be just a local Cyprus-based memorial service.

Also this section omits an earlier Dasher conspiracy theory that Dasher sailor Thomas Martin's body was used.

See Daily Telegraph January 3, 2010, retrieved May 8, 2010

Without exhumation there would seem to be no certainty as to the identity of the body used.

Caltrop (talk) 14:42, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

The article by K. Gottlieb "Mincemeat Postmortem: Forensic Aspects of World War II's Boldest Counterintelligence Operation" published in Military Medicine, 2009 Jan;174(1):93-9, indexed at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19216304 and freely available on several Web databases including Highbeam and Findarticles, argues from a scientific and sociocultural standpoint that the body of a Welsh tramp probably with missing and rotting teeth would not have fooled anyone. And, further, that experienced pathologists performed an autopsy. The argument ought not to be dismissed too quickly: official secrecy is just as (or more) often maintained to avoid embarrassment than for any substantive purpose and government denials, even many years after an incident, should not be given too much credence. Andygx (talk) 17:05, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

==The article is too dismissive of the Dasher theory, for which the circumstantial evidence is overwhelming. As is mentioned the "smoking gun" is the very fact that the original body and the Seraph were sent to Scotland which makes absolutely no sense and for which no explanation was ever given; there is also the coincidental timing of this happening 3 days after the sinking of the Dasher when the bodies of the dead crew had started washing up on shore. Then there is the problem of the original body already having known signs of decomposition and also being able to have a fresh body that would exhibit accurate signs of drowning. Put 2 and 2 together and the answer is obvious, the section needs to be rewritten to give much more weight to these facts.Bob80q (talk) 14:17, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Impact on later operations

• "During Operation Market Garden, the invasion of Holland in September 1944, a complete operations order with maps and graphics for the airborne phase of the invasion, which was not supposed to be brought with the invading troops, was inadvertently left behind on a transport glider. The operations order fell into German hands, but the Germans, convinced that this was another attempt at an Operation Mincemeat-style deception, actually deployed their forces contrary to the information before them. This was referenced in both Cornelius Ryan's book A Bridge Too Far and its 1977 film adaptation."

Chapter 10 of A Bridge Too Far states that it is inconclusive whether the operations order was found on an American or British glider or whether it was found on the body of an Allied soldier.

"ary targets in the region. Hitler, believing this was a deception similar to Operation Mincemeat, ignored the documents, having already been convinced by numerous deceptions that the main invasion was still to come through the Pas de Calais.[17]" not true hitler always thought the invansiaon would be in normandy and insisted that sector be reinforced it was the high command that was fooled into thinking pas de calais!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.249.43.204 (talk) 01:22, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Campaignbox

Would it be wise to pop this campaignbox →

on the top right hand page given the importance of this Op? ChrisWet (talk) 16:47, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Post-mortem

"The Vice Consul arranged for a pathologist, Eduardo Del Torno, to carry out a post-mortem. He reported that the man had fallen into the sea while still alive and had no bruises, death was due to drowning, and that the body had been in the sea between 3 and 5 days. A more comprehensive examination was not made because the pathologist took him for a Roman Catholic due to a silver crucifix that hung from his neck as well as a Saint Christopher plaque in his wallet."

Could someone please spell out the details for readers who are stupid (like me) and explain why the fact the he was presumed to be Catholic explains the lack of a comprehensive examination? The reference is also quite brief: "It was important that this body was taken for a Roman Catholic, as it was considered unlikely that the Spanish authorities would carry out a proper post mortem upon a Roman Catholic." If I had to guess, I'd say Catholics have religious objections to being dissected, but I shouldn't have to guess. 82.95.254.249 (talk) 23:38, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I am no expert, but I think you are on the right lines. The short answer -- as I understand it -- is that, at the very least, dissection was long controversial in the Catholic world, and widely believed to be prohibited. To add a little more detail, some sources argue that the Papal Bull in question (from the middle ages) did not strictly refer to scientific or forensic dissections (little-known in the West in those days), but to a then-prevalent practise, when people such as crusaders died far from home, of cutting off the flesh from their body and boiling the bones in order to carry then home for burial. Nandt1 (talk) 22:28, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I believe the article is inaccurate. According to Ben Macintyre, in his book "Operation Mincemeat," a much more detailed book than "The Man Who Never Was," Dr. Eduardo Fernandez del Torno (properly Dr. Fernandez, not Dr. del Torno) was a capable pathologist who had great misgivings about the diagnosis of drowning. In his (Dr. Fernandez's) notes, he explains all the findings that led him to believe that the corpse had been recently dropped into the water and had not spent days in the ocean. He also noted that he was rushed by the diplomatic personnel who were interested in the documents, and he was not given time to analyze the fluid from the lungs. Had he had an opportunity to do so, he would have inescapably concluded that the corpse had not died from drowning, and was therefore a fake. He has never been given enough credit in this episode.98.170.214.134 (talk) 23:10, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

"The identity of Major Martin'

I retitled the section to better fit what it described. I also rewrote a few sentences for clarity (ie making it clear whom the sentence is about). I also added some wikilinks to sections that seem most relevant. I'm a little unsure about linking St Pancras hospital, but added it to give an idea of the area. What I didn't do- I have no particular expertise on WW2 or intelligence operations. Because of that and since I don't have the references available, I left the stuff that needs a cite alone. Someone with more knowledge about the subject will have to take care of that; I just do cosmetics. ;) --MeDrewNotYou (talk) 16:00, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Request for a photo

Any chance that the tombstone of Glyndwr Michael (a.k.a. Captain (Acting Major) William 'Bill' Martin, Royal Marines) in Spain could be photographed, & a copy added to this & Glyndwr Michael's article? -- llywrch (talk) 16:59, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

The only photo that I am aware of of Glyndwr Michael is that of his corpse at this link and a better quality one here, but not in english. I think it would come under fair use, since the corpse has been long buried and I am unaware of any other pictures of Glyndwr and it is, therefore, not replaceable. HOWEVER, I hesitate to do it because editors have come down on me hard before even when I have posted Fair Use pictures that meet the rationale one hundred percent. Myopia123 (talk) 03:08, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Apologies, I missed 'Tombstone' when I read 'Request for a photo' and 'Glyndwr Michael'. In any case, I think it's still worthy of a discussion. Myopia123 (talk) 03:14, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

decomposition

As described in archives, book and film, the body was preserved in a sealed container with CO2, significantly slowing decomposition (more so than normal refrigeration); the storage of the body in this medium could have been carried out shortly after death. Confirmation of the date of CO2 storage could significantly reduce the probability of the Steele's claims. Apart from that, it is not clear why the Steeles refuse to believe the official version. Also, there seems very little need or for the Royal Navy to NOT give a reasonably complete and accurate account.--Petebutt (talk) 02:11, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Image suggestion

The article looks a bit bare w/o an image in the infobox. Would it be worthwhile to move File:Major_Martin.jpg in the infobox & provide a more expanded caption? K.e.coffman (talk) 01:29, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't think so, but I don't think it looks bare without an image. I'm also never keen to see long captions for infobox images, as I think infoboxes work best with short snippets of fact, rather than long explanation. I also think that the Martin image does its job better where it is, rather than being disassociated from the chronology up at the top of the page. All the best, The Bounder (talk) 05:36, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Secondo quanto risulta dai Documenti da me consultati a Roma, negli Archivi Militari (di cui posseggo fotocopie), e alle discussioni intavolate all'epoca, risulta che da parte degli Stati Maggiori delle Forze Armate italiane e e dei Comandi tedeschi in Italia l’operazione di sbarco degli in Sicilia era attesa e, contrariamente a quanto troppo spesso viene affermato con troppa enfasi, non generò alcuna sorpresa nei comandi dell’Asse, dal momento che non servirono ad ingannarli i vari espedienti realizzati dagli Alleati.

Il più famoso fu quello del cadavere di un uomo deceduto in Inghilterra di polmonite e che, sotto il nome fittizio di “maggiore Martin” e per simularne la morte per annegamento, fu mollato in mare dal sommergibile Serap e fatto arenare sulle coste spagnole di Cadice, con lettere contraffatte di alti ufficiali britannici che indicavano la Grecia quale obiettivo dello sbarco. Nessuna forza tedesca, com’è stato sostenuto per vantare il presunto successo dell’Operazione “Martin”, lasciò la Sicilia che, anzi, fu per quanto possibile rinforzata. In definitiva l’Operazione “Martin” non servì a nulla.

Francesco Mattesini — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.45.233.224 (talk) 12:58, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Operation Animals

The following information has been repeatedly deleted from the section "Military situation":

"Within Greece, at the behest of the Special Operations Executive, the resistance movements (chiefly ELAS) mounted Operation Animals, which involved widespread sabotage and attacks against the German lines of communication during June and July 1943."

The only explanation given for the deletion was that it was "too tangential". Really? It was mounted solely as part of the deception for Operation Husky, no less so (and probably more so) than all the deceptive manoevres and exercises, and dummy tanks and aircraft in Syria and Palestine.

This sentence is properly sourced, relevant to the overall deception plan for Operation Husky, and should be reinstated. HLGallon (talk) 13:42, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

References

As it is "relevant to the overall deception plan for Operation Husky", then it would be great in the Operation Husky article (where it doesn't appear to merit even a passing mention). However, it is too tangential to Operation Mincemeat, as opposed to Husky. - SchroCat (talk) 13:45, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

I see. Therefore you would also delete all the stuff about deception measures in Syria. They are no more relevant. HLGallon (talk) 13:51, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Something of a straw man there, but no. - SchroCat (talk) 13:54, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

You either include *all* deception measures in the paragraph, or none. A dummy tank in the Middle East is no less tangential to "Mincemeat" than active operations in the area to which the overall deception applies. That "Animals" is too tangential seems to be your sole opinion, going by the article's history. Unless other editors are prepared to support your view, I intend to restore the sentence. If you wish to treat that as edit warring, take it to the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. HLGallon (talk) 14:13, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

And going by the article's history, you seem to be the only one keen on forcing it back in. I suggest that, unless you wish to edit war needlessly, you wait until others have a chance to comment. If they don't, then the STATUS QUO is that it remains out - that was the situation when it went through PR and FAC. Animals seems too tangential to appear in the Operation Husky article too, as it is not mentioned, even in passing there): perhaps you'd be best off working on adding it there, where it is of more relevance than it is here. We already cover some measures in Greece as well as a quick look at the measures taken in other territories. This is background, not core to this article. Looking at the source it's hardly too concrete in covering the text claimed, (including no connection to ELAS for the work done). - SchroCat (talk) 14:19, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

I'd put it in, it seems to me that the background section of the article in dispute is contextual and the disputed sentence is no more or less relevant than the rest of it. Why not put it in a footnote if you think it is peripheral, even in that section? Keith-264 (talk) 21:35, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

extended content

May I suggest that the energies of editors interested in the article would be better spent on copy-editing the article and re-thinking the layout? Altering the melodramatic header titles or equalising the length of paragraphs would be a good place to start. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 21:46, 20 November 2018 (UTC) May I suggest that would be a crap idea? Why equalising the length of paragraphs? That's just bad English: paragraphs do not need to be equal - they should reflect the content, not the length of the line. A paragraph per point of discussion or argument is good English, not mixing them up so a change in subject mid-way through a paragraph jars and raises questions about the connectivity of the subjects. There is nothing "melodramatic" about the headings: they outline the subject following, no more, no less. As for copy-editing, no-one ever claims articles are perfect, but some of your changes have not been improvements. - SchroCat (talk) 22:11, 20 November 2018 (UTC) WP:Civil I see that constructive criticism is wasted on you. Keith-264 (talk) 21:19, 21 November 2018 (UTC) I have made absolutely no comment about you, so trying to play the civility card is a straw man here. Your "constructive criticism" about paragraphs was second rate: we do not write in paragraphs to make things look pretty, we break down ideas and arguments into paragraphs for ease of reading and understanding. I'm sorry you don't like it when your suggestions are not accepted. - SchroCat (talk) 21:30, 21 November 2018 (UTC) If you write adequate prose you can do both. WP:Own You aren't the judge of "my suggestions" but I fear that this is wasted on you too. Keith-264 (talk) 01:13, 23 November 2018 (UTC) Another petty insult? Your "suggestions" were not good - the one about paragraph length shows just how poor they are (and I guess that piece of basic English has escaped you, and I'll let the proper style guides "judge" that, not me). I am sorry you don't like it, but there we go. I'm not sure there is anything constructive to add to this. - SchroCat (talk) 01:40, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

The Mote and the Beam You're all tactics and no strategy. "I'd put it in, it seems to me that the background section of the article in dispute is contextual and the disputed sentence is no more or less relevant than the rest of it. Why not put it in a footnote if you think it is peripheral, even in that section?" Let's get back to the point shall we? Agree to put the disputed bit back in, use a note if you won't have it in the main text, have done with it and move on. Keith-264 (talk) 08:10, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

More insults? You've said that before and although it is a valid suggestion, repeating it doesn't make it more valid. I think it best to wait for the comments of others. - SchroCat (talk) 08:27, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

I suggest that you refrain from trying to dictate the terms of the discussion, stop the name calling and adopt a democratic attitude, rather than trying to hide your conduct. I won't hold my breath but I will wait and see. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 08:34, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Stop edit warring, stop throwing insults round and trying to playte civility card and wait for others to chip in with their thoughts. - SchroCat (talk) 08:40, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Still digging, still insulting, still trying to dictate frames of reference, blaming the victim and playing the Wah! card? Poor, very poor. Keith-264 (talk) 09:11, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

I suggest you re-read the thread: I have not insulted you anywhere, nor have I blamed any "victim" (I'm not even sure what you're on about there) and I have played no "card" at all. I have no idea what your beef is, but I'm happy to ignore further outbursts until others chip in. - SchroCat (talk) 09:26, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

To move things along, I grant you the last word. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 09:40, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Edit warring

Peter K Burian, rather than going into a revert cycle, please could you respect WP:STATUS QUO and WP:BRD and discuss exactly why you want to add such a bloated paragraph? This is the place to discuss it, not by trying to get people to guess what your reasoning is. To cover the publication of Macintyre's book, I have added one sentence to note this, although it is unnecessary, given the number of citations it is used to support. - SchroCat (talk) 14:17, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Who is edit warring here, SchroCat? You have now reverted my edits three times. You had a problem with the content that I first added, so I revised it, to solve the complaint. You deleted it again with a complaint about it. I revised it again - asking that you discuss this on the Talk page. You simply reverted the new content I had added. I again modified the content, hoping that it would solve your complaint. You reverted 90% of the content a third time.

I am not simply adding the same content each time after you revert it. I read your reason for having reverted it, and I revised the content before adding it again each time.

Since we are discussing the content I had added, what is the problem with it? The content discusses a historian's book about the Operation and adds new insights about it. How is that not of value? (Note: the article does contain this info, which seems much less valuable, IMHO: A 1956 episode of The Goon Show, entitled "The Man who Never Was", was set during the Second World War, and referred to a microfilm washed up on a beach inside a German boot.

This is the content I had added (the final time, before you reverted nearly all of it). What is "bloated" about it? The Times, New Yorker and Business Insider consider it to be useful information.

  Ben Macintyre's 2010 book, Operation Mincemeat, relates the involvement of intelligence analyst Alexis von Roenne in the ruse played on the Germans. The Baron was said to have vouched for the accuracy of the documents "D-Day: Bodyguard of deception was needed to protect the plan: Stephen Ward reports on a complex campaign to give the Germans the wrong impression about British intentions". The Times. 16 January 2010. Retrieved 10 May 2019. Baron von Roenne, head of the FHW, a man trusted by Hitler, declared them authentic and accepted other ruses used by the Allies during the war. "Pandora's Briefcase". The New Yorker. 3 May 2010. Retrieved 10 May 2019. [von Roenne] hated Hitler and seemed to have done everything in his power to sabotage the Nazi war effort. According to the author, "he faithfully passed on every deception ruse fed to him, accepted the existence of every bogus unit regardless of evidence, and inflated forty-four divisions in Britain to an astonishing eighty-nine". "One of World War II's greatest deceptions is getting the movie treatment with the help of a 'The Pacific' writer". Business Insider. 9 May 2019. Retrieved 10 May 2019. It is entirely possible, Macintyre suggests, that von Roenne "did not believe the Mincemeat deception for an instant". 

Peter K Burian (talk) 14:33, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

• "Who is edit warring here?": both of us. However, the onus is on you, as the person whose material was first challenged, to discuss this on the talk page.

We have covered the fact Macintyre has published a book (even though that's not strictly necessary). The remainder, based on ifs and buts, is nothing to do with the Legacy. It is also Macintyre's speculation. Although occasion theories may work to explain things, this rather-oversized paragraph will confuse pretty much everyone who reads it. - SchroCat (talk) 14:40, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

The only speculation by historian Ben Macintyre is whether Alexis von Roenne believed the ruse or not, and I did not include that comment in the text (only as a quote in the citation). The Times believes that von Roenne supported the ruse and that is one of the most important reasons for the success of the Operation.

Onus: Is there no onus on the editor who reverts fully-cited, good faith, content to discuss it on the Talk page? Peter K Burian (talk) 14:49, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

There is onus to discuss, obviously, but please see WP:BRD: if your text is challenged (Deleted) then it is up to you to open the thread. - SchroCat (talk) 14:51, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

• Does BRD place the onus on the person whose content was deleted to begin a discussion on the Talk page?

Revert an edit if it is not an improvement, and it cannot be immediately fixed by refinement. Consider reverting only when necessary. BRD does not encourage reverting, but recognizes that reversions happen. When reverting, be specific about your reasons in the edit summary and use links if needed. Look at the article's history and its talk page to see if a discussion has begun. If not, you may begin one.  

Peter K Burian (talk) 14:55, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

• "If you make a bold edit in regards to any material under discussion and you do not engage on the talk page, you are not applying BRD properly. Discussion is best applied as soon as a bold edit is made to encourage further talk, but is not required until your edit is questioned, either in an edit summary accompanying a revert, or at the discussion itself". See also the flow chart part way down the page. - SchroCat (talk) 15:02, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

btw, the content I had added is not about the book. It is about the fact that the Operation was successful because the Germans believed it. Why did they believe it? Because experts - and intelligence analyst Colonel Alexis von Roenne was at the highest level of the experts - convinced Hitler, et al that the documents were authentic. That was the point of my content, not the fact that someone wrote a book.

The tiny bit of my content that you did finally include discusses the book. But the book is not relevant except as the source of the information about von Roenne. Peter K Burian (talk) 15:14, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

"tramp"

Glynydwr Michael is described twice as a tramp (linked in the lead section), but this term is not used at Glyndwr Michael, where he is described as "homeless". "Tramp" tends to have a narrower meaning, and I wonder if it would be better to stick to "homeless"? 62.165.227.157 (talk) 10:56, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

It is the description used is the sources. I don't know which sources were used on the GM article, or whether someone thought it should be changed for reasons of political correctness. - SchroCat (talk) 11:20, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Spain was far from neutral

Block evasion by User:HarveyCarter.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The British deliberately chose Spain because the country's government was rabidly pro-Axis and guaranteed to give the information to Germany. (86.161.73.239 (talk) 20:00, 1 September 2019 (UTC)) 1. Please respect WP:BRD and leave the WP:status quo until it is settled here. 2. Officially Spain were neutral during the war, despite the fascist leanings. - SchroCat (talk) 21:52, 1 September 2019 (UTC) If Spain had been neutral Stalin would not have called for the Allies to invade the country in 1945. Franco invaded the Soviet Union in 1941, and continued to import war materials for Germany until late 1944. (86.158.167.22 (talk) 10:47, 2 September 2019 (UTC)) Spain was technically neutral throughout the war. Bledwith (talk) 10:53, 2 September 2019 (UTC) IP, please STOP edit warring. Things on WP are not determined by one individual constantly forcing a change. They are decided by consensus on the talk page based on what the sources say. Officially Spain was neutral during the war, despite Franco's fascist government. Spaniards fought on both sides of the conflict, and the country was not invaded, nor did its army take part in any fighting. Franco fortified the Pyrenees to deter the Germans from stepping over the border. I've tweaked the term slightly, but you need to stop just trying to bludeon the change into the article. - SchroCat (talk) 09:11, 3 September 2019 (UTC) Franco described Spain as a member of the Axis, and he sent forces to invade the Soviet Union in 1941. (86.158.252.209 (talk) 13:07, 3 September 2019 (UTC)) Franco initially wanted to join, but didn't. He remained neutral during the war and allowed volunteers to fight, but only against the communists, not the allies. He apppointed some pro-British ministers too. All this is explained in our own article on the subject, and we don't need to over-complicate the article here with the various nuances of his balancing act. - SchroCat (talk) 13:19, 3 September 2019 (UTC) Spain was as neutral as Ireland was, in the converse. The article's fine, just with a definition of "neutrality" verging perhaps on the narrow (as in military rather than, say, diplomatic). Franco's defence of the northern border was against the communists and the partisans, not the Nazis (who were not even in the region until 1942). FYI. And IP, please desist from edit-warring: it is not a non-consequential behaviour. ——SerialNumber54129 13:31, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Why say that "the effect is unknown"?

The lede claims that the effect of the operation was unknown. But the "German reaction" section gives very specific evidence that the operation was both effective and critical in changing Hitler's mind about the likely invasion target.

Should the lede be changed?

(Reply to unsigned comment by User:InspectorMendel. We could change the lead to "the full effects are unknown" and add a note about the known specific effects, namely the redirection of defending forces. OrewaTel (talk) 05:11, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

I changed "effect is unknown" to "full effect is unknown", that ought to cover it well enough. InspectorMendel (talk) 11:39, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Impact on the Eastern Front

The text in "German reaction; outcome" says: "Two panzer divisions were moved to the Balkans from the Eastern Front" [n 11]"; Note 11 says, "The removal of the two experienced panzer divisions reduced German combat strength in the upcoming Battle of Kursk."; however, this appears to mis-state what the sources say.

- Macmillan (2010) says: "At the critical moment in the Kursk tank battle on the Eastern Front in July, two more German armoured formations were placed on alert to go to the Balkans." See https://archive.org/details/operationminceme0000maci/page/284, but I was unable to find any reference in this source to German armored divisions being sent any earlier.

- Zabecki (1995) says: "Perhaps most damaging to the German situation, he ordered two additional panzer divisions to prepare to move to Greece from Russia–at the same time the Germans were getting ready for history’s greatest tank showdown at Kursk." see https://www.historynet.com/this-man-pulled-off-one-of-the-greatest-deceptions-in-military-history-after-his-death.htm.

It seems to me that "preparation to move" in July after the invasion of Sicily is more likely a response to the invasion itself that Operation Mincemeat, so I suggest removing the statement about the divisions being moved before the invasion as well as the note, so that the sentence starts with: "German torpedo boats were moved...." Astro$01 (talk) 18:44, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Further Reading

After watching the edit war about "Sources", suggest putting references of related material into a "Further Reading" section; the Japanese aircraft carrier Kaga is an example of another featured article that uses this approach. Astro$01 (talk) 13:38, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Legacy - Hackney Memorial

Recently a lot of information has been added about a memorial that was erected in Hackney. This information was unsourced and an editor deleted it. However a lot of the information is written on the memorial itself and is easily read off the posted photograph. The deletion has been reverted but formal citation is required. OrewaTel (talk) 01:15, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

As it’s an FA it should be cited first. I’ve taken out the full copy of what the text plaque says (which is completely unnecessary, but it still needs a source. 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:55D6:37C5:2B4C:9C54 (talk) 06:45, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

In an ideal world then all information would be fully sourced and correctly cited before it is inserted. But when information is demonstrably true (as evidenced by photographs or similar) then it is normally more helpful to request a citation. Of course if no citation is given within a reasonable time then deletion is the only solution. I agree that the full text was excessive and thank you for adding a [citation needed]. OrewaTel (talk) 22:39, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Overlinking and US comma use

Misfit Toys, re this. It's really not right and proper for you to a. ignore WP:BRD and revert back to your preferred version of an article when there has been an explanation given; and b. not bother to give an explanation as you your actions. Much of your edit included adding links that are neither wanted nor needed (which is why I said it was OVERLINKING in my edit summary). Some of them are misleading, some are MOS:EASTEREGGs. Many were in quotes (which the MOS bides us to be extremely careful about), and several were unhelpful.

There was also your addition of inappropriate commas. When I reverted your edit I pointed out there was "US comma use on a BrEng article"; why you decided to ignore this point of ENGVAR are put back the US punctuation I just don't know. Neither to I know why you bulk-reverted everything I had done, which included some additional (and constructive) changes. Please don't just revert again without trying to discuss why your edits were not as good as you may have thought them. Discussion is always preferable to unexplained reversions. Thank you. - 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:21E3:D584:9FD4:DDE (talk) 15:03, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

The overlinking in this article is ludicrous. DuncanHill (talk) 02:50, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Use of term "tramp"

Pining 213.205.194.46 (talk · contribs), Skysmith (talk · contribs). An edit war is brewing over the word used to describe Glyndwr Michael in the lead (and also used in the body as well, at Operation Mincemeat#Examining the practicalities; locating a corpse). This article uses the word "tramp": the term "homeless man" has been proposed instead. The article about the man himself, William Martin (Royal Marine officer), describes him as "homeless" and doesn't use the word "tramp". I don't know about other English-speaking parts of the world, but "tramp" would absolutely be considered pejorative in the UK nowadays, and isn't an appropriate way to describe him in a contemporary encyclopedia. I strongly suggest we replace "tramp" with "homeless man" instead, although it's worth noting that rough sleeping, which it appears Glyndwr Michael was, is just one form of homelessness, so at the second usage it is probably sensible to qualify "homeless man" by also adding "who had been sleeping rough", or similar. ninety:one 16:28, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

• Not going to get into edit war but I do agree that the "tramp" is mostly derogatory - Skysmith (talk) 16:32, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

• No, it’s not a pejorative term—not even remotely, let alone “absolutely”—unless one wants to twist political correctness to breaking point. It would also breach WP:EUPHEMISM too, which is often what happens when you try to throw away a good word for no beneficial reason. The term is also the one used in a number of sources, including modern ones - Macintyre, as just one example. Others include The Times, The Daily Telegraph, The BBC, Wales Online and The Arts Desk. Whatever the language used in the stub, it does not follow that the FA-level article (which has been through two community review processes), has to drop to that level. (And Skysmith, you did get into an edit war - and it was clumsily and badly done too). 213.205.194.46 (talk) 17:13, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Yes, I think agree; while I appreciate the anon's passion, I see no reason to use the slightly (at best) perjorative when we have a pefectly respectable synonym available without the baggage. I suggest changing 'tramp' to 'homeless man', or some such, would be more akin with a close MOS guideline, which, being a featured article it should folow closely. ——Serial 17:18, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

In this context the Oxford English Dictionary defines "tramp" as "one who travels from place to place on foot, in search of employment, or as a vagrant" – no suggestion that it is in any way derog or offens. None of the FA reviewers found cause to query it, and I vote we leave it alone. We don't want to get into what Fowler called "genteelisms". – Tim riley talk 19:12, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Tramp is a perfectly acceptable word. It also does not mean precisely the same as homeless. However, the decision should be based on what the sources say. there is a whiff of PC here which does not help in a balanced discussion. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 19:17, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Use Tramp In British English 'Tramp' means an itinerant worker. This is similar to the American term 'Hobo'. The term 'homeless' on the other hand has slightly pejorative feel. OrewaTel (talk) 04:51, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Another reason to use Tramp is that it has rural connotations whereas the picture conjured up by Homeless is a derelict sleeping in an alleyway in town and the citations say 'tramp'. An editor is continuing to post 'homeless' without engaging in this discussion despite having been reverted several times by different people. I shall continue to revert these posts until a consensus is reached here to change. OrewaTel (talk) 02:48, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Yet again someone is trying to remove the word 'tramp'. The excuse this time is that in USA it is a pejorative term when applied to a woman. This article is written using British English and Glyndwr Michael was not a woman. It seems silly to make an edit because a word could be pejorative if it were in a totally different context in another country halfway round the World. OrewaTel (talk) 22:01, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Exactly, well put @OrewaTel:. It is, as I noted in an edit summary, a perfectly respectable term for a perfectly respectable occupation. DuncanHill (talk) 22:49, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

The rural connotations of 'tramp' noted by OrewaTel might actually be another reason not to use it. While Michael was born in Wales, according to the intro to The Man Who Never Was from the University of Chicago, Michael was found dead on the streets of London, which actually fits better with OrewaTel's definition of 'homeless' rather than 'tramp'. 2600:1702:3B70:80A0:E47E:8DA7:65E6:9310 (talk) 00:37, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Ok u all won just the word Tramp was degrading and if the family was to read this it would be inappropriate, also I was not deliberately changing it . anon- guy — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.212.170.228 (talk) 12:43, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

But the word isn't "degrading" or "rude". It's the normal British English word. Nobody could read the article and think the American sense was intended. DuncanHill (talk) 12:53, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

I know you say that but like I thought we should change it to honour him. and if someone from America that reads this might think we somehow mean something completely different in the word tramp — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.212.170.228 (talk) 12:57, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

In one of your edit summaries you also referred to Mr Michael as a "victim", when in fact he killed himself, probably accidentally. I think you may be letting your emotions cloud your judgement somewhat. The idea that his Welsh family would be offended by the word "tramp" also being a pejorative term for a promiscuous woman in American English is a bit silly. Regardless, in future please follow WP:BRD. nagualdesign 20:41, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

I support replacing 'tramp' with a more encyclopedic phrase such as 'homeless man'. Collins explicitly notes that 'tramp' is 'old-fashioned' and Cambridge provides synonyms from US English that are all similarly informal: 'bum' and 'hobo'. Leaving aside any concerns about whether or not the word is pejorative, for me this primarily an issue of unencyclopedic tone. 2600:1702:3B70:80A0:E47E:8DA7:65E6:9310 (talk) 00:02, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Also to Tim's point: It's true that the OED does not explicitly note that 'tramp' (a poor itinerant labourer) is derogatory, but you might take a closer look at the historical examples below the definition for additional context. A selection (italics mine): 'Thay goo so Lick trampis, so durty', 'A wretched woman, who used to traverse the country as a beggar or tramp', and 'tramps of the most indolent and impertinent description '. While I am sympathetic to other users' concerns about PC culture run amok and all that, attempts to ignore the connotations of tramping as far back as its earliest usage in English (in 1664) could be construed as somewhat disingenuous.2600:1702:3B70:80A0:E47E:8DA7:65E6:9310 (talk) 00:02, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

A (reverted) attempt was made to smuggle this edit into the article. (The editor suggested that 'tramp' means 'bum' - an English term for the posterior.) In British English, the term Tramp is specific. It refers to someone who chooses to be homeless and consequently has been homeless for some time. 'Homeless' on the other hand simply means someone who does not live in home. There is no hint as to whether this is long term or short term nor whether this is a life style choice or whether the homeless person has been expelled. I would be happy to replace the term 'tramp' if someone can come up with a word or phrase that means the same thing. OrewaTel (talk) 01:16, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Two points. 1) You seem to have (perhaps deliberately) misread me. The Cambridge Dictionary equates the British 'tramp' with the informal American term 'bum' ('someone who has no home or job and lives by asking other people for money'). 2) You'll need to offer up an actual dictionary reference for your definition to matter; none of the sources cited in this discussion (OED, Cambridge, Collins) support 'someone who chooses to be homeless and consequently has been homeless for some time'. 2600:1702:3B70:80A0:E47E:8DA7:65E6:9310 (talk) 01:35, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

• Re-upping this now that it's on the front page — I came here almost immediately after seeing the word, because I was genuinely taken aback to see its use in an FA lead. I am an American English user, and with the possible exception of Lady and the Tramp, I have never thought of the word as anything but a derogatory term for the homeless. I understand this article is written in British English, but I really do think editors should reconsider the wording for something more neutral ("homeless man/person" is imperfect but seems better, in my opinion). Some very quick domain-restricted searches of BBC strongly suggest the word is understood as derogatory in its style guides as well: use of the word in BBC vs. use of "homeless" WhinyTheYounger (WtY)(talk, contribs) 14:17, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

The Google searches don't actually show anything, I'm afraid. This may be is almost certainly a BrEng thing, but the word "tramp" in the UK is not a pejorative term. It has a precise meaning in the OED (which doesn't class it as derog or offens, as it does to actual derogatory terms), and it's definition is different from "homeless". We use it in the correct manner here. - 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:4C4D:4E22:192F:682E (talk) 14:38, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Note that the word tramp does not appear in the source it is cited to (Smyth 2010) — That book, according to a search of its contents via Amazon (paperback), specifically uses the term homeless twice, including on page 38, the page following citation 34's page 37, but "tramp" yields no results. If it's a) possibly contentious for an international audience and b) not in the underlying sources (with the caveat that I am relying on Amazon's text recognition), what grounds are there for its use? WhinyTheYounger (WtY)(talk, contribs) 15:22, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Note that the word tramp does appear in the weight of sources. There is a comment further up the thread that provides a list of sources where the term appears. The term isn't contentious in the UK (per ENGVAR that's the one that counts) and certainly is in the majority of underlying sources. 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:4C4D:4E22:192F:682E (talk) 15:38, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

You've learnt something today that you would otherwise have remained ignorant about. That's a good thing. Don't deprive others of the opportunity to learn the same thing. DuncanHill (talk) 14:44, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

This is not an argument relevant to Wikipedia or its policies. WhinyTheYounger (WtY)(talk, contribs) 15:25, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Actually, it is relevant. If an encyclopaedia isn't there to enlighten and educate, what's the point of it? 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:4C4D:4E22:192F:682E (talk) 15:38, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia's goal is to compile generally accepted knowledge. If we take the purpose as "to enlighten and educate", there's no reason to not just treat it as a textbook, which is very much against established norms. See WP:NOT: The purpose of Wikipedia is to summarize accepted knowledge, not to teach subject matter. More broadly, my point is that the comment above dismisses my concerns — shared by at least some other editors — as some attempt to stifle knowledge and keep people ignorant, rather than an attempt to understand a legitimate potential issue with terminology and tone. WhinyTheYounger (WtY)(talk, contribs) 16:03, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Aside from the fact you are taking a very narrow definition of what I have said (of course the goal is to enlighten and educate in its broadest sense), you've missed the point. There is no issue with terminology or tone. The word is the preferable one in BrEng to the alternatives. If you don't like, or disagree with, the ENGVAR policy, this is not the place to have that discussion. 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:4C4D:4E22:192F:682E (talk) 16:12, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

I have wikilinked tramp in the lead to help those who struggle with common English words. DuncanHill (talk) 16:19, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Disagreeing with someone is not grounds for being rude. The belittling and condescension is not appreciated nor warranted, and I'm not going to further respond to you in this context. WhinyTheYounger (WtY)(talk, contribs) 16:21, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

I wasn't being rude. You said you didn't understand the word in this context. The word is a common one. I wikilinked it to help. DuncanHill (talk) 16:31, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

If the word were preferable in BrEng, then why do BrEng sources generally treat homeless/tramp as synonyms when discussing the subject? The dictionaries treat them as distinct, but to establish the applicability of the term here, we see secondary coverage in news articles (needed because, again, the sources in the article don't use the word "tramp") — and those articles tend to use the terms interchangeably. Some more recent articles in the same publications listed previously (e.g. Wales Online) avoid the term completely in favor of homeless. For an ENGVAR argument to make sense here, we need to demonstrate that including homeless would be unacceptable for whatever reason in BrEng and thereby privileging other dialects. "Homeless" is still British English! WhinyTheYounger (WtY)(talk, contribs) 16:19, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm sorry of I wasn't clear previously (I thought I had been when I said "the word tramp does appear in the weight of sources"), but to clarify (or repeat) the sources in this article do use the word tramp. You are looking at one of the sources not all of them. "Tramp" is not quite the same as "homeless man" (although the latter is butting up hard against WP:EUPHAMISM, and I invite you to look at the OED for further clarification. 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:4C4D:4E22:192F:682E (talk) 16:37, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Point taken that MacIntyre uses the term; I did not catch that in the comment from the IP editor on 24 Feb 2021. I assumed "weight of the sources" referred to the same comment's links to secondary sources, none of which appear in the article. As those sources do establish, though, tramp is a synonym for homeless, at least in common parlance, and at least as is used when discussing the subject. You may feel it is a euphemism, but as it is used in those sources, it is a synonym, and in Smyth, it is the preferred term. Tramp does not appear in Latimer, either, which is also cited in the paragraph discussing Glyndwr Michael. So: if we must choose between the two, why pick tramp over homeless, if BrEng sources suggest homeless is an applicable synonym when it comes to Michael? I gather that we are not going to figure out an answer here, so an RfC might be necessary if another editor feels my concerns are relevant. WhinyTheYounger (WtY)(talk, contribs) 17:11, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

"Common parlance" is not necessarily a suitable form for encyclopaedically written. It's slightly misleading to highlight that Latimer does not say tramp: he doesn't say homeless either, and gives no background to Michael. There are plenty of the sources used the do use the term tramp - and they use it correctly. 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:4C4D:4E22:192F:682E (talk) 17:58, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

"Tramp" meaning "one who travels from place to place on foot, in search of employment, or as a vagrant" is not a synonym for "homeless". There's some overlap, but they are not synonyms. DuncanHill (talk) 18:07, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Survey on using the word "tramp"

Making this its own section so it doesn't get buried at the top of the page. See #Use of term "tramp" for background/previous discussion.

Q: Should we refer to Glyndwr Michael as a "tramp"?

• Yes.
• No. Please specify alternative. Some suggestions include "homeless person", "person experiencing homelessness", "vagabond", "transient", etc.

Responses

• No. Tramp has a second meaning that both implies he is a female and is derogatory. I support any other word than tramp. –Novem Linguae (talk) 20:07, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Implies he is a woman? Don’t be bloody ridiculous! 86.173.116.27 (talk) 20:24, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

• Yes. Per BrEng. Tramp has a specific meaning and isn’t a WP:EUPHAMISM. Many of the alternatives are derogatory without the same meaning. 86.173.116.27 (talk) 20:24, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
• Yes. Per BrEng. Tramp has a specific meaning and isn’t a WP:EUPHAMISM. It was a contemporaneous word, still in use today. The alternatives are mostly political correctness terms bordering on the ludicrous. We are talking about a person from the WW2 era, not a modern person. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dmol (talk • contribs)

• This vote is bootless. We should use the term used by the majority of high quality reliable sources. The personal opinions of individual editors are irrelevant. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:42, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

• Yes. The 1930s book 'The Gentle Art of Tramping' on the joys of walking, tips on living outdoors and being footloose, from a lifetime of 'tramps' in Britain and around the world, is the ideal expression of this word in BrEng. The tramp tramps, he does not necessarily beg (the American panhandler)nor is he necessarily shirking, nor is he necessarily homeless (David Mitchell's 'Cloud Atlas' includes a character who becomes a tramp by voluntarily walking forth from their house). The nuances of 'tramp' are well known to any BrEng speaker. The context makes it obvious that it's not referring to a woman in perjorative slang, for example. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.185.209.123 (talk) 02:54, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

• Yes. As Gog the Mild said, the majority of sources use the word 'tramp' and we must be guided by sources. The alternatives suggested are unsatisfactory. To accuse Glyndwr Michael of being a 'vagabond' is insulting. He was not a 'transient' but rather he was a permanent tramp. 'Homeless' might be acceptable but it does have pejorative connotations in British English. As for 'person experiencing homelessness'? Well, in British English, we still prefer using using one direct, informative word rather than a convoluted phrase. OrewaTel (talk) 21:41, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
• Bummer to see this snowing. I know some support exists for not using tramp, because three uninvolved editors tried to change the word in the last 24 hours. But I guess they don't follow this talk page. Ah well. Not worth making a big stink over. It's just a word. Can snow close this if you want. –Novem Linguae (talk) 22:01, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

  P.S. The snarky edit summaries are not necessary. When I started this discussion I didn't know this was a British English word. If the word were offensive in your dialect, maybe you'd feel differently. Assume good faith. –Novem Linguae (talk) 22:06, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

  To be fair, it was pointed that it wasn’t offensive. Both directly to you, and several times in the preceding thread. The “snarky edit summaries” are only there because of a frustration from several speakers of British English at having to explain this to people who just don’t listen to the oft repeated explanations and pointers to the OED. 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:F11B:399C:41A6:2AD1 (talk) 22:33, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Problems with the article

After reading the entire article, I wanted to share a couple problems I noticed...

The lead says that Operation Mincemeat intended to convince the Germans that the invasion of Sicily was a feint, however nothing about Sicily is mentioned in the quoted portion of the fake letter, and according to the intercepted German communication "the invasion was to be in the Balkans, with a feint to the Dodecanese." This is very confusing and not explained in the article. Were the Dodecanese mentioned as a feint in the letter? Was Sicily? Was the ruse about a Sicily feint swallowed by the Germans or not? As this was one of the main goals of Operation Mincemeat, clarifying this seems important.

The second problem I noticed is the first paragraph of the "Aftermath" section. It just casually mentions that Mussolini was removed from power during Operation Husky without explaining why. Was Mussolini removed from power because of the success of Operation Husky? Was it due to completely different reasons? Or was Operation Husky a contributing factor among many? This seems like another really important piece of information that is strangely missing from the article. Nosferattus (talk) 15:31, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

In terms of your second point, there are articles dealing with Mussolini and his removal from power. This is a summary of the subject on Operation Mincemeat and too much extraneous detail detracts from the subject into an unwieldy and over wordy mess. 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:4C4D:4E22:192F:682E (talk) 15:40, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Then why are we including 3 sentences about Mussolini's removal from power? I can't imagine a reader reading that section without wondering whether Operation Husky (and by extension, Operation Mincemeat) were connected to Mussolini's removal. The way the section is written seems to suggest that, but doesn't actually state it one way or the other, which only serves to pique the curiosity of the reader. I think the article should briefly answer that question rather than forcing the reader to search through other articles. I really don't think it's extraneous as it is directly related to how much impact Operation Mincemeat had on the course of WWII. Nosferattus (talk) 17:05, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

What you are trying to ask for is a source that provides cause and effect. History is not that neat, and the sources do not categorically state that, although some do allude to the connection between the turning of the war against Italy (with the success on Sicily) and Mussolini's fall. His fall is dealt with in the sources about the Operation (given it is part of the aftermath), but without making a concrete connection. That is what this article does too: it reflects the sources in referring to Mussolini's fall in the aftermath of the operation, but without giving an all-too-neat explanation of cause and effect. - 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:4C4D:4E22:192F:682E (talk) 17:39, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

So it sounds like you're saying that no one knows if the invasion of Sicily was a major or minor factor in the removal of Mussolini. I'm a bit skeptical about that, but I guess I'll take your word for it. Any thoughts about my first point? Nosferattus (talk) 17:56, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm not saying that; I'm saying that reputable historians won't put a definite cause and effect explanation because history just isn't that neat and tidy. 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:4C4D:4E22:192F:682E (talk) 18:00, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

So was the invasion of Sicily a major factor in the removal of Mussolini (according to reputable historian)? Nosferattus (talk) 22:37, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

In terms of your first point, the 'feint' at Sicily is covered in the Military situation section (although the word "feint" is not used). There was a large build up of men and materiel in North Africa ready for the invasion and the Allies feared "the build-up of resources for the invasion would be detected" and the Tunis HQ reduced radio communications. It's possibly not the best choice to use he word "feint" in the lead, but that was very much the Allied plan. 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:4C4D:4E22:192F:682E (talk) 18:06, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Your response doesn't address the problem I raised. Did the allies try to convince the Germans that the invasion of Sicily was a feint or not? If so, how did they do that? Was it mentioned in the fake letter? And if so, did the Germans buy it? And why did the Germans think that the Dodecanese were going to be the target of a feint? None of that is explained in the article, which makes it quite confusing. Nosferattus (talk) 22:31, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

The fake letter from General Nye to General Alexander (reproduced in Macintyre, pp.120-121) mentioned that Sicily was the 'cover' target for Operation Brimstone. The supposedly real target of Brimstone was not specified, but another fake letter in Martin's briefcase, from Mountbatten to Admiral Cunningham, hinted that it was Sardinia (through a jokey reference to sardines). The Germans do seem to have bought this. The Nye letter also stated that Operation Husky (in fact the invasion of Sicily) would target the Peloponnese, with the Dodecanese as 'cover' target because Sicily was too far west to be credible. The use of 'Husky' in the Nye letter was in case the Germans ever got wind of that codename from real documents or transmissions: if the deception succeeded, they would think it referred to the attack on Greece. Even when the real Operation Husky hit Sicily, the German high command were still not sure that it wasn't a diversion for the real attack on Sardinia, and they still expected an attack on Greece and had moved substantial forces there instead of reinforcing Sicily. (Just as in 1944 they were made to believe that the invasion of Normandy was a diversion for the real attack at Calais, so German Fifteenth Army sat in the Pas de Calais area till the Normandy campaign was almost over.) The article could maybe make the ins and outs of the deception a little clearer, though of course it was deliberately convoluted. Khamba Tendal (talk) 16:47, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation! I added a sentence to the article stating that Sicily and the Dodecanese were identified as "cover targets" for the assaults in the fake letter. That should reduce the confusion. Nosferattus (talk) 02:28, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Disputed identity?

The article on William Martin gives several different, plausible identities for the body used. This is not mentioned in the 'Mincemeat' entry, which uses Glyndwr Michael with certainty. Is it worth doing something about this? 31.185.209.123 (talk) 03:20, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

It’s already mentioned. - 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:144D:C68C:4FD2:1DFF (talk) 05:47, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

The secret 1945 report on Operation Mincemeat, now in the National Archives, says that the body was Glyndwr Michael's. The much later claim that it was the body of a sailor from HMS Dasher is made up and unsupported by evidence. Dasher was lost on 29 March and Montagu had to have a body before well before that, so that plans could go ahead and people like Nye and Mountbatten could be persuaded to write the fake letters. There's no indication that a swap was made at the last minute. There is contemporary evidence, written and photographic, that Montagu, Cholmondeley and Jock Horsfall drove the body from London to Scotland in a Fordson van, which they would not have had to do if the body was one of Dasher's crew and already in Scotland. In addition the use of a serviceman's body would have been even more legally and ethically dubious than the use of a vagrant's. Khamba Tendal (talk) 19:15, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

On the other hand, Fitzgerald records Jewell's opinion that it would be unlikely that the body of a tramp would be used. There is sufficient doubt that, for neutrality, we should not be making categorical statements. It is enough that the article states the official position is that the body of Glyndwr Michael was used for the operation. Xyl 54 (talk) 21:58, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

The point was raised and dismissed by both Macintyre and others. The records state it was GM as does the weight of all reliable sources. I’ve taken out the most recent addition (Xyl’s) as it doesn’t add anything more than is there already. A source from someone who normally writes about aliens and the paranormal? Nah. 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:74F0:7B0E:411A:FBDE (talk) 06:18, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

This discussion shows one of the problems when Governments keep information secret. Prior to 1993 the full official report was not available. At that time any statement about the identity of the corpse would have been speculation. It is not unreasonable that we should note any contemporary theories. But once the papers were released and Roger Morgan published the identity in 1996 then then was no longer any doubt. Consequently when John and Noreen Steele wrote their 2002 book, 'The Secrets of HMS Dasher', they had no justification for muddying the waters. We might consider removing their theory from this article since they could have known it was false when they published. OrewaTel (talk) 09:59, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

@2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:74F0:7B0E:411A:FBDE:: And I have put it back. In the first place there were three separate edits there, which were deleted en bloc, so I have replaced them en bloc. If you want to dispute them individually then say so here.

Second, the detail from Fitzgerald does not 'add nothing', it adds a neutral assessment of the three positions on Martin’s identity. Nor does it say 'it's almost certainly Glyndwr', it says on balance it appears to be Michael, but the true identity remains uncertain. Which is the neutral point of view.

Third, you do not remove sourced material just because you don’t like it. You may have an opinion about what the truth is, but we aren’t in the business of making peoples minds up for them; we are obliged, when there is a range of possibilities, to present them. Xyl 54 (talk) 21:54, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Per BRD I’ve taken it out. Please don’t edit war.

I disagreed with all your changes, which were not an improvement to an FA, so reverted them all. If you think any should be returned, the onus is on you to discuss the challenged alterations here, rather than trying to force them in. (And forcing them in using an inconsistent citation style too).

All the sources used are ‘neutral’, and using a vague one from a writer who publishes on aliens and the paranormal is not a high enough quality one to be included in an FA. The weight of sources - official and unofficial - say Michael, so that’s what we go with. We’ve mentioned the alternatives sources of the body in that section too, so the paranormal writer’s addition literally adds nothing of benefit to the article. This isn’t a well-researched historical work you’re adding, but a lightweight book of dubious historical worth written by a TV presenter. It’s not about not “liking” the source, it’s about only using high-quality sources (and this would have been tossed out at FAC for not being good enough.

The material wasn’t removed just because I don’t like it (you don’t know me, and you don’t know what I do and don’t like), but because it’s not a good source and isn’t a beneficial addition to the article. Do you honestly think the book Unsolved Mysteries of World War II: From the Nazi Ghost Train and Tokyo Rose to the Day Los Angeles Was Attacked by Phantom Fighters is a good source? An FA isn’t the place for FRINGE sources, including those on ghost trains and phantom aeroplanes. It does not pass a test of what constitutes a reliable source. As to your claim that they may have used more than one body, that’s just making stuff up - do you have any source (a reliable one) that supports that? 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:746C:E06:1BA5:CEC9 (talk) 05:08, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

@2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:746C:E06:1BA5:CEC9:: WP:BRD is fair enough, but it isn’t a carte blanche; as you removed sourced material, the burden is also on you to justify that removal.

For the first, I added a caveat, for the reasons given above, and because the body wasn’t identified until 1996.

For the second, I added the date because (as stated) Montagu changed his story a few times. Both of these edits improve the accuracy of the article; you have yet to say why that isn’t an improvement.

For the third, what is this fixation with TV presenters, and the paranormal? Have you read the book, or are you simply judging it by its cover? I quoted it because the author had considered the various theories about Martin’s identity, and came to a balanced, neutral, conclusion. And you can be as sniffy as you like, it is a secondary source with a reliable publication process, so it qualifies as a reliable source. But if you have evidence to back up your disdain, take it to WT:RS. Or, if you feel his statement, that the body appears on balance to be Glyndwr Michael’s, adds nothing, I can leave that bit out; it was the conclusion I chiefly wanted to add.

As for not knowing you, or what you do and don’t like, you are quite correct; you only seem to have three edits in your contributions history, so I can only judge by what you say and do here. Xyl 54 (talk) 23:11, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

For the lead, it doesn't matter when the body was identified. (Actually it "was identified" to Montagu and Cholmondeley at the time it was provided).

For the Identity of the corps addition of the date: it doesn't matter when the identification took place, just that it did. (Think: would it have made a difference to the operation, the whole story or this article if the identification was made in 1975 or 1985, instead of 1979? No, it wouldn't, so it's a piece of unimportant fluff).

It's just not a reliable source in my opinion. I'll ping Nikkimaria, who has done hundreds if not thousands of source reviews at FAC, to see if she thinks the book Unsolved Mysteries of World War II: From the Nazi Ghost Train and Tokyo Rose to the Day Los Angeles Was Attacked by Phantom Fighters is an acceptable source for an FA-level article. Nikkimaria, this is the addition linked to the source in question, which adds - in my opinion - absolutely nothing to the article; its inclusion was accompanied by the edit summary "add summary" - again to my mind an indication that it's use is repeating something already outlined in the article.

Don't judge IPs just on the limited number of edits made. I have a dynamic IP that resets every time I come online. My old account that I walked away from some time ago had 96K edits and I had 60 FAs to my name (so I do understand the level of sourcing required for an FA). 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:2D7F:B6C1:E28E:1A91 (talk) 09:39, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

I would agree that based on the information given this source appears to be fringe and of questionable reliability. If you disagree I would suggest making the argument at WP:RSN. However, I also want to note that just because information can be sourced does not require it to be included; per WP:ONUS the burden is on those wishing to include disputed content to demonstrate consensus for it. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:28, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

@2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:2D7F:B6C1:E28E:1A91:: Well, for the lead it matters very little whose body it was; but up to 1996 the identity was generally unknown (and was supposed to stay unknown) so yes, the caveat does matter. And the second date relates to Montagu’s comment, not Morgan's, and (as stated several times) Montagu changed his story, so again, it does matter when it was said. This is now the third time I have stated why I think it should be included, and you still haven’t satisfactorily explained why it should be excluded, other than you, personally, don’t think it matters.

And with all due respect to Nikkimaria, phoning a friend during a dispute is canvassing (as someone with 96K edits should know); If you want to pursue this 'un-reliable source' line, you need to request a neutral third opinion, either at WP:3O or some relevant project (like MILHIST) or open a discussion at WT:RS. But as the book already satisfies the criteria at RS, you will need something more than not liking the title.

And (again) the detail from the book was included because it gave a un-biased assessment of the theories about the body's identity, which is something that isn’t already outlined in the article. So (again) why is it so important to exclude it? Xyl 54 (talk) 22:38, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

See WP:APPNOTE. I'm not a friend of the IP (that I know of, them being anonymous); I do have a lot of experience evaluating sources at the FA level. But if you don't agree with my opinion, I've already suggested you can seek a wider review at RSN. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:45, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

I disagree that, for the lead, the change is a good one. I don’t think it advances the article. The lead has summarised the key areas of the article, and when the body was identified is not a key part of the operation. Less is more for the lead.

Again the date lower down still doesn’t matter. We don’t document every time Montagu said something, so a reader could start wondering why 1979 was so important. They would also likely not care one jot, because the point of the sentence is what he said, not when. The when is immaterial. I have explained this several times now – and just because you disagree with me doesn’t mean it’s not satisfactory. (I find your reason for adding it unsatisfactory: that’s why we’re having this discussion).

Your accusation of canvassing is noted and rejected: you need to read what the canvassing guidelines actually say. 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:B148:60E7:C5B4:C92A (talk) 06:19, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

@OrewaTel:: Like it or not, there is a body of opinion that feels Montagu’s statement that ‘if he got it wrong a lot of men might die’ is at odds with the off-hand way he appears to have handled the discrepancies between Michael’s body and what they were trying to portray (ie that when the Spanish were confronted with the body they weren’t immediately going to say “that looks like a tramp in a uniform”, they’d say “he must look that way because he’s a staff officer”; and that they wouldn’t bother with a post-mortem because they are Catholics, but would assume because he was pulled from the sea that he drowned). So that needs stating, at least, not brushing under the carpet.

Anyway it is entirely possible that they employed more than one body, which would resolve all the difficulties involved... Xyl 54 (talk) 21:57, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

If there is a substantial body of opinion that feels Montagu’s statement that ‘if he got it wrong a lot of men might die’ is at odds with the off-hand way he appears to have handled the discrepancies between Michael’s body and what they were trying to portray then that might be usefully mentioned in the article since there would be plenty of sources to use as reference. It is very unlikely that more than one body would be used but if authoritative sources say that is the case then that would be a very interesting fact to include. OrewaTel (talk) 07:59, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

@OrewaTel:: The mismatch between what Montagu said and what he then did (or said he did) was the reason Gribbons and the Steele’s pursued the Dasher theory. And others have alluded to it before, and since. It’s already been mentioned, so I don’t know how much needs to be said here: The identity of the body used isn’t (or shouldn’t be) the most significant aspect of an very unusual operation.

As for the ‘more than one body’ idea, I don’t have any source for it; I just threw it out as a way of squaring the circle. Montagu said there was no problem getting suitable bodies, but they generally had next of kin; while Michael was alone, but arguably less suitable. Using Michael as cover for something more Burke-and-Hare-ish wouldn’t have been the most outlandish thing British Intelligence same up with. But again, it is complete OR on my part. Xyl 54 (talk) 23:16, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

As far as I can see there have been no WP:RSs cited for the changes proposed by Xyl 54, and unless s/he can (i) find some and then (ii) gain a consensus to make material alterations to the agreed FA text, the article should remain as it stands. – Tim riley talk 07:18, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Xyl, I agree with Nikkimaria. Certainly, during a content dispute, do not Edit War. Unless and until you have a clear WP:CONSENSUS for your position, do not make the changes. I don't think that Fitzgerald is a WP:RS , and it doesn't add anything; the discussion already covers the alternative theories neutrally and completely. -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:00, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

<od>@2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:... (et al): So, to recap:-

You think it’s unnecessary to qualify the Introduction where it makes a definitive identification of the corpse, even though the article has a section describing alternatives; that it’s unnecessary to date Montagu’s comment even though he made conflicting statements at different times; and that Fitzgerald’s book is unreliable, even though you haven’t read it, have no idea what it contains, or how it treats its material.

But I can see I am outvoted, so it’s Goodnight, Vienna. Enjoy, Xyl 54 (talk) 22:41, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

American writer W. E. B. Griffin

The legacy section contained the sentence, "In his book The Double Agents, the American writer W. E. B. Griffin depicts Operation Mincemeat as an American operation run by the Office of Strategic Services." (My bold characters) An anonymous editor objected to the author being described as 'American'. But of course that is the essence of this statement. What other nationality claims to have single handedly won WWII? It would put a completely different context if the author were, say, English.

Naturally I reverted this change but it has been re-reverted. Consequently we need to seek consensus. OrewaTel (talk) 01:45, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

• Just adding the nationality of the author doesn’t explain anything. It hints to something some people erroneously think, but that’s not terribly encyclopaedic. 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:E0E4:E740:1352:B4E8 (talk) 05:44, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

This was not resolved. With just two people there was deadlock so I backed off. We now have a third person who has independently made the same edit so at the moment the consensus is that the nationality of the author is important. It would be useful to hear other viewpoints - particularly that of User:Humphrey Tribble. Posted by OrewaTel (talk) 22:14, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

You are confusing consensus with vote-counting. 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:DD91:313:382:442F (talk) 07:40, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Here's how Humphrey Tribble (talk · contribs) sees it, OrewaTel (talk · contribs).

There are extremes in reader knowledge of the subject: 1. The reader knows nothing about WW2 history. Perhaps they have learned about Operation Mincemeat from the publicity surrounding the recent film, and might even have seen the film. 2. The reader is reasonably knowledgeable about WW2, might have seen the 1956 film "The Man Who Never Was", or even read Montagues 1953 book, and may or may not have seen the recent film "Operation Mincemeat". But they know nothing of Griffin or his novel. In either case, the reader would like to know a little more, so they check Wikipedia where they learn: "In his book The Double Agents, the writer W. E. B. Griffin depicts Operation Mincemeat as an American operation run by the Office of Strategic Services. Fictional characters are blended with Ian Fleming and the actors David Niven and Peter Ustinov.[133]" The blending of fiction with history prompts questions which aren't covered in the article. Essentially, what is the relationship between Operation Mincemeat, Griffin, the supposed American operation, the OSS and miscellaneous British historical figures: Was the OSS an American organization? Wikipedia tells the reader "The Office of Strategic Services (OSS) was the intelligence agency of the United States during World War II." Why did the writer depict Mincemeat as an American operation? It is impossible to know that, but motivation might be understandable by knowing if Griffin was a British writer, American, or neither. Did he have something to do with the OSS? How much of his version is true? Wikipedia tells them "...W. E. B. Griffin, was an American writer of military and detective fiction..." and also "His military occupation was counterintelligence." Griffin, then, was American, had no connection with Operation Mincemeat or with the OSS, but had some knowledge of the US military (and especially counterintelligence), and wrote fiction. Most likely, his depiction of Mincemeat as an American operation was for marketing purposes or just because he knew more about the American military.

So, rather than referring to a vague "American operation" of uncertain truth, my edit stated explicitly that the OSS was the intelligence agency of the United States, and that Griffin's connection is that he is American. I might have added the word fictional before the title of his book.

The questions arise from the reference to an American operation. That does not occur with the other legacy references, so the issue can be avoided by simply saying "Griffin wrote a book", and nothing more.

As it stands, I think knowing that Griffin was American is useful information that many readers would want to know. It correlates with the depiction of Mincemeat as an American operation in a way that would not exist for, say, an Australian writer. It might be possible to deal with the red hearing of the "American operation" in another way, but must we be shy about saying something which is stated in the first sentence of the article about Griffin? Humphrey Tribble (talk) 02:53, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

As there is an active discussion on this point, I have put it back to the WP:STATUS QUO version while the discussion continues. The STATUS QUO should remain until the discussions ends. 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:DD91:313:382:442F (talk) 07:14, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

In answer to your substantive points. 1. This article is about the operation, not about the book by Griffin, so we don’t need to add trivia to a passing reference. 2. This is not the place to look into the writer’s “motivation” (making money, probably). 3. There is really no need to add “fictional”, which is lazy writing, given we describe the mixing of aspects of the operation with fictional characters. 4. Given we know it’s fictional, there is zero benefit in describing the writer’s identity, given this is a footnote to the history.

If you consider this to be important, write an article on the book and put in all the information you want - it would be a better place than dumping it in the article about the operation, where it’s just trivia. _ 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:DD91:313:382:442F (talk) 07:38, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Rubbishing Griffin's fiction by emphasising his nationality is amusing, though none too subtle, but we don't drag in someone's nationality or sexuality or religion unless it's clearly relevant. Whether Griffin's hijacking of the historical facts was due to his nationality we don't know for certain, and the fact that he was American is no more demonstrably relevant in this paragraph than that the Goon Show was British or that Farhana Sheikh was born in Pakistan. Tim riley talk 09:01, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Griffin's book is mentioned in the WP:IPC part of the Legacy section. The entire paragraph is only encyclopedic to the extent that the content establishes Operation Mincemeat's *impact* on popular culture through significant treatments of Operation Mincemeat in "bona fide cultural references". The more efficiently and concisely it does this the better. Adding words that have nothing to do with Operation Mincemeat and its impact on popular culture is not only not helpful, but distracting trivia. Any suggestion that adding the word "American" a second time in this sentence would give the reader any further information about Operation Mincemeat or its impact on popular culture is speculative WP:OR. So I strongly support the Deletion of this word. -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:16, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

That he was an American author is the very essence of this point. What would you think if a German author attributed this to the German intelligence services? Or how about a French or Russian author writing a book declaring Mincemeat was a French or Russian operation. That Farhana Sheikh was born in Lahore is not relevant because she did not declare Mincemeat to be a Pakistani operation. (It might be if she made her protagonists Anglo-Pakistani but then a reference to her novel 'The Red Box' would be more appropriate.) As regards repetition of the word American, that is again relevant. The only reason for mentioning that the author was American is that he made the operation an American operation.

If the nationality of the author is not relevant then neither is the setting. The sentence should be edited to be similar to, "In his book The Double Agents, the writer W. E. B. Griffin describes Operation Mincemeat. Fictional characters are blended with Ian Fleming and the actors David Niven and Peter Ustinov." OrewaTel (talk) 07:23, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Again, just adding “American” doesn’t explain anything. It’s just trivia. And no, he doesn’t “describe” the Operation - that suggests a history book, not fiction.

Addendum: you have suggested that the nationality is important because it somehow “explains” something. Do you have a reliable source that makes the direct connection between the author’s nationality and the changes he made? If not, then it’s just your original research. 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:DD91:313:382:442F (talk) 07:36, 2 May 2022 (UTC)