Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Operation Mincemeat

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article promoted by AustralianRupert (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 15:06, 30 December 2016 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Operation Mincemeat[edit]

Nominator(s): The Bounder (talk)

Operation Mincemeat (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

This is a story that has fascinated me since I saw the film about it some thirty years or more ago. Most people have heard of it, but even now it seems such an odd long-shot to try that it's difficult to believe it's not fictional. I've been working on the article recently, and I would love this to go through to FA, if people think that this merits the attempt. I look forward to all comments and suggestions people can make. – The Bounder (talk) 20:59, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Lingzhi
  • Missing source: "Wilmut & Grafton 1981"  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 00:46, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • formatting File:Temporary file to delete soon.png  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 04:25, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • How horrible! Now moved to the right; Cholmondley is looking 'out' of the screen, but that's a minor point compared to the excessive white space for the left aligned image. Thank you. - The Bounder (talk) 08:18, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not keen on an aftermath section that lumps Goon show together with the sacking of Mussolini. Suggest 2 sections  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 05:55, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've split out "Aftermath and legacy" into "Aftermath" and "Legacy": does that work better? I think the split is in the right place, but happy to move some bits around if anyone questions it. All the best, The Bounder (talk) 08:43, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support What a very well-written, thoroughly referenced, and lavishly illustrated article on a fascinating topic, The Bounder. It might be nice to put the word "of" between "deception" and "Operation Barclay" in Aftermath and Legacy but, other than that, count me a fan. Also, and I'll defer to someone more knowledgeable than me on this point, but shouldn't Montagu had the Officer of the Order of the British Empire conferred on him in 1944 for his part in Operation Mincemeat be In 1944 Montagu was invested into the Order of the British Empire at the grade of officer for his part in Operation Mincemeat? I don't think one can be conferred an Order, only invested into it. Again, I might be incorrect so please don't act on this as a suggestion without someone else's input. LavaBaron (talk) 07:08, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's very kind of you. I've followed your first suggestion, and I'll look into the second: I am sure there will be something I can find that gives the correct wording (I am at a loss when it comes to the 'correct' form of words for such awards). Thank you once again, The Bounder (talk) 08:18, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Now confirmed your feeling was right, and the wording has been changed. Thanks The Bounder (talk) 08:43, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consider this a placeholder. I'll be back, both because I owe you a review and because I've long wanted to to see this article improved. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:27, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSuport: (Harry Mitchell)

  • Is "personal assistant" the correct term for Fleming's role? I don't know if that was his job title but the military tend to use other terms, like aide or military assistant. Just a thought.
    • Both Lycett and Macintyre refer to him as a "personal assistant" - both in lower case (suggesting that was his job, rather than his title); I haven't seen a source with his formal title. The Bounder (talk) 08:37, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Was there any significance to the name "Mincemeat"?
    • It came from a list of available names. It's possible there was some black humour involved, but they tried to avoid names too suggestive to the operation. The Bounder (talk) 08:37, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • As mentioned above, the OBE is not generally conferred; "appointed" is the term used by the London Gazette.
    • Thanks. I wasn't sure about it when I wrote it! The Bounder (talk) 08:43, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there anything worth adding about the operation's impact on popular culture? It seems to have caught people's imagination more than other deception operations (though I'm not sure if that's sourceable).
    • The main sources don't have much to say on the popular culture side of things. This was the popular culture section before I started work on it: no sources and some rather dubious connections that didn't hold water once the sources are searched for. The books and film were the only concrete connection that were strong enough for inclusion. The Bounder (talk) 08:50, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just curious but what do the external links add? Is there a reason to avoid citing them as references? (Not that there's anything wrong with them where they are at all)
    • They just weren't used as other sources seemed a bit better on the specifics. (One of them isn't working at the moment, but I'll leave it a couple of days before taking it out. The Bounder (talk) 08:37, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is pedantry really. It's an excellent article, engagingly written and on a fascinating subject. I had a good laugh at some of the details of how far some people went to make it all look real. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:44, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you so much for your comments and suggestions: I have found them extremely useful. All the best, The Bounder (talk) 08:50, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well I'm satisfied. I note that Nick raises some good points below but I'm sure they'll be addressed. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:48, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Many thanks for your comments and support. I'm deeply grateful to you. All the best, The Bounder (talk) 08:34, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments It's good to see that this article on an important and famous topic is in such good shape. I have the following comments:

  • As an overall comment, the article is well written and comprehensive - nice work
  • I'm a bit surprised to see that Michael Howard's excellent official history of British strategic deception operations hasn't been consulted - it has a few pages on this operation, as well as some nuanced judgements concerning its effectiveness (in particular, that this operation was effective, but only in combination with the other measures and only because they played to a decision Hitler was probably going to make). The volumes by Harry Hinsley on the UK's overall intelligence effort might have material on the use of signals intelligence in this operation. The final section of the article in particular would benefit from using these sources.
    • I can access the Howard material through Amazon's 'Quick View', so I'll add this shortly; Hensley may be a little more troublesome to get hold of, but I'll work on it. The Bounder (talk) 09:38, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've added some material from Howard to balance out the article a little more. There was nothing from Hinsley on signals in connection with Mincemeat that I found (although I may have missed something, obviously). - The Bounder (talk) 15:16, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first paragraph of the lead could be a lot punchier: this operation is best-known for its use of a corpse
  • "Forensic examination showed they had been read, and decrypts of German messages showed the Germans fell for the ruse. Sicily was not reinforced, while Greece and Sardinia were" - it should be noted that Mincemeat was only part of the reason for this decision
    • Now slightly moot, as Lingzhi has re-worked the lead. If you still think that what is there needs more work, please let me know. - The Bounder (talk) 15:16, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In late 1942, with on-going Allied success in the North African Campaign, the thoughts of the military planners turned to the next target. An invasion of France from Britain could not take place until 1944, and the British Prime Minister, Winston Churchill wanted to use the Allied forces from North Africa to attack Europe's "soft underbelly" - this isn't really accurate: there was a lengthy debate between the US and UK governments before the decision to invade Sicily was made (with the Americans being much less enthusiastic about the idea). But this is beyond the scope of the article, so it would be better to just say that a decision to invade the island was made.
    • I've altered it slightly to show that was the British opinion, and added a little more in a footnote about the American thoughts. - The Bounder (talk) 15:39, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's a bit of a jump from the "Military situation" section to the "Examining the practicalities; locating a corpse" section - a para or so explaining how this operation fitted into the broader deception plan would help to address this
  • "The military historian Jon Latimer observes that the relative ease with which the allies captured Sicily was not entirely because of Mincemeat, or the wider deception of Operation Barclay. Latimer identifies other factors, including Hitler's distrust of the Italians, and his unwillingness to risk German troops alongside Italian troops who may have been on the point of a general surrender." - surely the military success of the Allied forces was a key factor?
  • It's also worth noting that most historians seem to regard the Sicilian campaign as having been a disappointment for the Allied forces, with the first days of the operation going badly for the Americans and the German forces escaping due to unimaginative generalship.
    • Isn't that going a little out of the sphere of this article? I know we need background and context, but this seems to be an extra step away from the deception operation The Bounder (talk) 09:38, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sorry, I was a bit vague: what I meant was that the text on what a success the Sicilian campaign was for the Allies seems a bit too positive. It was certainly an important victory, but the general view seems to be that they could have done much better. Nick-D (talk) 09:41, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Extending the influence of this operation to the Battle of Kursk seems to be going too far: the reduction of German forces was due to the fact of the Allied invasion, not the deception operations which preceded it. Nick-D (talk) 01:00, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nick-D (talk) 01:00, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    • I will double check the sources in this, but I'm not sure that's what they say. The units Hitler moved from Kursk went to the Balkans, which suggests the deception operations were the root of his decision; if they had been moved to Sicily or Italy, that would suggest that the military invasion was the reason. As I say, I'll double check the sources to make sure on this. The Bounder (talk) 09:38, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Smyth is clear in what he's written, but I've altered the text a little to a. reinforce that it was him that said it, and b. he was talking about the overall Husky operation, rather than Mincemeat specifically. I hope that these allay your concerns on this point. The Bounder (talk) 16:00, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support My comments are now addressed, and I'm pleased to support this nomination. After a bit of polishing, I hope that it's bound for a FA nomination. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 04:12, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • I am very grateful for your excellent and constructive comments. Thank you so much for taking the time and making the effort: it has made a very positive difference to the article. All the best, The Bounder (talk) 08:41, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for these excellent comments. None are 'quick fixes' I can tick off immediately, but I'll work through them in the next few days. All the best, The Bounder (talk) 09:38, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Chipping away at these. There is still one point I haven't touched (the 'jump' after the "Military situation"), but this will be done later today (we already have some limited information about Operation Barclay in there, so it may just need buiilding up a little more to give better context and background, but I want to check the sources properly first). If you feel I have not done justice to your comments in some of my other fixes, please let me know and I'll examine it further. Thanks again - The Bounder (talk) 15:16, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have now worked my way through your comments and suggestions. If there are still any areas where I have not quite addressed your concern, please let me know and I'll see what else I can add. All the best, The Bounder (talk) 13:42, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:Cholmondeley.jpg: was this a government photograph or a pre-1966 publication, and do we have anything to confirm either? Same with File:EwenMontagu.jpg, File:Archibaldnye.jpg.
    • I've changed the Nye image, as I can't find any good information to back this up. (Still working on the Charles Cholmondeley and Ewen Montagu images). - The Bounder (talk) 11:14, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • I suspect it was a government photograph and possibly Montagu was also published pre-66, but I can't find any proof of it, although I'm continuing to search. All the best, The Bounder (talk) 14:40, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Nikkimaria, I am in a slight quandary over these two. I can find no proof of pre-1966 publication, or that's it was an official photograph (I took the uploaders rationale in good faith and wished they had put some evidence in there!), but image searching is not my strong suit. I would be loathe to remove the images entirely (as they are the two architects of the plan), so are there any other options? Thanks -The Bounder (talk) 08:41, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • There are a few things you can try. First, reverse image searching - tineye.com is a good one, or just go to Google Images and click the camera icon in the search bar. Second, try directly searching archives where the images would likely be found - eg. the UK National Archives. Third, see if there are any other images of these individuals available that are definitely free. Fourth, if all else fails, you can try using {{non-free biog-pic}} and providing a fair-use rationale. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:47, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
          • I've run searches through the IWM, UK Archives, National Portrait Gallery, Flickr and tinyeye.com, as well as through books, other media searches and the internet, but nothing. I've nominated them for deletion on Commons to see if anyone there can find something I haven't, and I'll upload a copy onto WP with the non-free emplate on it. All the best, The Bounder (talk) 13:41, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
            • Hi Nikkimaria, I have uploaded local copies of these two, with appropriate rationales. No-one has stepped up at Commons to provide evidence that they are free, so we shall see what happens once it gets deleated, I guess. All the best, The Bounder (talk) 20:28, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
                • Hi Nikkimaria, Could you have a look at the two files on Commons? I tagged them for deletion only to have an admin close them with 'no real doubt about government source', when there is some doubt. They are being obstreperous at having their decision questioned, particularly that these images are shown in the Macintyre book as copyright the respective families. Thanks - The Bounder (talk) 14:09, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
                  • FWIW I think you are right; there is no clear crown copyright on these. They *may* be official photographs, and they look a bit like they might be, but suspicion is not strong enough evidence. McIntyre cites them to the families so that's obviously where he got them - where they originally came from we don't know. Official photographs were fairly common, but so were private "vanity"/keepsake photographs so it's impossible to be sure. Unfortunately they are very bit bitey at Commons and can sometimes be bullies to newbies; you might be better off just ignoring them as it's unlikely you will get anywhere. It's their loss. You've done all you can from this end. --Errant (chat!) 19:33, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Hmmm... I see you're right about the newbie thing: I was accused of vandalism for trying to re-open the debate, and then when I removed the warning notice from my talk page I was blocked for edit warring of all things. I presume "Commons" isn't short for "Commonsense"? All the best, - The Bounder (talk) 20:32, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Harold_Alexander_E010750678-v8.jpg: when and where was this first published?
    • I can't find the information, so I've chaged it for a new image. - The Bounder (talk) 11:10, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Seraph.jpg: tag and machine-generated source are not consistent with the description
    • The original hosting website is long gone, by the look of it, so I've swapped for something else, which looks a bit more secure. The Bounder (talk) 07:42, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Glyndwr_Michael.jpg: the blank fields in the FUR template should be filled in. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:56, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Michael image has now been completed too. Many thanks for this (although I still have your first two points to look at properly). All the best The Bounder (talk) 07:42, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Nikkimaria: I am considering closing this review shortly and just want to confirm whether or not all your concerns image-wise have been dealt with? Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:00, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Great! I love deception articles and it's nice to see this more high profile example get some love. Nitpicks!

  • The deliberate planting of fake documents on the enemy; reads oddly. Would you really say they were planted on the enemy?
  • A month after the crash involving Turner, a member of British intelligence, Charles Cholmondeley; the ordering of this fragment makes it ambiguous (was Turner or Cholmondeley the member of British Intelligence). Also called codenamed Trojan Horse seems incorrect grammar. I'd be inclined to rephrase as A month after the Turner crash British intelligence officer Charles Cholmondeley outlined his own variation of the Trout memo plan codenamed Trojan Horse, after the Greek Trojan War deception
    • I've gone for a third option, although heavily based on your suggestion. - The Bounder (talk) 09:10, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • An alternative theory to Martin's identity; this is the first use of the pseudonym in the body, and it is a bit jarring out of context (who's Martin?). Is the name needed to make the point? If it is, can the name chosen be introduced before this point?
    • I've removed the two uses in this section: we can leave the introduction of the pseudonym until the next section. - The Bounder (talk) 09:10, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The body was found ; maybe be specific about who, as it is a new section. The body of 'Major Martin' was found"?
  • (Subjective) Althought this article is far better than most, there are some adverb usages (in particular -ly words) which might be able to be more specific. Might be worth a quick review, although it's not critical. non-exhaustive examples:
    • but they only lost 12; is that something they were happy about? Or something historians identify as good? In this context "only" makes it subjective without quantifying
      • Removed the "only": reads just as well without it - The Bounder (talk) 09:10, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • the canister was eventually destroyed by ; is there any way to be specific about how soon this approach was taken? If not it might be better to avoid qualitative statements ("this effort failed, and the canister was destroyed")
    • consisting of a letter purportedly from Martin's father; this is unqualified, was is "purportedly" to the Germans, or is it "purportedly" to Historians? The answer is obvious but don't make the reader work :) It's probably not necessary to qualify this if it's unambiguous as a letter from the father (having read the sources; my view is that this is fine to state).
      • I've gone with fictional - just for the sake of clarity. - The Bounder (talk) 09:10, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've covred these, and I'll go through again to iron out any further examples I come across. - The Bounder (talk) 09:10, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Subjective) Personal preference, interested in your thoughts; in the legacy section, I'm not keen on listing lots of records and fictional depictions etc. It's a list that can get hard to define ("was referenced in a sketch on XYZ youtube channel"). Personally I think the link goes the other way (from the notable article about the depiction ot this one). Maybe this is better as a well-constructed see-also section. Not bothered either way, just a thought.
    • I hadn't thought of that, but my immediate two thoughts would be that firstly the Montagu-written book(s) should be mentioned in the body because they were by Montagu; the Duff Cooper book was the cause of Montagu's work, so it should probably be mentioned too (any other non-connected author could go in the see-also section). Secondly the two plays don't have articles, so they would be 'lost' to us, which I think is a pity. That leaves the Goons radio broadcast as the one thing to take out and drop into a separate section. I'm certainly not a big fan of the excessive lists of the largely tangential references with no decent citation (aside from the primary source of the youtube clip itself): if there isn't a good secondary source that explicitly makes the connection, then it shouldn't be anywhere near the article, I think - The Bounder (talk) 09:10, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • There's no obvious answer. I think you've done a fine job with this article but worth keeping an eye on in case some other helpful editors start padding it out with trivia :) --Errant (chat!) 10:34, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Great work; still having a read through but I'd probably be happy to support. Cheers --Errant (chat!) 23:59, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Many thanks for your comments. I've dealt with them all, but still need to go through in search of any more adverb uses that can be taken out. Should you have any more comments, I'd be delighted to hear them too. All the best, The Bounder (talk) 09:10, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support based on prose :) good work. --Errant (chat!) 10:34, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thank you ErrantX: that is very kind of you. All the best, The Bounder (talk) 09:16, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/Operation_Mincemeat&oldid=1075714170"