![]() | Capture of the Caen canal and Orne river bridges has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
![]() | A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the "
Did you know?" column on
April 14, 2011. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that the first
Allied soldier killed during the
Normandy landings was part of
Operation Deadstick? | ||||||||||||
Current status: Good article |
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
|
Please add and cite Strength & Casualties, thanks. Kirk ( talk) 18:30, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
![]() |
An image used in this article, File:Map for 6th Airborne Divsion Normandy June 1944.GIF, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status
Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 01:55, 31 October 2011 (UTC) |
Penny Bates brought together the private papers of her father, Maj John Howard, to create 'The Pegasus Diaries'[TPD]; a significant part of the 'Diaries' is John Howard's Five Year Diary of the War. On p. 86 of TPD we read that, on 23 March 1944, Howard was at a brefing for a full-scale divisional exercise that would include D Coy OBLI 'landing' and capturing three small bridges. He wrote, 'The overall military exercise for the rehearsal of D-Day was to become known as Operation DEADSTICK, and I would realize in due course that this was the first part.'
Best
Marve001 ( talk) 22:27, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Gentlemen,
If Major John Howard, Officer Commanding the Coup De Main, says the exercise was called Operation Deadstick then that's all the evidence we need; after all, he is a Primary Source, so outweighs all Secondary Sources.
Best
Marve001 ( talk) 17:14, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
Search on 'Deadstick' [1]
Best
Marve001 ( talk) 20:16, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
I have that article in front of me and nowhere does it state that "the landing at Pegasus Bridge had the official name Operation Deadstick"; it refers to the surviving pilots who took part in Operation Deadstick but does not link that name to the coup de main.
Best
Marve001 ( talk) 20:50, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
I did search for "'Operation Coup De Main" with a negative result. Jim Sweeney ( talk) 03:06, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
Here're two references:
http://www.6juin1944.com/assaut/aeropgb/en_page.php?page=tonga
http://www.americandday.org/D-Day/Operation_Tonga-Order_of_battle.html
Best
Marve001 ( talk) 19:53, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
Accepted.
I now realise that I am, in some way, incorrect in my knowledge; having spoken to fellow airborne historians, the truth of the matter is that the Divisional exercise was called 'Deadstick' and this name stuck for the landing, in an UNOFFICIAL capacity; it was never the official code name, which was 'Coup de Main'. Unfortunately, the only sources for this are primary and therefore not admissable as evidence in Wiki articles. However, I think if, in the article's opening sentence, the word 'code' was changed to 'unofficial' then we would have an accurate description.
I leave it with you.
Best
Marve001 ( talk) 13:08, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
The 6th Airborne retained control of the area between the Rivers Orne and Dives until 14 June, when the 51st (Highland) Infantry Division took over the southern part of the Orne bridgehead. In the weeks that followed, the 6th Airborne Division was reinforced by the Dutch Princess Irene Brigade and the 1st Belgian Infantry Brigade. A period of static warfare ended on 22 August, when the division crossed the River Dives. Within nine days the 6th Airborne Division had advanced 45 miles (72 km) to the mouth of the River Seine. Between 6 June and 26 August, when they were pulled out of the front line the division's casualties were; 821 killed, 2,709 wounded, and 927 missing. [2]
{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |dead-url=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)
The result of the move request was: Article moved to new title per consensus RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 15:31, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Away from Wiki, a few historians and I have been looking into the accuracy of the name Operation Deadstick. This article has used the name since it was created in 2011, which has been challenged once or twice. It’s not actually referenced in the article, but there are a number of references to support it listed in a topic above (Citation for Operation DEADSTICK as name for training for, not execution of, Coup De Main).
However, it’s become quite evident from looking through historical primary sources that there is no contemporary document that supports the name Operation Deadstick. Instead, the name Coup de Main is used variously as the Operation title, or to describe the body of men carrying out the mission (the Coup de Main party). Documents that have been consulted and which use this phrase and do not use Deadstick include:
Copies of these documents can be seen on this Twitter thread (please note I am not presenting Twitter as a reliable source, I’m merely linking to copies of the primary sources).
Put simply, there is no contemporary documentation that has yet come to light that refers to Operation Deadstick. Author Neil Barber addresses the origins of the name in The Pegasus and Orne Bridges, page 27, where he identified that the name was coined by an individual, rather than being from a list of codewords (this makes sense given the meaning of deadstick in the context of a deadstick landing – an unpowered aircraft landing). The name Exercise Deadstick is used for May exercises in the 298 Operations Record Book, but only then and not in June.
The origin of the name Operation Deadstick for the actual operation on 6 June seems to stem back to Stephen Ambrose’s 1985 book Pegasus Bridge, where he uses it four time (without references I should add). It is arguable that all of the uses of it shown in the topic above (and many many more of course), stem from this initial use.
I realise that this is a quandary for Wikipedia, that puts verifiability over truth. But it strikes me that by keeping this title, we’re promulgating a myth that was probably first created by a questionable author. I don’t think, in Wikipedia’s own interests or the interests of decent history, we should be doing that. I don't doubt that many contemporary uses of Deadstick are based on its use in this article.
Quite how to tackle it I’m not sure. The questions would be, is this entering the realm of original research to correct a myth? Unfortunately I don’t have a published source where someone has already done this investigation into primary source documents to refute published sources. Obviously if someone had already published it in a book, that would be easier. There are of course plenty of sources that don’t use Deadstick, many of whom I’d argue are more reliable references. Lloyd Clark in Orne Bridgehead (edited by Simon Trew), Carl Shilletto, Neil Barber are a few from looking through my shelves. Perhaps we could change the title and include a note using these to explain the divergence of names?
Secondly, if the article title were changed – what to?
Thoughts on the suitability of the name, the appropriateness of the research and of course any other historical sources, are welcome. Cheers, Ranger Steve Talk 12:07, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
Operation Deadstick (officially known as "Operation Coup de main") is ...
For the record, the criteria for an article title are 1) recognizability (as in, the article subject can be recognized from the title) 2) naturalness (as in, someone looking for the information would naturally tend to look for this) 3) precision 4) conciseness 5) consistency with other similar articles.
On criteria 1) and 2), "Deadstick" is probably the winner (although there's nothing that prevents us changing the title to something less wrong and have that name redirect to it). 3) and 4) are probably tied (since, well, there is no other event known as "Operation Coup de main", despite the potential confusion with a plain coup de main). Have no clue about 5, although the overarching operation is obviously titled on WP by its operation title, "Operation Tonga". I don't know enough about smaller scale tactical engagements to confirm smaller examples. RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 00:11, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
@ Ranger Steve, Alansplodge, ThoughtIdRetired, GraemeLeggett, and Sturmvogel 66: (think that's everyone) If nobody objects I'm going to be WP:BOLD and move the article to what appears to be the most suitable title based on the discussion above, Capture of the Caen canal and Orne river bridges. RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 23:52, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
As per the edit summary, I do not see why using an operation name is an improvement. For those that are totally absorbed in the detail of military history, this might be great, but operation names have no meaning for the encyclopaedia reader for whom this project is intended. One might just about get away with Operation Overlord on a scale of general comprehensibility, but that's it.
ThoughtIdRetired (
talk) 06:44, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
Cite error: There are <ref group=nb>
tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=nb}}
template (see the
help page).
![]() | Capture of the Caen canal and Orne river bridges has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
![]() | A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the "
Did you know?" column on
April 14, 2011. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that the first
Allied soldier killed during the
Normandy landings was part of
Operation Deadstick? | ||||||||||||
Current status: Good article |
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
|
Please add and cite Strength & Casualties, thanks. Kirk ( talk) 18:30, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
![]() |
An image used in this article, File:Map for 6th Airborne Divsion Normandy June 1944.GIF, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status
Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 01:55, 31 October 2011 (UTC) |
Penny Bates brought together the private papers of her father, Maj John Howard, to create 'The Pegasus Diaries'[TPD]; a significant part of the 'Diaries' is John Howard's Five Year Diary of the War. On p. 86 of TPD we read that, on 23 March 1944, Howard was at a brefing for a full-scale divisional exercise that would include D Coy OBLI 'landing' and capturing three small bridges. He wrote, 'The overall military exercise for the rehearsal of D-Day was to become known as Operation DEADSTICK, and I would realize in due course that this was the first part.'
Best
Marve001 ( talk) 22:27, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Gentlemen,
If Major John Howard, Officer Commanding the Coup De Main, says the exercise was called Operation Deadstick then that's all the evidence we need; after all, he is a Primary Source, so outweighs all Secondary Sources.
Best
Marve001 ( talk) 17:14, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
Search on 'Deadstick' [1]
Best
Marve001 ( talk) 20:16, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
I have that article in front of me and nowhere does it state that "the landing at Pegasus Bridge had the official name Operation Deadstick"; it refers to the surviving pilots who took part in Operation Deadstick but does not link that name to the coup de main.
Best
Marve001 ( talk) 20:50, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
I did search for "'Operation Coup De Main" with a negative result. Jim Sweeney ( talk) 03:06, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
Here're two references:
http://www.6juin1944.com/assaut/aeropgb/en_page.php?page=tonga
http://www.americandday.org/D-Day/Operation_Tonga-Order_of_battle.html
Best
Marve001 ( talk) 19:53, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
Accepted.
I now realise that I am, in some way, incorrect in my knowledge; having spoken to fellow airborne historians, the truth of the matter is that the Divisional exercise was called 'Deadstick' and this name stuck for the landing, in an UNOFFICIAL capacity; it was never the official code name, which was 'Coup de Main'. Unfortunately, the only sources for this are primary and therefore not admissable as evidence in Wiki articles. However, I think if, in the article's opening sentence, the word 'code' was changed to 'unofficial' then we would have an accurate description.
I leave it with you.
Best
Marve001 ( talk) 13:08, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
The 6th Airborne retained control of the area between the Rivers Orne and Dives until 14 June, when the 51st (Highland) Infantry Division took over the southern part of the Orne bridgehead. In the weeks that followed, the 6th Airborne Division was reinforced by the Dutch Princess Irene Brigade and the 1st Belgian Infantry Brigade. A period of static warfare ended on 22 August, when the division crossed the River Dives. Within nine days the 6th Airborne Division had advanced 45 miles (72 km) to the mouth of the River Seine. Between 6 June and 26 August, when they were pulled out of the front line the division's casualties were; 821 killed, 2,709 wounded, and 927 missing. [2]
{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |dead-url=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)
The result of the move request was: Article moved to new title per consensus RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 15:31, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Away from Wiki, a few historians and I have been looking into the accuracy of the name Operation Deadstick. This article has used the name since it was created in 2011, which has been challenged once or twice. It’s not actually referenced in the article, but there are a number of references to support it listed in a topic above (Citation for Operation DEADSTICK as name for training for, not execution of, Coup De Main).
However, it’s become quite evident from looking through historical primary sources that there is no contemporary document that supports the name Operation Deadstick. Instead, the name Coup de Main is used variously as the Operation title, or to describe the body of men carrying out the mission (the Coup de Main party). Documents that have been consulted and which use this phrase and do not use Deadstick include:
Copies of these documents can be seen on this Twitter thread (please note I am not presenting Twitter as a reliable source, I’m merely linking to copies of the primary sources).
Put simply, there is no contemporary documentation that has yet come to light that refers to Operation Deadstick. Author Neil Barber addresses the origins of the name in The Pegasus and Orne Bridges, page 27, where he identified that the name was coined by an individual, rather than being from a list of codewords (this makes sense given the meaning of deadstick in the context of a deadstick landing – an unpowered aircraft landing). The name Exercise Deadstick is used for May exercises in the 298 Operations Record Book, but only then and not in June.
The origin of the name Operation Deadstick for the actual operation on 6 June seems to stem back to Stephen Ambrose’s 1985 book Pegasus Bridge, where he uses it four time (without references I should add). It is arguable that all of the uses of it shown in the topic above (and many many more of course), stem from this initial use.
I realise that this is a quandary for Wikipedia, that puts verifiability over truth. But it strikes me that by keeping this title, we’re promulgating a myth that was probably first created by a questionable author. I don’t think, in Wikipedia’s own interests or the interests of decent history, we should be doing that. I don't doubt that many contemporary uses of Deadstick are based on its use in this article.
Quite how to tackle it I’m not sure. The questions would be, is this entering the realm of original research to correct a myth? Unfortunately I don’t have a published source where someone has already done this investigation into primary source documents to refute published sources. Obviously if someone had already published it in a book, that would be easier. There are of course plenty of sources that don’t use Deadstick, many of whom I’d argue are more reliable references. Lloyd Clark in Orne Bridgehead (edited by Simon Trew), Carl Shilletto, Neil Barber are a few from looking through my shelves. Perhaps we could change the title and include a note using these to explain the divergence of names?
Secondly, if the article title were changed – what to?
Thoughts on the suitability of the name, the appropriateness of the research and of course any other historical sources, are welcome. Cheers, Ranger Steve Talk 12:07, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
Operation Deadstick (officially known as "Operation Coup de main") is ...
For the record, the criteria for an article title are 1) recognizability (as in, the article subject can be recognized from the title) 2) naturalness (as in, someone looking for the information would naturally tend to look for this) 3) precision 4) conciseness 5) consistency with other similar articles.
On criteria 1) and 2), "Deadstick" is probably the winner (although there's nothing that prevents us changing the title to something less wrong and have that name redirect to it). 3) and 4) are probably tied (since, well, there is no other event known as "Operation Coup de main", despite the potential confusion with a plain coup de main). Have no clue about 5, although the overarching operation is obviously titled on WP by its operation title, "Operation Tonga". I don't know enough about smaller scale tactical engagements to confirm smaller examples. RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 00:11, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
@ Ranger Steve, Alansplodge, ThoughtIdRetired, GraemeLeggett, and Sturmvogel 66: (think that's everyone) If nobody objects I'm going to be WP:BOLD and move the article to what appears to be the most suitable title based on the discussion above, Capture of the Caen canal and Orne river bridges. RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 23:52, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
As per the edit summary, I do not see why using an operation name is an improvement. For those that are totally absorbed in the detail of military history, this might be great, but operation names have no meaning for the encyclopaedia reader for whom this project is intended. One might just about get away with Operation Overlord on a scale of general comprehensibility, but that's it.
ThoughtIdRetired (
talk) 06:44, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
Cite error: There are <ref group=nb>
tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=nb}}
template (see the
help page).