![]() | It is requested that a photograph be
included in this article to
improve its quality.
The external tool WordPress Openverse may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
![]() | A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on January 1, 2019. |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
On 2006-07-04 07:41:05, anonymous editor 203.155.1.246 changed the word "murder", in quotes, to "the execution", in the phrase, "An eyewitness account by John Fague of B Company, 21st Armored Infantry Battalion, of battle near Chenogne describes 'murder' of German prisoners by American soldiers..." There was no edit comment about why the change. I think the word "murder" is appropriate, because that's the word used later in the quotation. I don't see the point of this change. Over on the Malmedy massacre page, there's a lot of debate about political motivations for this or that change, so I'd feel more comfortable knowing what the anonymous editor is seeking to accomplish. For now, I'm reverting the change. -- Jdlh | Talk 05:13, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
There seems to be an edit war brewing over the phrasing of the introduction to the Chenogne massacre article, and in particular the use of the phrase "war crime" and of definite rather than tentative wording. User:Markus Becker02 has made the same edit three times in 31 hours between 09:57, December 17, 2006 and 16:52, December 18, with the comment "sugar coating removed". User:WookMuff reverted those changes twice, with the comment "rv ignorant edit". This is very close to violating Wikipedia's three-revert rule.
I'm reverting the change for now. In line with the Wikipedia policy on resolving disputes, I'm asking both of you, and any other interested editors, to discuss the matter here. I'd like to ask that we try to get a consensus here before making any further changes. I don't want this situation to become an edit war that causes problems for either the article or any editors.
The text preferred by User:Markus Becker02 seems to boil down to "was a war crime committed by...", while the pre-existing text which User:WookMuff is preserving seems to boil down to "refers to an alleged war crime".
Please put your comments and opinions below, and sign with ~~~~ (four tildes). -- Jdlh | Talk 07:43, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
My perspective is that I know this article well; I wrote the original version in July 2006, and no-one has substantially improved the body of the article or the references since then. Did this massacre actually happen? The only verification comes from (Sorge 1986), a published book, and (Fague 2006), a web page. I personally checked those sources. (Sorge 1986) cites (Gallagher 1964) as his source. I haven't checked (Gallagher 1964); has anyone else? And was this a "war crime"? What verifiable sources describe it as such? User:Markus Becker02, if you are as confident as your edits seem to indicate, I'd appreciate you identifying some verifiable sources and quoting what they say. User:WookMuff, I think that "rv ignorant edit" isn't a particularly good way to reach consensus with another Wikipedia editor. I'd like to hear why you think the edits are ignorant. Let's take this energy and put it into making the article better researched and written, not fighting about wording. -- Jdlh | Talk 07:58, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
What the hell is going on here? You have named them yourself. A 1986/1964 book and in 2006 a US veteran(eyewitness) confirms it. What else do you need? An official US Army investigation? Markus Becker02 15:18, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Hello, above, whoever you are. Your "3rd" comment makes little sense regarding the claims (by some, several anonymous contributors) regarding this alledged war crime. What might be "obvious" to you does not make factual or fictional the reality of the historical events being discussed. The attempts to directly connect this alledged event to the Malmedy Massacre, clearly obvious in the article, are hard to accept as reasonable. This alledged event vs. the facts of Malmedy are irreconcilable. American/Allied soldiers (very few) who were there (Chenogne) still live. Most are at the final stages of life. The Allied Army soldiers, living or dead, did not enter this conflict in order to be brutal in their efforts as soldiers to win the Allied cause. The fact is that this was a cruel and brutal time in WWII. Thousands of men, on both sides, died in each campaign, the battle of the bulge being the most painful for each western European army. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.88.244.14 ( talk) 06:32, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
Hello again- It is highly unlikely that anyone in the entire 11th Armored Division had any "friends" or even casual connections to the men murdered at the Malmedy Massacre. Given the substantial resources behind the front lines of the 11th AD, being newly engaged in battle, late December 1944, it his very hard to believe that, for these soldiers & their efforts, there would not be examination of obvious evidence regarding mass graves of enemy soldiers. The ground was frozen. Conditions were barely survivable. These men (11th AD) advanced and took heavy casualties. In fact, the evacuation of Allied Army casulties was extermely succussful. It is very unfortunate to admit that the same capability was not even considered by the Nazis, regarding this final offensive campaign on their part. This fact is a reasonable explanation for the Malmedy Massacre. Advance or Die. Such conditions or military orders were not a part of the battle orders of the 11th AD. This alledged event at Chenogne has no reasonable connection to Malmedy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.88.112.180 ( talk) 04:07, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
I'd never want to contribute to an edit war, so I've edited the opening paragraph in a way that hopefully can acheive consensus. The new wording makes it clear that what is "alleged" is that the event definitely happened. I found language which implied that while both the Malmedy massacre and the Chenogne massacre definitely happened, the one was "a war crime" while the other was "an alleged war crime", highly objectionalble on Neutral Point of View grounds, since the circumstances of the two massacres were nearly identical. The new edit makes it clear that what's "alleged" about the Chenogne massacre is that it in fact happened. Hopefully further historical research can establish with more certainty that it in fact did occur (or not). 71.211.130.144 ( talk) 22:30, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
In Episode 6 ("The Gost War") of "The War" documentary by Ken Burns, an American veteran reports about the deliberate killing of 25 Waffen-SS soldiers after surrender by a death squad in a Belgian village during the Battle of the Bulge. The commanding officer had asked for volunteers including the eyewitness who declined. However, a sufficient number was gathered, and the POWs got shot. Did this account refer to the Chenogne massacre or was that a different one? -- Meudonnais ( talk) 11:24, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
I wrote to Miller; he confirms that the killings he saw were at Chenogne and doubts the estimate of 60 dead. He says a number of prisoners were removed before the killing started. Can I use this to add to the article or do they not allow the use of correspondence(which can't easily be confirmed)?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.91.78.233 ( talk) 08:15, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
Joseph Cummins is not a historian, and he's retelling the same testimony from the American soldier anyway, so it's not really adding to the article. I would like to remove unless there are objections.
Biography from Amazon: Joseph Cummins' publications include a novel, The Snow Train, and numerous works of popular history, including History's Great Untold Stories; Turn Around and Run Like Hell; Great Rivals in History; and Anything For A Vote: Dirty Tricks, Cheap Shots and October Surprises in U.S. Presidential Campaigns. A new edition of Anything For A Vote appears on October 27, 2015. -- K.e.coffman ( talk) 08:18, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
This quote is supposedly taken from Patton's wartime diaries which have been published. If so, this needs to be cited directly from Patton's diary, and not some secondary source. Marcd30319 ( talk) 00:56, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
![]() | It is requested that a photograph be
included in this article to
improve its quality.
The external tool WordPress Openverse may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
![]() | A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on January 1, 2019. |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
On 2006-07-04 07:41:05, anonymous editor 203.155.1.246 changed the word "murder", in quotes, to "the execution", in the phrase, "An eyewitness account by John Fague of B Company, 21st Armored Infantry Battalion, of battle near Chenogne describes 'murder' of German prisoners by American soldiers..." There was no edit comment about why the change. I think the word "murder" is appropriate, because that's the word used later in the quotation. I don't see the point of this change. Over on the Malmedy massacre page, there's a lot of debate about political motivations for this or that change, so I'd feel more comfortable knowing what the anonymous editor is seeking to accomplish. For now, I'm reverting the change. -- Jdlh | Talk 05:13, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
There seems to be an edit war brewing over the phrasing of the introduction to the Chenogne massacre article, and in particular the use of the phrase "war crime" and of definite rather than tentative wording. User:Markus Becker02 has made the same edit three times in 31 hours between 09:57, December 17, 2006 and 16:52, December 18, with the comment "sugar coating removed". User:WookMuff reverted those changes twice, with the comment "rv ignorant edit". This is very close to violating Wikipedia's three-revert rule.
I'm reverting the change for now. In line with the Wikipedia policy on resolving disputes, I'm asking both of you, and any other interested editors, to discuss the matter here. I'd like to ask that we try to get a consensus here before making any further changes. I don't want this situation to become an edit war that causes problems for either the article or any editors.
The text preferred by User:Markus Becker02 seems to boil down to "was a war crime committed by...", while the pre-existing text which User:WookMuff is preserving seems to boil down to "refers to an alleged war crime".
Please put your comments and opinions below, and sign with ~~~~ (four tildes). -- Jdlh | Talk 07:43, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
My perspective is that I know this article well; I wrote the original version in July 2006, and no-one has substantially improved the body of the article or the references since then. Did this massacre actually happen? The only verification comes from (Sorge 1986), a published book, and (Fague 2006), a web page. I personally checked those sources. (Sorge 1986) cites (Gallagher 1964) as his source. I haven't checked (Gallagher 1964); has anyone else? And was this a "war crime"? What verifiable sources describe it as such? User:Markus Becker02, if you are as confident as your edits seem to indicate, I'd appreciate you identifying some verifiable sources and quoting what they say. User:WookMuff, I think that "rv ignorant edit" isn't a particularly good way to reach consensus with another Wikipedia editor. I'd like to hear why you think the edits are ignorant. Let's take this energy and put it into making the article better researched and written, not fighting about wording. -- Jdlh | Talk 07:58, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
What the hell is going on here? You have named them yourself. A 1986/1964 book and in 2006 a US veteran(eyewitness) confirms it. What else do you need? An official US Army investigation? Markus Becker02 15:18, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Hello, above, whoever you are. Your "3rd" comment makes little sense regarding the claims (by some, several anonymous contributors) regarding this alledged war crime. What might be "obvious" to you does not make factual or fictional the reality of the historical events being discussed. The attempts to directly connect this alledged event to the Malmedy Massacre, clearly obvious in the article, are hard to accept as reasonable. This alledged event vs. the facts of Malmedy are irreconcilable. American/Allied soldiers (very few) who were there (Chenogne) still live. Most are at the final stages of life. The Allied Army soldiers, living or dead, did not enter this conflict in order to be brutal in their efforts as soldiers to win the Allied cause. The fact is that this was a cruel and brutal time in WWII. Thousands of men, on both sides, died in each campaign, the battle of the bulge being the most painful for each western European army. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.88.244.14 ( talk) 06:32, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
Hello again- It is highly unlikely that anyone in the entire 11th Armored Division had any "friends" or even casual connections to the men murdered at the Malmedy Massacre. Given the substantial resources behind the front lines of the 11th AD, being newly engaged in battle, late December 1944, it his very hard to believe that, for these soldiers & their efforts, there would not be examination of obvious evidence regarding mass graves of enemy soldiers. The ground was frozen. Conditions were barely survivable. These men (11th AD) advanced and took heavy casualties. In fact, the evacuation of Allied Army casulties was extermely succussful. It is very unfortunate to admit that the same capability was not even considered by the Nazis, regarding this final offensive campaign on their part. This fact is a reasonable explanation for the Malmedy Massacre. Advance or Die. Such conditions or military orders were not a part of the battle orders of the 11th AD. This alledged event at Chenogne has no reasonable connection to Malmedy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.88.112.180 ( talk) 04:07, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
I'd never want to contribute to an edit war, so I've edited the opening paragraph in a way that hopefully can acheive consensus. The new wording makes it clear that what is "alleged" is that the event definitely happened. I found language which implied that while both the Malmedy massacre and the Chenogne massacre definitely happened, the one was "a war crime" while the other was "an alleged war crime", highly objectionalble on Neutral Point of View grounds, since the circumstances of the two massacres were nearly identical. The new edit makes it clear that what's "alleged" about the Chenogne massacre is that it in fact happened. Hopefully further historical research can establish with more certainty that it in fact did occur (or not). 71.211.130.144 ( talk) 22:30, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
In Episode 6 ("The Gost War") of "The War" documentary by Ken Burns, an American veteran reports about the deliberate killing of 25 Waffen-SS soldiers after surrender by a death squad in a Belgian village during the Battle of the Bulge. The commanding officer had asked for volunteers including the eyewitness who declined. However, a sufficient number was gathered, and the POWs got shot. Did this account refer to the Chenogne massacre or was that a different one? -- Meudonnais ( talk) 11:24, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
I wrote to Miller; he confirms that the killings he saw were at Chenogne and doubts the estimate of 60 dead. He says a number of prisoners were removed before the killing started. Can I use this to add to the article or do they not allow the use of correspondence(which can't easily be confirmed)?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.91.78.233 ( talk) 08:15, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
Joseph Cummins is not a historian, and he's retelling the same testimony from the American soldier anyway, so it's not really adding to the article. I would like to remove unless there are objections.
Biography from Amazon: Joseph Cummins' publications include a novel, The Snow Train, and numerous works of popular history, including History's Great Untold Stories; Turn Around and Run Like Hell; Great Rivals in History; and Anything For A Vote: Dirty Tricks, Cheap Shots and October Surprises in U.S. Presidential Campaigns. A new edition of Anything For A Vote appears on October 27, 2015. -- K.e.coffman ( talk) 08:18, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
This quote is supposedly taken from Patton's wartime diaries which have been published. If so, this needs to be cited directly from Patton's diary, and not some secondary source. Marcd30319 ( talk) 00:56, 1 January 2019 (UTC)