![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
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)
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)
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)
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.
I added the link to the IMDB movie of the operation - The Man who never was. Dougsnow 08:25, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
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)
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 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)
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)
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)
"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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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. [1]"
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)
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
|
---|
|
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)
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)
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 authenticand 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)
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)
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)
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))
|
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?
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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"?
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)
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)
<od>@ 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:... (et al): So, to recap:-
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)
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)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
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)
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)
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)
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.
I added the link to the IMDB movie of the operation - The Man who never was. Dougsnow 08:25, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
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)
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 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)
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)
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)
"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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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. [1]"
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)
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
|
---|
|
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)
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)
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 authenticand 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)
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)
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)
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))
|
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?
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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"?
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)
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)
<od>@ 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:... (et al): So, to recap:-
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)
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)