This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
The Blitz article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2 |
This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
This
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on 11 dates. show |
This article is substantially duplicated by a piece in an external publication. Please do not flag this article as a copyright violation of the following source:
|
This article is written in British English. This has more implications than spelling. In particular, in Britain the passive voice is not deprecated and closely related sentences are often connected by a semicolon rather than being separated by a period. The reason for this post is that an editor has made a heroic edit correcting grammar. Many of these 'corrections' were simply substituting US conventions in place of British grammar. Since this was a good faith edit and it didn't actually do any harm, I haven't reverted it. Nevertheless it was just fiddling around the edges. OrewaTel ( talk) 23:07, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
This article is about interaction between Germany and United Kingdom and consequently contains a number of German words. These have, correctly, been tagged using {{lang|de|Wörter}}. (Rendered as Wörter.) But there are some Germanic words that are either proper nouns or English words. A good example is Luftwaffe. Whilst this is German for 'Air weapon', here it is simply the name of the German Air Force and is not a translatable German word. Similarly 'Blitz' is German for lightning but here is an English word to denote this bombing campaign. That it was derived from a German word 'Blitzkrieg' is irrelevant. (That a long drawn out bombing campaign is about as far from Blitzkrieg as you can get is equally irrelevant.)
I am effecting an audit of words tagged as German with a view to removing the tag from proper names and English words. I shall tag any untagged German words if I find any. OrewaTel ( talk) 00:56, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
The direct cause of The Blitz were a series of events on 24~25 August 1940. Prior to this there was a "gentleman's rule" between the RAF and Luftwaffe to not strike civilian targets. On the night of 24 August, Luftwaffe bombers striking military targets on the outskirts of London drifted off course and mistakenly bombed a suburb of London. The German pilots were reprimanded by their command, but Churchill took this as a deliberate attack on civilians and retaliated by bombing Berlin on 25 August, which resulted in little damage or death, but enraged the Germans and the whole "gentleman's rule" went sideways, triggering The Blitz, and starting the domino effect that would later lead to horrors like Dresden. With these facts omitted from the article it whitewashes the Allies. 113.41.178.130 ( talk) 01:54, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
I cannot find "Harrison 1990" defined. As of 2022-10-23 I saw ""Harrison 1998, p. 112" cited as a second source for, "a November 1940 census of London, found that about 4% of residents used the Tube and other large shelters, 9% in public surface shelters and 27% in private home shelters, implying that the remaining 60% of the city stayed at home."
I've found that "Harrisson 1976, p. 112" gives those numbers. I am changing "Harrison 1990" to "Harrisson 1976" and adding that reference. DavidMCEddy ( talk) 02:16, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
Fraserburgh raided 23 times
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/second-world-war-records-reveal-hidden-scale-of-fraserburgh-blitz-lhf92t9w3 192.131.137.150 ( talk) 21:54, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
A section was added that was based on observations made by Tom Harrisson in his book Living Through The Blitz. The book was based upon the contemporary "Mass Observation" survey. Unfortunately this Wikipedia section was at variance with Harrison's book. It also is at variance with my memories. Okay! My memories are anecdotal at best and probably constitute original research but they correspond more or less to what Harrison actually wrote. I have removed the section as in its current form it is beyond saving although a more carefully written version may be interesting and useful. OrewaTel ( talk) 03:35, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
My summaries of epistomology are contained in the Wikiersity articles on " How can we know?" and " Confirmation bias and conflict. A key reference in both is Daniel Kahneman (2011) Thinking, Fast and Slow, which summarizes seminal research for which Kahneman won the 2002 Nobel Memorial Prize in Economics, even though he is not an economist: He's a research psychologist, who invented ways of asking questions that documented fundamental defects in how people think and make decisions. In so doing, he helped create a new field of research called " behavioral economics" in the intersection of economics and psychology.
User:OrewaTel, you say we should keep to the facts.
Conflicts exist in situations like this precisely because it's not possible for humans to know the "facts". In my judgment, that's precisely why Wikipedia stresses Wikipedia:Citing sources.
Tom Harrisson "was a founder of the social observation organisation Mass-Observation" in 1937. The Wikipedia article on him says he "continued directing Mass-Observation ... from May 1942 until June 1944." He wrote several summaries of the observations collected by that project including Tom Harrisson (1976). Living through the Bliz. William Collins, Sons. ISBN 0-00-216009-9. Wikidata Q114816028. If I understand correctly, Mass-Observation contains the most authoritative data on British public opinion between 1937 and 1944, and Harrisson seems to have been the individual with the deepest understanding of that database during that period and again in the 1970s when he was preparing that book.
What evidence do you have that "events proved that" Harrisson's claims were false?
In particular, what part of the section that you deleted was proven to be false by events?
That section ended, 'Defeatism was relatively rare. Most people regularly showed up for work, did what they normally did to support their family and friends, and "propped their leaders up, in a situation where leadership at the local level was lacking." [1]'
The Wikipedia article on the United States Strategic Bombing Survey claims 'The reports' conclusions were generally favorable about the contributions of Allied strategic bombing towards victory, calling it "decisive".' However, it does NOT cite a source on this point, and that survey documented that German production of war materials increased rather than decreased after cities were bombed. John Kenneth Galbraith, who was one of the leading "officers" of that survey insisted that strategic bombing -- including the nuclear attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were unnecessary, because the leaders of Japan had already agreed to surrender but needed time to process that decision through the Japanese bureaucracy. That position is controversial but is supported by more recent research, especially Robert Pape (1996). Bombing to win: air power and coercion in war. Cornell University Press. ISBN 0-8014-3134-4. OL 808331M. Wikidata Q107458786. and M. Horowitz; D. Reiter (1 April 2001). "When Does Aerial Bombing Work?: Quantitative Empirical Tests, 1917-1999". Journal of Conflict Resolution. 45 (2): 147–173. doi: 10.1177/0022002701045002001. ISSN 0022-0027. Wikidata Q29303332..
As previously noted, it is impossible for humans to know "the facts". At its best Wikipedia summarizes the range of responsible opinions supported by credible documentation. That's why Wikipedia asks people to write from a neutral point of view citing credible sources and discussing contentious questions on the "Talk" page associated with each article.
User:OrewaTel:Can you please be more specific about both what you don't like in the section you deleted and about what credible sources you have to support your objections. Thanks, DavidMCEddy ( talk) 08:20, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
References
WHY WW2 veteran hi ( talk) 04:11, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
Why wasn't Italy involved? Was Mussolini not asked to send forces? Aardi18 ( talk) 19:57, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
An editor complained that the text of the articlew as being squeezed between too many photographs. This editor then embarked on an heroic series of edits to prune the pictures. This [ [1]] was the article before pruning. My personal opinion is that the article was better with the pictures. However rather an embark on a series of reverts to put them back, I thought I would seek consensus. OrewaTel ( talk) 02:37, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
A sentence in the lead states, "Hitler ordered reprisals for what was a token air raid on Berlin on 25 August 1940." The cited article says, "The attacks were authorized by Germany’s chancellor, Adolf Hitler, after the British carried out a nighttime air raid on Berlin." Nowhere is it suggested that the raid on Berlin was a token raid. Further, the attacks were authorised after the Berlin raid. The cited article does not say, because of the raid. A more likely explanation is that raids on London were already planned and Hitler needed an excuse that would look good in Washington. (Please note that the last sentence is original research and cannot be copied into the article without citation.) OrewaTel ( talk) 13:25, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
I found a few articles stating that the blitz spirit was made up, perhaps to keep morale up or as just misinterpreted activity from civilians, but in this wikipedia article, nothing is mentioned about how it was propaganda, I think the blitz spirit section should be rewritten to show the truth.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/mar/19/myth-blitz-spirit-model-coronavirus
https://www.historic-uk.com/HistoryUK/HistoryofBritain/Blitz-Spirit/
https://www.historyskills.com/classroom/year-10/blitz-spirit/ SandHanitizr ( talk) 18:49, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
The Blitz article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2 |
This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
This
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on 11 dates. show |
This article is substantially duplicated by a piece in an external publication. Please do not flag this article as a copyright violation of the following source:
|
This article is written in British English. This has more implications than spelling. In particular, in Britain the passive voice is not deprecated and closely related sentences are often connected by a semicolon rather than being separated by a period. The reason for this post is that an editor has made a heroic edit correcting grammar. Many of these 'corrections' were simply substituting US conventions in place of British grammar. Since this was a good faith edit and it didn't actually do any harm, I haven't reverted it. Nevertheless it was just fiddling around the edges. OrewaTel ( talk) 23:07, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
This article is about interaction between Germany and United Kingdom and consequently contains a number of German words. These have, correctly, been tagged using {{lang|de|Wörter}}. (Rendered as Wörter.) But there are some Germanic words that are either proper nouns or English words. A good example is Luftwaffe. Whilst this is German for 'Air weapon', here it is simply the name of the German Air Force and is not a translatable German word. Similarly 'Blitz' is German for lightning but here is an English word to denote this bombing campaign. That it was derived from a German word 'Blitzkrieg' is irrelevant. (That a long drawn out bombing campaign is about as far from Blitzkrieg as you can get is equally irrelevant.)
I am effecting an audit of words tagged as German with a view to removing the tag from proper names and English words. I shall tag any untagged German words if I find any. OrewaTel ( talk) 00:56, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
The direct cause of The Blitz were a series of events on 24~25 August 1940. Prior to this there was a "gentleman's rule" between the RAF and Luftwaffe to not strike civilian targets. On the night of 24 August, Luftwaffe bombers striking military targets on the outskirts of London drifted off course and mistakenly bombed a suburb of London. The German pilots were reprimanded by their command, but Churchill took this as a deliberate attack on civilians and retaliated by bombing Berlin on 25 August, which resulted in little damage or death, but enraged the Germans and the whole "gentleman's rule" went sideways, triggering The Blitz, and starting the domino effect that would later lead to horrors like Dresden. With these facts omitted from the article it whitewashes the Allies. 113.41.178.130 ( talk) 01:54, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
I cannot find "Harrison 1990" defined. As of 2022-10-23 I saw ""Harrison 1998, p. 112" cited as a second source for, "a November 1940 census of London, found that about 4% of residents used the Tube and other large shelters, 9% in public surface shelters and 27% in private home shelters, implying that the remaining 60% of the city stayed at home."
I've found that "Harrisson 1976, p. 112" gives those numbers. I am changing "Harrison 1990" to "Harrisson 1976" and adding that reference. DavidMCEddy ( talk) 02:16, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
Fraserburgh raided 23 times
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/second-world-war-records-reveal-hidden-scale-of-fraserburgh-blitz-lhf92t9w3 192.131.137.150 ( talk) 21:54, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
A section was added that was based on observations made by Tom Harrisson in his book Living Through The Blitz. The book was based upon the contemporary "Mass Observation" survey. Unfortunately this Wikipedia section was at variance with Harrison's book. It also is at variance with my memories. Okay! My memories are anecdotal at best and probably constitute original research but they correspond more or less to what Harrison actually wrote. I have removed the section as in its current form it is beyond saving although a more carefully written version may be interesting and useful. OrewaTel ( talk) 03:35, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
My summaries of epistomology are contained in the Wikiersity articles on " How can we know?" and " Confirmation bias and conflict. A key reference in both is Daniel Kahneman (2011) Thinking, Fast and Slow, which summarizes seminal research for which Kahneman won the 2002 Nobel Memorial Prize in Economics, even though he is not an economist: He's a research psychologist, who invented ways of asking questions that documented fundamental defects in how people think and make decisions. In so doing, he helped create a new field of research called " behavioral economics" in the intersection of economics and psychology.
User:OrewaTel, you say we should keep to the facts.
Conflicts exist in situations like this precisely because it's not possible for humans to know the "facts". In my judgment, that's precisely why Wikipedia stresses Wikipedia:Citing sources.
Tom Harrisson "was a founder of the social observation organisation Mass-Observation" in 1937. The Wikipedia article on him says he "continued directing Mass-Observation ... from May 1942 until June 1944." He wrote several summaries of the observations collected by that project including Tom Harrisson (1976). Living through the Bliz. William Collins, Sons. ISBN 0-00-216009-9. Wikidata Q114816028. If I understand correctly, Mass-Observation contains the most authoritative data on British public opinion between 1937 and 1944, and Harrisson seems to have been the individual with the deepest understanding of that database during that period and again in the 1970s when he was preparing that book.
What evidence do you have that "events proved that" Harrisson's claims were false?
In particular, what part of the section that you deleted was proven to be false by events?
That section ended, 'Defeatism was relatively rare. Most people regularly showed up for work, did what they normally did to support their family and friends, and "propped their leaders up, in a situation where leadership at the local level was lacking." [1]'
The Wikipedia article on the United States Strategic Bombing Survey claims 'The reports' conclusions were generally favorable about the contributions of Allied strategic bombing towards victory, calling it "decisive".' However, it does NOT cite a source on this point, and that survey documented that German production of war materials increased rather than decreased after cities were bombed. John Kenneth Galbraith, who was one of the leading "officers" of that survey insisted that strategic bombing -- including the nuclear attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were unnecessary, because the leaders of Japan had already agreed to surrender but needed time to process that decision through the Japanese bureaucracy. That position is controversial but is supported by more recent research, especially Robert Pape (1996). Bombing to win: air power and coercion in war. Cornell University Press. ISBN 0-8014-3134-4. OL 808331M. Wikidata Q107458786. and M. Horowitz; D. Reiter (1 April 2001). "When Does Aerial Bombing Work?: Quantitative Empirical Tests, 1917-1999". Journal of Conflict Resolution. 45 (2): 147–173. doi: 10.1177/0022002701045002001. ISSN 0022-0027. Wikidata Q29303332..
As previously noted, it is impossible for humans to know "the facts". At its best Wikipedia summarizes the range of responsible opinions supported by credible documentation. That's why Wikipedia asks people to write from a neutral point of view citing credible sources and discussing contentious questions on the "Talk" page associated with each article.
User:OrewaTel:Can you please be more specific about both what you don't like in the section you deleted and about what credible sources you have to support your objections. Thanks, DavidMCEddy ( talk) 08:20, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
References
WHY WW2 veteran hi ( talk) 04:11, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
Why wasn't Italy involved? Was Mussolini not asked to send forces? Aardi18 ( talk) 19:57, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
An editor complained that the text of the articlew as being squeezed between too many photographs. This editor then embarked on an heroic series of edits to prune the pictures. This [ [1]] was the article before pruning. My personal opinion is that the article was better with the pictures. However rather an embark on a series of reverts to put them back, I thought I would seek consensus. OrewaTel ( talk) 02:37, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
A sentence in the lead states, "Hitler ordered reprisals for what was a token air raid on Berlin on 25 August 1940." The cited article says, "The attacks were authorized by Germany’s chancellor, Adolf Hitler, after the British carried out a nighttime air raid on Berlin." Nowhere is it suggested that the raid on Berlin was a token raid. Further, the attacks were authorised after the Berlin raid. The cited article does not say, because of the raid. A more likely explanation is that raids on London were already planned and Hitler needed an excuse that would look good in Washington. (Please note that the last sentence is original research and cannot be copied into the article without citation.) OrewaTel ( talk) 13:25, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
I found a few articles stating that the blitz spirit was made up, perhaps to keep morale up or as just misinterpreted activity from civilians, but in this wikipedia article, nothing is mentioned about how it was propaganda, I think the blitz spirit section should be rewritten to show the truth.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/mar/19/myth-blitz-spirit-model-coronavirus
https://www.historic-uk.com/HistoryUK/HistoryofBritain/Blitz-Spirit/
https://www.historyskills.com/classroom/year-10/blitz-spirit/ SandHanitizr ( talk) 18:49, 19 February 2024 (UTC)