Talk:Operation Cobra

Recent edits

To avoid yet another revert frenzy, I invite interested editors to discuss recent edits to arrive at consensus.

• In many military articles one side's armies are rendered in words, First Army and an opponent in numbers 1st Army. A scan of the article shows that only in the last revert were the 7th and 5th Panzer armies rendered in words, in the rest of the article they were numbered as per convention. Does anyone dispute that this part of the original edit was justified?
• Sloppy, poorly punctuated, hyperbolic and un-encyclopaedic if anyone thinks this was a criticism of an editor rather than a judgement about the prose that I had altered, please let me put their mind at rest. I altered "succeeded in escaping" to escaped. How could someone who does something succeed in doing it? They could hardly do it unsuccessfully. Keith-264 (talk) 13:35, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

You frequently make personal attacks on other editors. We can all work together better without the snark. I made a compromise edit. DMorpheus2 (talk) 13:40, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

No, I occasionally retaliate against provocation; this time I even explained why I wrote something.

"— which the Germans had been fighting desperately to keep open to allow their trapped forces to escape —"

how can you defend this, it is not descriptive, it contains pleonasm in referring to the escape of trapped forces, how could they escape if they weren't trapped?

"By 22 August, the Falaise Pocket was finally sealed, ending the Battle of Normandy according to some authorities, with a crushing Allied victory."

This is also a compromise, finally sealed is another sloppy non-NPOV term, which should be ...had been sealed. It seems that lots of US RS treat this as the end of the Battle of Normandy and lots of British RS see the armies closing up to the Seine as the end of the battle. I suggest that a featured article should advert to this. Keith-264 (talk) 14:48, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Operation Cobra. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111226065206/http://www.moaacc.org/Intercomaug11.pdf to http://www.moaacc.org/Intercomaug11.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080912012732/http://www.dnd.ca/dhh/collections/books/files/books/Victory_e.pdf to http://www.dnd.ca/dhh/collections/books/files/books/Victory_e.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:19, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Operation Cobra. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20030821114530/http://www.normandiememoire.com/NM60Anglais/2_histo4/histo4_p07_gb.htm to http://www.normandiememoire.com/NM60Anglais/2_histo4/histo4_p07_gb.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:00, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Featured Article?!?!?

This article has featured status, shouldn't the figures in the boxes get referenced by people with access to the proper books? The casualties given in the box are 1800 Napier gives 23000 casualties. How can such discrepancy make it into a featured article?

Furthermore, it appears that numbers are selectively chosen from different sources to find the most outlandish numbers in either direction. How does the number of 300 German tanks as losses make it into the article, this apparently exceeds the number of involved vehicles? And appears to be the general number of captured vehicles in the later pocket. Hastings at no points those numbers are from Cobra. Here is what he said:

"It was only on the 21st August that the Falaise Gap could be properly accounted closed, as tanks of the Canadian 3rd and 4th Divisions secured St Lambert and the northern passage to Chambois. 344 tanks and self propelled guns ... were counted abandoned or destroyed in the Northern sector of the pocket alone.

Operation Cobra ended on the 31st July. Why is this citation in the article about Cobra? Again, should this happen in a FA status article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Justsomequickedits (talk • contribs) 14:24, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

It isn't for us to arbitrate, if the RS offer various numbers of anything, we have to use a range and explain this in the body of the article, particularly in the Aftermath section. That said, there's always room for improvement so if you have fresh sources, go to it. "March on, join bravely, let us to't pell-mell; If not to heaven, then hand in hand to hell." Regards Keith-264 (talk) 18:14, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

I saw this article a while ago and the numbers looked fine, now they don't. What is the point of featured article status if such numbers make it into it anyways? Is there no checking of new edits or did people greenlight them? I edited other articles with state of the art numbers from Napier and got them edited out for unknown reasond but here somebody uses totally unrelated numbers and they make it into the box? I didn't edit them because I was told ( by you ) to not edit false numbers without checking in on the talk page. So here I am, multiple numbers in the box are plain wrong. Completely unrelated books are referenced. The US casualty numbers are wrong and I highly doubt the referenced source claims those numbers and the tank loss numbers are totally unrelated from the northern part of the Falaise pocket. Napier gives ~75 German tank casualties. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Justsomequickedits (talk • contribs) 21:30, 3 September 2018 (UTC)