Talk:Battle of Remagen

Careful with the article size

I applaud the work being done to improve this article, but be aware it's getting rather long per WP:SIZERULE, at 'Prose size (text only): 72 kB (12209 words) "readable prose size"'. (Hohum ^@) 17:25, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

I think we can shorten the article by deleting unneccessary details where standard weapon systems are listed. Where unusual or special weaponry was employed, we could keep that but mentioning that the bridge was attacked and defended by standard equipment doesn't add much information. Mentioning the units involved is enough imho. AadaamS (talk) 18:43, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

I tend to write for the uninitiated, those who are unfamiliar with military systems, organizations, and jargon, thus I've added what some might view as unneeded details. Your call though. — btphelps ^{(talk to me) (what I've done)} 11:44, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

German order of battle

Two thoughts:

1) Are the German corps, Army (Armee) or Reserve corps?

2) Aren't German corps often given in Roman numerals, eg as in III Army Corps (Germany) (later III Panzerkorps) ? GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:54, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm unfamiliar with German unit naming conventions. Please jump in and make fixes. — btphelps ^{(talk to me) (what I've done)}

A question arising from "shortened war"

The text says "General George C. Marshall commented, "The bridgehead provided a serious threat to the heart of Germany, a diversion of incalculable value. It became a springboard for the final offensive to come..." (my emphasis)

"Diversion" seems an interesting word. Is he meaning it as a change in their original direction (like a road diversion), or a move that draws the enemy away (like a feint)? Does it need clarification. GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:36, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Since the capture of Ludendorff Bridge pulled sizable numbers of forces from among those facing Monty, I believe he meant drawing the enemy away. — btphelps ^{(talk to me) (what I've done)} 11:38, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

I have to say the assertion that the capture of the bridge shortened the war seems to be nonsense when the Red Army was on the Oder, only 50 miles away from Berlin, by this stage. Patton crossed the Rhine as one of his stunts. In itself crossing the Rhine was a morale booster and the sort of thing that would annoy Hitler rather than a strategic victory. That is is why it didn't go anywhere for weeks. Brave men, though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.96.168.76 (talk) 14:16, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

I have removed the unequivocal assertion that it shortened the war from the start of the lead. The lead itself handles this with more nuance later on, and the article has a whole sourced section on the subject. (Hohum ^@) 15:02, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

The sources seem to be mostly journalists while the "dissenting" voice is that of an actual German general who I think was in 5th army at the time. You have to decide if you are writing for a piece of propaganda or an encyclopedia article. If the latter then you are going to have to be able to justify the argument that a relatively small force 300 miles away from Berlin materially influenced the timing of an operation by millions of Red Army soldiers on the Oder, 50 miles from Berlin. Do you really want to? If so, why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.96.168.76 (talk) 20:33, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

The article reflects what reliable sources say. That is what wikipedia does. In fact, the opinions of Friedrich von Mellenthin are unsourced, and need to be. Perhaps you have some reliable sources to use, rather than complaining. (Hohum ^@) 23:27, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm just pointing out the obvious. You can of course continue to choose to ignore it. That is between you and your conscience. Time to move on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.96.168.76 (talk) 14:57, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Article assessment

Anyone want to have a go at reassessing the article quality class now? — btphelps ^{(talk to me) (what I've done)} 11:47, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Lead's initial sentence

@GraemeLeggett, while you may feel otherwise, the initial sentence DOES NOT need to "state what the topic of article is." Per WP guidelines, "The lead should establish significance, include mention of consequential or significant criticism or controversies, and be written in a way that makes readers want to know more." The key here is 'makes readers want to know more." The specific guidance for the initial sentence states:

..."use the first sentence to introduce the topic, and then spread the relevant information out over the entire lead."

Further, the guidance states:

"For topics notable for only one reason, this reason should usually be given in the first sentence."

While the battle is notable for more than one reason, the most interesting and compelling fact (which surprised me when I discovered it) is that both the Germans and Americans agreed that taking the bridge shortened the war. I had read some reports by various writers who stated that capturing the bridge shortened the word, but I didn't expect to find corroborating statements by prominent military authorities.

Given the above guidance, and the lack of direct statements supporting your suggestion that the initial sentence needs to "state what the topic of article is", I am revising the lead to restablish this distinctive notability and help pique the reader's interest in finding out why the Battle of Remagen shortened the war. — btphelps ^{(talk to me) (what I've done)} 19:01, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Did it shorten the war as a whole, or the war in the Europe? The A-bombs shortened the war in the east. GraemeLeggett (talk) 23:27, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

I think the quotes and citations are referring to the war in Europe of course. None of them specifically say as much but I believe its a reasonable inferrance. Should i make it more obvious? — btphelps ^{(talk to me) (what I've done)} 00:28, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Luftwaffe

I like it when editors take into account the air contribution for once. Would the nominee mind Dapi89 expanding ever so slightly on the details here? Dapi89 (talk) 17:40, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Please add "de Zeng, H.L; Stanket, D.G; Creek, E.J. Bomber Units of the Luftwaffe 1933-1945; A Reference Source, Volume 1. Ian Allan Publishing, 2007. ISBN 978-1-85780-279-5 p. 149" to the information I added re: Me 262 jets used as escort fighters on the 7 March. It only happened once. Dapi89 (talk) 17:58, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

John Weal's Luftwaffe Schlachtgruppen, Osprey p. 100 contains the information pertaining to the 8 March attack and the Ju 87 disaster. Dapi89 (talk) 18:32, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

For information added pertaining to KG 200 the source is Geoffrey Thomas & Barry Ketley's KG 200: The Luftwaffe's most secret unit, p. 157. Dapi89 (talk) 16:21, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Battle of Remagen/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Tomandjerry211 (talk · contribs) 18:54, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

GA Review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well-written

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   Instead of pipe linking the V-2 Rocket just leave the link alone.

   Double links to Operation Plunder, 9th Tank Division, and Lunderdoff Bridge

   Replace M3 halftracks with quadruple 0.5 in machine guns with just a link to M16 Half-track

   Major Scheller tried and failed to reach his superiors

2. It is verifiable and factually accurate

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   Needs citation for the first paragraph of the section called "Background"

   Needs citation for the fourth paragraph of "Dead man's corner"

   Needs citation for the fourth paragraph of "Conflicting orders"

   Needs citation for the fourth paragraph of "German order of Battle"

   Needs citation for the fourth paragraph of "U.S. captures bridge"

   Needs citation for the last paragraph of "Anti-aircraft defense"

   Needs citation for the first paragraph of "Aircraft attack bridge"

   Needs citation for the first paragraph of "Additioal Bridges"

   Needs citation for the fifth paragraph of "Bridge Fails"

   Needs citation for the first paragraph of "Americans find bridge intact"

   Also needs citation for last paragraph for "Awards for valor"

3. It is broad in coverage

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy

   fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, when possible and appropriate

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   Is there a better resolution for the video showing U.S. troops crossing Lunderoff Bridge.

7. Overall

   Pass/Fail:

   I would normally quickfail this, but I'm giving you only one chance to fix this, or this article is going to fail. -- Tomandjerry211 (talk) 23:08, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

   Needs a lot more citations for a lot of blank spaces. Thai is the main reason it failed. If you want to renominates, you can after you fix the blank citations.--Tomandjerry211 (talk) 00:41, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Good Faith

I think your review lacks Good Faith and is inconsistent, unnecessarily picky, and insufficiently specific.

There are 43 instances of double links in the article. Why do you pick on these four? The other three items within Section 1 are things you could have easily fixed yourself.

As to Section 2, Verifiable, all but three of the paragraphs you cite as requiring a citation already contains one or more citations. It's not required to provide a reference for every single sentence if it happens to fall at the end of a paragraph. If there are specific facts that you feel require citation, then to be clear you should add "citation needed" to it. For example, the first Paragraph of "Aircraft attack bridge" had five (5) citations, yet you require another because the last sentence is uncited? One of the pillars of WP is IGNORE is that there are no rules, only policies and guidelines.

In conclusion, you wrote that the article "needs a lot more citations for a lot of blank spaces". This seems contradictory to CITE which says, "Wikipedia's Verifiability policy requires inline citations for any material challenged or likely to be challenged, and for all quotations, anywhere in article space." With the three exceptions you noted, every paragraph is already cited. Where are all these "blank spaces"?

Finally, you "would" quickfail it, but then you do quick fail it... What about Good Faith and allowing me an opportunity to rectify the legitimate shorcomings within the article. The issues with prose and MOS are pretty trivial and can be easily remedied. I'm sorry I didn't reply within 24 hours of your initial assessment, but please remember not everyone hangs out on WP 24/7. I don't see why you didn't give me a chance to fill a few missing cites. — btphelps ^{(talk to me) (what I've done)} 06:07, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

I hope this won't seem like an unwarranted intrusion, but I was surprised to see that this article was quickfailed and thought I might interject before things became heated. I should note that although I've skim-read the article I haven't done any kind of review myself and have no specific comment about the issues raised above. Firstly, unless there is direct evidence of bad faith that sort of accusation isn't very helpful, although on the other hand I don't think that giving an hour to fix the problems with the article (which do seem relatively minor) is the most appropriate way to conduct a review - the Instructions page recommends seven days, although its true that this is left to the reviewer's discretion.

I recommend that User:btphelps either fix the issues as they see fit and renominate this article today, or take the review to WP:GAR for wider community comment. You may even find that you obtain a more comprehensive examination of the article with the latter course. Either way, please both remember to Assume Good Faith - I know how heated things can get, but in those situations no one wins. If you want me to comment further please let me know.--Jackyd101 (talk) 10:29, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Sorrry with the problems, Btphelps, you can renominate if you want.--Tomandjerry211 (talk) 12:21, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Last bridge over the Rhine?

The lead states that the Remagen Bridge was the last bridge over the Rhine still standing when found by the Allies. That is true of the bridges north of Ludwigshafen, but after 19 March 1945, 3 bridges over the Rhine further upstream were still intact: the bridge at Maximiliansau was not blown until 21 March, at Speyer on 23 March and Gamersheim was intact until blown on 24 March. So when the Bridge at Remagen was found by Allied forces, it was not the last bridge over the Rhine. Perhaps this can be clarified. Source: Victory in Europe, 1945: The Last Offensive of World War II by Charles B. MacDonald, p. 263-4. Thanks. NotaBene 鹰百利 ^Talk 14:40, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

I'll have a look at the source and see what it says, thanks. — btphelps ^{(talk to me) (what I've done)} 23:42, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Here's the link to Google books: https://books.google.com/books?id=C-zNqL1yfg0C&pg=PA263&lpg=PA263&dq=12th+Armored+division+Speyer&source=bl&ots=_PTNTwD6iq&sig=r9aNv5T93Ptin9TNITjcdKi1aR0&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjb_JWCjKLLAhXEVT4KHahxAB8Q6AEILzAE#v=onepage&q=12th%20Armored%20division%20Speyer&f=falseThanks. NotaBene 鹰百利 ^Talk 03:28, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Same book from the CMH: http://www.history.army.mil/html/books/007/7-9-1/index.html NotaBene 鹰百利 ^Talk 07:46, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Only Julius Caesar had crossed the Rhine?

The statement "Before Napoleon, only Julius Caesar had crossed the Rhine" is incorrect. Just off the top of my head: French armies crossed the Rhine many times under Louis XIV and XV, capturing many cities including Heidelburg and Freiburg and fighting battles such as Blenheim; just apart from Drusus the Romans had a whole province on the eastern side of the Rhine (Agri Decumates) which necessarily means they were crossing the Rhine for a long time after Julius Caesar... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.245.219.245 (talk) 14:33, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Battle of Remagen. 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/20160505235006/http://airandspace.si.edu/collections/artifact.cfm?id=A19600312000 to http://airandspace.si.edu/collections/artifact.cfm?id=A19600312000

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 20:27, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Engeman

The article says Engeman 3 times, Engemen 6 times and Engemann once, and it's apparently the same person. Art LaPella (talk) 16:16, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

As far as I can tell they are meant to refer to the same person/task force. Of some of the sources supporting Engeman/Engemen related text, Zaloga and [1] refer to both task force and person exclusively as 'Engeman', [2] refers Engemann (for the person), one cite didn't support the exact line it was placed with or mention Engeman, and I couldn't access [3]. Alcherin (talk) 20:29, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Some unclear jargon

Some form of short notation for military units seems to have been used in the article - while AIB for Armored Infantry Battalion is explained, what 14/27 AIB, A/27/9 AIB, A/14/9 AIB, A/27 AIB and C/9th AIB, and the differences between them, is not explained in the article. Btphelps, could you possibly replace these with less technical names for the units in question, given your substantial contributions to the article? Alcherin (talk) 20:37, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Ah, it's an attempt to mention all of the units involved in short form. I'll expand them out so it's actually clear what is meant by these abbreviations. Alcherin (talk) 17:22, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Ludendorff Bridge--needs work!

@Hohum, Weslam123, Tom.Reding, Btphelps, Mr.TiNart, Gregor 1978, and Mibwir: Thanks to you and others working for your recent work on this article. Would you [and anyone who sees this] please look at the section Ludendorff Bridge#Capture during World War II, which summarizes this lengthy article. I had been working on it and did not realize this article covers so much more that is absent in the summary. I'm guessing you all know the subject better and could make much better improvements and use the best sources available. Thanks. --David Tornheim (talk) 23:37, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the invite. The Ludendorff Bridge article should only quite briefly describe the battle, since it's well covered in another article. As to summarizing the battle in the Ludendorff Bridge article, my practice is to take the lede of the other (main) article and reduce and summarize it further. Then call it done. — btphelps ^{(talk to me) (what I've done)} 00:02, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Roer River to Rur River

Was the article was trying to use "Roer" for the river when it is in France and Belgium and "Rur" for the same river in Germany? If so I may have messed up that intent. But I don't think both names should be used without explanation, since it looks like two different rivers. GeorgeofOrange (talk) 01:27, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

battle west of the Rhine

My english is too poor to do the necessary revision of the few line starting this paragraph.151.29.59.56 (talk) 10:04, 13 May 2022 (UTC)