Talk:Omaha Beach/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This 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.

Contents

Recent Quiet Deletions

This article used to be much more interesting. Photos. Links to famous people who were near the beach on D-Day. Dramatizations. Now it is boring. I'm gonna put it all back with a big regression edit. Anybody who made the wholesale deletions can come out of the closet here, or just go quietly away. Beanbatch 21:39, 21 November 2005 (UTC)


Hemingway

"People who landed at Omaha Beach on D-Day include: Ernest Hemingway (did not land)"

This is a nonsensical statement. How should this read? — Trilobite (Talk) 15:19, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Well, you are right, that should be reworded. Please feel free to do so. One of my sources was [1] "He was present on D-Day, was in fact aboard an LCVP landing craft as it advanced on Omaha Beach. Having dropped off its troops, the LCVP then returned to its ship with Hemingway still sitting astern. But what Hemingway subsequently wrote not only implied that he had gone ashore with the troops, but that he had played a vital role in helping to locate the beach. The Hemingway legend being what it was by then, few questioned his assertions." olivier 21:47, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)
Thanks. I have incorporated this into the article. I didn't make the change at the time as it wasn't clear whether he did or he didn't. Thanks for clearing the matter up. — Trilobite (Talk) 00:53, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
The heading was "at the beach". There is some dispute whether he actually left the landing craft or not. "at the beach" is vague enough to cover Earnest, don't you think? Beanbatch 21:39, 21 November 2005 (UTC)



2400 killed

I believe whoever added that figure may have made the quite common mistake of confusing casualties and killed. It seems to be quite a common error for people to read a casualty list and assume all were killed. There may have been 2400 casualties on Omaha Beach but I'm not sure. I've heard of possibly 3000.

Or they may have confused the total dead on "DDay" which was around 2500.

I agree this figure does not make sense. For it to be the same as the official D-Day museum figure for total dead on D-Day seems too much of a coincidence. It also does not agree with the Battle of Normandy article, and general statements about the casualty rate on Omaha available elsewhere. --Magicmike 03:53, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

"Chateau Thierry Monument" under Dramatizations

Is there any point to this? Under the lists of movies and games it's just floating there. Is it supposed to be a link?

Moved text

I moved the following from Battle of Normandy but I don't have time to merge it in.

However, there was another reason why Omaha beach became known as 'Bloody Omaha'. There were things which had to be done before the US infantry division arrived. Firstly, the US Air Force had to bomb German defences and Omaha beach. They bombed the defences so that the infantry would meet less opposition and they bombed the beach to create craters so that if the infantry needed to take cover, they could. The bombers missed by about 1 km. Also, the infantry expected tank reinforcements. The 741st tank division was, of course, a tank division not a naval one so they did not have much sailing experience. Therefore, their commanding officers just told them to aim for the steeple on the Cathedral at Coleville. Because of this, the 6 foot waves hit the sides of the ships not the front or back and had more surface area to hit. Therefore the ships sank 30-35 metres under the sea. If they had turned the ships around, because the Normandy coastline is diagonal, they would still have landed and the waves would have hit the front and back of the ships and the ships would have been safe. It would have made all the difference to the 741st tank division and the infantry they were meant to support. As a result, the battle was hectic, and the Americans had an extremely hard time capturing the beach head. The US troops had no tank reinforcements, no craters to take cover in and he German defences were strong and intact.

Only 2 out of 27 troops who were supposed to land at Omaha actually did. 1 in 10 men were shot as they streamed up the beach.

DJ Clayworth 20:15, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

The 741st Tank Battalion was not a "division" but a battalion--a unit of some 50 M-4 Sherman tanks. The bulk of its tanks were equipped to "swim" themselves to the beach without using landing craft--they were not "ships" but land vehicles. Omaha was a series of landing beaches, not one location. Most units landing at Omaha did not land on their assigned beach but did come ashore somewhere in the area referred to collectively as "Omaha Beach".--Buckboard 13:10, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Band of Brothers

I've removed this, it was listed in the dramatisations section. Perhaps somebody confused D-Day/Normandy as a whole for Omaha beach. The only connection with the beaches I can recall was the Brécourt Manor Assault in episode two, but that was to silence guns aimed at Utah beach.--Mongreilf 08:11, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Weren't there previous amphibious assaults in WWII, besides Sicily and Africa, made in the Pacific?

69.71.179.213 03:17, 12 April 2007 (UTC)Tom W.


Conker's Bad Fur Day

Unless I'm missing something, this video game mentioned has nothing to do with Omaha Beach or WWII.--Broux 12:40, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, there is a small scene and level in Conker's Bad Fur Day depicting forces landing to take a beach slightly reminiscent of of Omaha and the trenches dug above it.

Hein Severloh

I don't think Hein Severloh killed nearly 3,000 people. If that were true then nearly 90% of all American deaths on Omaha Beach would have been caused by him if there were 3,336 deaths as the stats say. The article that is referenced says he "may have accounted for about 3,000 American casualties, almost three-quarters of all the US losses at Omaha." from that I have to believe that the article has its numbers wrong. Has anyone else seen anything about this person with any stronger estimates.

No, the German Wikipedia has an article on Heinrich Severloh and they mention nothing about the number of casualties he inflicted. It just states he manned an MG-42, inflicted heavy casualties at Omaha, and was nicknamed "The Beast of Omaha." And the periodical cited is hardly official.Mojodaddy 21:48, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

As written it's acceptable if melodramatic. However, there were not 3336 deaths on Omaha--but total casualties. As pointed out elsewhere, the two are not the same, and the most common ratio of wounded to killed is 3:1. (Marine casualties at Tarawa in the Pacific were approx 3500, with 1000 killed, and casualties at Omaha were comparable.) Omaha is a big place (4 miles in length) and a single gunner's field of view would not have encompassed more than a single landing beach among the seven beaches. The likelihood of causing up to 75% of all casualties is grossly exagerrated, no matter what some "analysts" are quoted as saying.--Buckboard 13:17, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

This Hein Severloh stuff is OBVIOUS bullshit, its just unsubtantiated nonsense from a single source -- HIM. Wikipedia spreads nonsense all over the internet... STOP. 71.217.214.160

I deleted the hein serverloh stuff. It is patently false, based entirely on the testimony of the man involved. It doesn't even merit "disputed" status. - MarcusAurelius


Grammar

The grammar usage throughout the "Bloody Omaha" and "Breakthrough" sections is noticeably poor. Mojodaddy 21:52, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Significant Edit of "Bloody Omaha" section

I hope this is a worthy effort. Aiming for a more encyclopedic entry, though it probably makes for dry reading and difficult comprehension. Any suggestions for making it easier to read/understand? Maybe splitting the whole into more pages? I will try and improve it in due course. Unless there is a big outcry against this version I plan on giving the same treatment to the breakthrough stage of the battle. --FactotEm 20:27, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Nearly there. Need to add section relating to conditions on the beach until the draws were opened, reinforcement landings, establishment of the bridgehead and some 'tidying up'. --FactotEm 14:56, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Severloh

Rather than anonymously deleting the content, one should actually put a reason behind doing so. Even better: find a source to back yourself up, instead blathering about what is clearly your own original research. Clearly, Severloh is notable for what he did; the low estimate in the article I found is in the hundreds - that is, 10% of the casualties. He didn't make this up out of the blue - American soldiers called someone the "Beast of Omaha Beach", and someone tracked the guy down and co-wrote his memoirs. Between the casualties (numbers may vary) and the nickname, he is notable, and this section should not be summarily deleted. zafiroblue05 | Talk 17:25, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Please stop vandalising this article with your original research on Severloh; there is nothing credible on the internet, and you have no academic evidence whatsoever to support your amateur attempts to write history, on a subject that you know nothing about. Those of us who know about this subject don't have the time or energy to waste arguing with you -- just go away, and get a life.71.217.214.160

Did you bother to even read my edit? The Washington Post is not (just) the "Internet." Nor is the Scotsman. My last edit (last two edits, really) changed the paragraph to clarify the discrepancy between what Severloh says and what historians think. I actually found a quote for that (the Post article), whereas you simply delete the whole thing summarily. No reasonable person would think that one paragraph is vandalism - if you have any specific objections to any word in the paragraph, detail them one by one. Removing the whole thing entirely is above all unhelpful. And why you persist in insulting people who ideally have the same purpose as you (namely, writing an encyclopedia) is beyond me. zafiroblue05 | Talk 21:21, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

The Washington Post article does not support your outrageous claims, nor is it a reliable historical source, so stop trying to conduct original research and let us know when you find something from a real historian. 71.217.214.160

You refuse to mention exactly what "outrageous claim" is not being supported. I assume it's not merely the man's presence on Omaha beach, but the number of people he killed, which, as given in the article is either a few hundred (per historian) or a few thousand (per Severloh). The latter is given in the Scotsman article (Severloh: "It was definitely at least 1,000 men, most likely more than 2,000."), and the former is given in the Post article ("'My guess is yes, he helped kill or wound hundreds, but how many hundreds would be hard to say,' Roger Cirillo, a military historian at the Association of the U.S. Army in Arlington, wrote in an e-mail."). Please back up your assertions by something more than rhetoric if you continue to vandalize the article by deleting sourced content. zafiroblue05 | Talk 23:31, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

The source article is outrageous. Potential facts are not "true until proven otherwise". They are "false until proven true". This is so obviously a fake story, I weep for all your "research". The most important fact here is that SEVERLOH IS THE ONLY HUMAN BEING ON THE PLANET to make this claim. Not a single person witnessed the act in question. Given that there were thousands of people there, it's very fair to assume this is false. - MarcusAurelius

NO PROFESSIONAL ACADEMIC HISTORIAN HAS EVER SUPPORTED SEVERLOH'S ABSURD CLAIMS!!!!!!!!!!!! PLZ, WIKIPEDIANS, STOP CLOGGING THE INTERNET WITH HALFASSED WRITING ABOUT STUFF THAT YOU KNOW NOTHING ABOUT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! THE GUESS OF CIRILLO, A GUY WHO ISN'T OFFICIALLY A HISTORIAN, IS HARDLY EVIDENCE!!!!!! THERE ISN'T ANY EVIDENCE THAT SEVERLOH EVEN FIRED A SINGLE BULLET, ASIDE FROM HIS UNVERIFIABLE CLAIM TO HAVE SHOT TWELVE THOUSAND OF THEM, WITH UNBELIEVABLE ACCURACY. MY NEPHEW SUPPOSEDLY SHOT FIVE THOUSAND VC DURING THE VIETNAM WAR, WHY DONT YOU PUT THAT IN AN ARTICLE TOO? ALL I GOTTA DO IS CONVINCE SOME LAME C-STUDENT JERKOFF JOURNALISM MAJOR THAT ITS TRUE, AND YOU'LL TURN IT INTO GOSPEL TRUTH -- IS THAT YOUR IDEA OF RESEARCH? 71.217.214.160 00:18, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

ugh - professional academics are soooooooooo sick of wikipedia clogging the internet with crappy articles -- god, only wikipedia would consider linking an article on omaha beach to Conker's Bad Fur Day. u people are so pathetic, no historian backs severloh's claims, all u have is some halfass amateur publicity seeking nobody wannabe writers, and you write that "historians" accept this nonsense -- jesus, no, no they don't, and we are so sick of correcting you people.

I have replaced the deleted material as it appears to be well referenced. I think the segment could be nuanced a little more and/or some commentary put in about the contentious nature of the claim (with references). I'd like to constructively engage with 71.217.214.160 but s/he seems to be more intent of breaching WP:attack than having a reasonable and reasoned discussion. Gillyweed 00:47, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
I have deleted the replaced material as it does not appear to be well referenced. I'd like to constructively engage with Gillyweed but s/he seems to be more intent of breaching WP:attack than having a reasonable and reasoned discussion. 71.217.214.160 00:47, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I’m quite reluctant to do this because passions seem high, but I’m new and don’t yet know any better so here goes. I have to say I do think there’s a problem with the sources here, indeed with the inclusion of this subject with the current references.

The two references cited are news providers. They verify only that Severloh is making the claims that he is. They do absolutely nothing to verify the historical accuracy of his claims.

The Washington Post reference given in support of the statement that "Severloh killed or wounded at least hundreds of American soldiers, according to historians" does not support that statement. Not only is the use of the plural unjustified, Cirillo’s actual words as quoted in the source are (my emphasis added) "My guess is yes, he helped kill or wound hundreds, but how many hundreds would be hard to say". Thus…

  • He can only guess.
  • He specifically states that Severloh “helped”, not that he was solely responsible (Severloh was one of 30 or so men, in a bunker complex with 3 machine guns deployed - [[2]]).
  • He actually states how hard it is to put a number on the casualties attributable to this one man.

Surely this is a reference that tends to refute the point it was deployed to support?

As for The Scotsman reference given in support of the higher claims of Severloh himself? Reading this article actually produces three different figures; "at least 1000", "most likely more than 2000" (both from Severloh) and "may have accounted for 3000" (from the, according to the Washington Post, "amateur historian" who was the ghost writer for Severloh’s book in 2000). Doesn’t this vagueness, from the only source cited so far that supports the claim, and in the absence of any corroborating evidence, introduce a significant element of doubt about the suitability of this subject for inclusion? --FactotEm 07:06, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I think there are two issues here. 1) Is Severloh notable? I think that his claims and the fact that many independent sources have picked them up makes him notable as per WP:notability. The fact that the references do not verify Serveloh's claims does not mean this bloke isn't notable. 2) Are his claims believable? I don't know. This is the issue that should be debated. Removing the section is unacceptable because this 'fact' is out in cyberspace and thus is believed. We therefore need to craft a section that discusses the credibility of the claims, thus presenting all sides of the debate. Lets work on the section, not simply delete it. Gillyweed 07:33, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
This is the kind of debate we could have [3] but given we will never have proof of the events that took place, I think we need to clearly identify the claims made and the counter arguments and leave it at that. Any views? Gillyweed 07:49, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
If you acknowledge that we will "never have proof of the events that took place", and you acknowledge this entire story is based entirely upon a single man's story, the only logical conclusion is that this can't be included. Any lone nut can make an outrageous claim. The fact that this one received media attention does not make it any more valid. There hasn't been a single other reported eye-witness of the event in question. And this kind of event would easily be the most extraordinary in the largest war in history. Therefor, it did not happen. This deserved no credence whatsoever. -- MarcusAurelius.

Gillyweed's insistence on how such a minor trivial nonsense news article is "notable" is indicative of how ridiculous wikipedia is; the editors know nothing about larger serious issues, so they instead clog the internet full of trivia about mundane, outrageous, and unsubstantiated curiosities. Its hardly the sign of a good writer to give an entire paragraph to Severloh, and no paragraphs to anyone else who participated in the battle -- weren't they notable as well?

With respect Gillyweed I’m afraid I don’t think this article needs a debate in the way that you suggest. Following my post this morning nothing new has yet come forward to persuade me to shift my position. I read the article you linked to. I cannot see any new evidence to support the claim. It seems to consist instead of a lot of unsubstantiated debate. The 16th RCT commentary linked there records nothing relevant, and I even babelfished the German language link. Still nothing new. If any reliable corroboration of the man’s claims can be found then please put it forward, but in the meantime would you consider this…?
Do you not think that this article, not to mention the subject it serves, would itself be better served by focussing on the real narrative of Omaha? I am no more impressed by the anon contributor’s aggression yesterday than you, but don’t you think he has a point? The story of Omaha is not Severloh. Not even remotely. The narrative of Omaha published by Stephen Ambrose (cited in the article – Professor of History, apparently not without a touch of scandal in his day but I suspect still a more reputable source than any so far produced) is 145 pages of text in 8 chapters. In all this work Mr Ambrose sees fit to mention Herr Severloh once: "'Landing craft on our left, off Vierville, making for the beach,' Cpl. Hein Severloh in Widerstandsnesten 62 called out." That’s it. The term "Beast of Omaha" never gets a mention, not by Mr Ambrose or in the copious amount of 1st person narrative from the Omaha veterans that he quotes. --FactotEm 21:37, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Thank you Factotem for having a reasonable debate and discussion. I will continue to ignore the rantings of the anonymous editors above (those who hide behind personal attack, abuse and fail to sign their posts do not receive any respect from me). I understand your desire to ensure that the real story does not get hijacked by Severloh's claims. The link I put in my last post was to indicate that there is no consensus on Severloh's claims and THUS we should not attempt to find the truth - and I contend that we will never find the truth about the claims. What I do say is that whether we like it or not, Severloh and his 'exploits' are now 'notable'. In fact I came to Omaha Beach because I read about Severloh at another site and wanted to check WP's view of his claims. Therefore, I think it is important that WP has an article about Severloh. Perhaps this article is not the right place for it - although we need a link from this page to the article. The Severloh article than can then tease out some of the pros and cons of the argument. What do you think? Gillyweed 22:17, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
I've been bold and created a new article about Heinrich Severloh. The criticism section is light on. Please add to it. I'm not convinced I have integrated Severloh well into the 'casualties' section of this article. Please feel free to amend it, but I don't think reference to Severloh should be deleted altogether as I think whether we like it or not, his claims are out there and they need to be acknowledged and debated (but in the Severloh article and not the Omaha beach article). Gillyweed 23:11, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
While maybe Severloh is due his own article because of those few media mentions, but absolutely not in the main article. The fact that it is not mentioned in any reputable academics source is telling and that's what we should be using. The only book that actually mentions him, only has Severloh calling out a sighting, not singlehandedly taking out several battalions. --MichaelLinnear 00:18, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
I still find it odd that this man is given any credence at all, but I understand your point now. Your solution will minimise any compromise to the main article and I think it is an equitable one. Obviously I think the new article would be most accurate if it basically pulled the claim to pieces, but there are more important things to do here and I’m not going to get involved in that. Thank you Gillyweed for your patient debate under duress. BTW, there are no official figures for casualties on D-Day for any of the beaches. The authorities only produced them for the Normandy campaign as a whole. Figures for D-Day are only ever estimates, which is why so many different ones are bandied around. --FactotEm 07:47, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm disappointed that MichaelLinnear has chosen to delete the one sentence relating to Severloh, when I thought we had reached a reasonable compromise. The sentence said that his claims were controversial and linked to the main article. Is this not a statement of fact? However, I am not going to replace the sentence as I am not here to antagonize anyone. May I invite the critics of Severloh to fill in the criticism section of the Heinrich Severloh article please. Currently it looks as there is no evidence against his claims. Clearly you think his claims are ridiculous - thus could you explain so in an encyclopaedic manner in the Severloh article. Thanks Gillyweed 03:28, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

For the record, when I wrote my last comment I hadn’t seen the link left in the article. When I eventually did even that did not sit well, but you had been a shining example of restraint and reason and I had been distracted enough already by this issue. As I indicated, I’m afraid I do not regard the claim as relevant or notable. As such, I have no more intention of contributing to the new article than I would to the latest attention seeking flash in the pan Hollywood starlet or anything equally irrelevant to me. I do understand however, that others find it notable and my feeling is that it is up to them to give the subject the critical attention it needs. I hope that you can appreciate that in the meantime, to the extent that my meagre abilities allow, I need to continue with my attempts to do the main narrative justice. --FactotEm 10:13, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough! I think the work you are doing on the main article is excellent and I don't wish to distract you from this work. Perhaps the anonymous editors who felt so impassioned about the issue might use their passion to improve the Serverloh article instead of abusing people and the work we do at WP. Keep on editing FactotEm and I look forward to reading further of your work. Gillyweed 08:21, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Map image copies

On the basis that the map of Omaha beach originally added to this article had a GDFL-compatible license I've produced some manipulated copies to better illustrate the beach cross section and sectors where these come up in the article. Hope that's OK. --FactotEm 16:25, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Peer Review

Some members of the Military History WikiProject have very kindly given some of their time to a peer review of this article. Their comments can be seen at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Peer_review/Omaha_Beach. I've made a start on incorporating their suggestions and I'll continue as I can in the limited time I have available for a while now. --FactotEm 10:46, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Tragedy?

The article describes Omaha as a "tragedy" (3rd paragraph, 1st sentence). On what basis? Heavy losses? The beach was taken. The "tragedy" statement begs for some follow-up analysis comparing losses, effectiveness, and strategic value, but no such analysis is offered in the current article. --Unabsorbed 18:09, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Or just re-wording? I queried the use of "tragedy" with the author of that change (see here). I didn't take it any further but still think the previous wording was more appropriate. --FactotEm 15:08, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

"Phyrric" and "Costly" American Victory

I'm not sure that it is appropriate to add qualifiers to the 'result' statement in infoboxes, and I will assume good faith for now for the recent attempts to do so. On the basis that technically the victory at Omaha Beach was neither "Phyrric" or "Costly" I have reverted the latest edit to do this. The justification for this is that allied planners expected considerably more casualties during the landings than actually occurred. The total casualty figures (killed and wounded) for all beach landings is between 5,000 (according to the Wikipedia articles) and 10,000 (source: D-Day Museum - http://www.ddaymuseum.co.uk/faq.htm#casualities). The planners estimated before the invasion that "a successful landing would cost 10,000 dead and perhaps 30,000 wounded, but were steeling themselves for much heavier casualties." (source: BBC - http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/worldwars/wwtwo/dday_beachhead_01.shtml). Compared to the anticipated casualty figure of 40,000 therefore I'm not sure that trying to qualify the situation at Omaha Beach in this manner is accurate. If there is a reliable source that does actually qualify the victory in this manner by all means add it in, but I ask that it is done so in the main article rather than the infobox. Thanks. --FactotEm 10:39, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe any qualification is necessary. Info boxes do not require 'opinion' (and thus then referencing). Statements of fact are required only. Thus I agree completely with you Factotem, and I wll revert attempts at qualifying the stats too. Gillyweed 11:15, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Where from?

The article doesn't say where the invasion force came from, which I believe to be Trebah, near Falmouth in Cornwall. Vernon White . . . Talk 22:41, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

The Trebah page has that photo as well... good source would help immensely. Jmlk17 00:23, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Gallery deletion

On 10 September 2007, User:TomStar81 deleted the Gallery section from this article. Will he or she please expain why.Anoneditor 01:41, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest you contact them directly on their talk page; might get answered quicker. Jmlk17 02:51, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
This was a result of the A-Class review that was completed recently. I have to say that I agree with the deletion. As far as I can tell images should appear in the body of the article and serve to illustrate the narrative. A gallery section tends to divorce the images from the prose. Having said that, your first picture of the Les Braves sculpture might work well as the last image in the article. Also, the 'assaulting the bluffs' section cries out for a bunker image but I have been singularly unsuccessful in finding a suitable and usable one from the period. One of the modern day images that used to be in the gallery might serve this purpose well. What do you think? --FactotEm 11:29, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
I am actually going to tend to agree with Factotem myself here. Jmlk17 06:31, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. The problem I saw with eliminating the Gallery section was that the article then contains nothing that shows the current condition of Omaha Beach. What would be wrong with creating another sub-category called "Omaha Beach Today" or something like that, for the display of photos showing it currently. Any thoughts?

Fair point. The article ends with a paragraph on Omaha today. The problem with creating a sub-category for this is that there is not enough information there to warrant its own section. In both peer and A-Class reviews comments were made about short sections. I personally would also be concerned about too much information on Omaha today in an article that is specific to an historic event, especially as the article already pushes against size guidelines, but that would be a matter for concensus. I'm going to go ahead and insert the first second Les Braves image because I think it serves the article well as a terminator and because it also includes a sweeping view of the beach. Does this represent a reasonable compromise? One thing I would say is that from my reading so far gallery sections do seem to be frowned upon. --FactotEm 09:00, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Agree on the compromise, FactotEm. I would have thought that the photo of the monument to the battle would also go in, but, as you say, there may already be space limitations. Thanks again for your interest in this. One thing that really struck me when I was there is how the look of the beach today fails to provided any comprehension of the enormity of the invasion there. Anoneditor 16:04, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

One thing that dismays me is how people will eliminate entire article sections without explanation, discussion or warning. This somehow doesn't seem right to me.Anoneditor 23:47, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Every now and then I just have to walk away when someone, often arbitrarily as far as I can tell, changes what are sometimes very carefully constructed sentences in articles I've worked on. It's taking some getting used to but that's Wikipedia for you I guess. --FactotEm 09:00, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Archive This 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.