Talk:Operation Epsom

Recent edits

@Enderwigginau: Failure and "failure" are not the same; "failure" means that the editor is not endorsing the word....Regards Keith-264 (talk) 10:02, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Recent edits

Parachuted in from User talk:143.58.173.57

Operation Epsom

Greetings, I reverted your Epsom edit because you included a primary source which, while interesting, is original research and unWiki. You'll need to paraphrase it and associate it with a Reliable Source (if this is possible). Regards Keith-264 (talk) 16:47, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Not original research at all. Historian given and the book. The extract is from the official Order.

ISBN-10 ‏ : ‎ 0811705897

ISBN-13 ‏ : ‎ 978-0811705899 143.58.173.57 (talk) 18:17, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Ahem! put it back. Is "The intention in the Order was to seize Caen if possible on D-Day, but if resistance was high ensure that the enemy does not use it as a means of counter-attacking, giving the job to the RAF of eliminating the German occupiers. Caen was not a prime D-Day target. In the Overlord Operation possession".... a claim by a writer? It will need a cite too. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 19:41, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

All after the ref is mine, interpreting the Order. The Order was inset to differentiate it. 143.58.173.57 (talk) 20:11, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

We can't interpret, we must describe what RS contain. That bit will have to go unless you can cite it to RS. Regrets Keith-264 (talk) 20:42, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

The article uses sfns so I have reinstated the format for the quote, sfn'd the citation and added Anderson to the bibliography. I can't find the page number though. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 21:06, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Recent edit

@HarrisonGC: Hello again, can you add the source pls? Regards Keith-264 (talk) 21:37, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

Operational scope: Strategic Offensive

Really? Keith-264 (talk) 11:05, 30 March 2025 (UTC)