Talk:Bernard Montgomery/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Bias?

Seriously, this article seems to be far too biased in favor of Montgomery. -Joseph 02:14, 2004 Aug 26 (UTC)

It's about right in my opinion - no-one can agree on whether Montgomery was good or bad 203.217.27.103 23:07, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

He wouldn't have won at Alamein without 2-1 numerical superiority over Rommel, and many of Monty's tanks were American M-3s and M-4s. Your welcome, Britain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.196.219.183 (talk) 00:52, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

and many of Monty's tanks were American M-3s and M-4s. Your welcome, Britain. Actually the UK paid hard cash for the first 300 M-4 Shermans built, they were used at El Alamein, the Sherman's first use in combat. They had to pay hard cash because the US Army wasn't interested in a replacement for the Grant/Lee at that time, so the British had to pay for the development of a Grant/Lee with 75mm gun in a turret with a 360-degree traverse.

Montgomery was actually put in command by Eisenhower of ALL the US forces involved in the recovery from the Ardennes fiasco, and it was only because the press weren't notified of this salient fact that they then accused him of trying to claim 'credit' for the success. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.40.250.73 (talk) 21:36, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Even though I believe Monty was one of the most effective generals ever to serve the German cause, that's just my personal opinion. The British are sure of his greatness, the Americans are sure of the opposite. The article can't take sides, it must only point out the controversy. It's fine as is. --A D Monroe III 13:36, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This article seems to have a pretty serious imbalance. A paragraph about his minor part in Ireland and two short sentences about his role in North Africa, a turning point in the second world war and the defining point of his career. Am I alone in thinking this is wrong? Leithp 01:56, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Bias? Yes. I agree that this article shows Monty only in a favourable light. It especially ignores the mess he personally created, called Operation Market Garden. Of how he ignored the advise of his peers, ignored undisputed recon photos (claiming that there are no SS Divisions to deal with), and discarded intelligence gathered by the Dutch Resistance. Of how he was driven by his enormous ego to out-do Patton and the Americans in the European Theatre. And these are all documented fact. -- vslabs 20051007 1150 Zulu.

Documented facts should go in the article. Be bold! However, personal opinions have no place in the article, and really have no point even on this talk page. So you think he was a lame boob, or you think he's a hero -- who cares? If you can cite some respected authority detailing lame or or heroic actions, then by all means, improve the article! But a few unsourced comments on a talk page aren't going to change anybody's opinion, and our opinions don't matter anyway. --A D Monroe III 03:06, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

The most recent edit adds some good stuff but also inserts a lot of POV statements. May I suggest it be restriucted to the facts and some of the speculation/opinion weeded out? DMorpheus 16:45, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I'll review what I wrote. My first take of the section about the Battle of the Bulge was that it was already very POV, so I tried to put a counter-argument without amending the original. In the end, the reader may have to make up their own mind from their own independent reading. My source was The Battle for the Rhine 1944 by Robin Neillands, 2005. To avoid clogging this page, DMorpheus could post his/ her concerns on [page]. Last thing: in my defence I added text that's critical of Monty. Folks at 137 18:11, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Added yet more stuff. Rather than double-guess the bits regarded as POV, I'll wait for particular comments as requested above. Although, what I wrote is based on sources. I do suspect that achieving a NPOV article might require the presentation of differing POVs. Folks at 137 20:05, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I really have to agree about the fan boy tone in this article. There is a certain breathlessness and wonder breathed into some of these passages- "Montgomery was determined not to fight until he could win a decisive victory..". Well gee whiz. That really distinguishes him from other commanders, who I suppose do something else? Who normally choose to fight battles with little preparation or hope of success? Ok. So what purpose does this kind of statement serve- it is virtually contentless. It merely serves as preface- he intends to do x, he achieves x. he intends to do y, he achieves y. It sets up this pattern of success after success when in fact this business was a lot of plodding back and forth. I mean hey- maybe we should move that sentence before Market Garden, or his other reverses. Then we would have an equally unfair anti-Monty article. Really- I understand hero worship and the folks being most motivated to write are those that love the guy but realistically he is not in the top 50 generals of all time, so let's not write this like he was. -Mak Thorpe 03:39, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, if you think there are POV statements, you could actually do something about it and improve the article by removing or neutralising them. As to your particular point, the sentance is there to explain why Montgomery resisted Churchill's pressure for early action: if you can express it better, then have a go. History is littered with battles for which there was insufficient preparation, and Arnhem is a good example of that. Again, if you have some verifiable facts to put in then do so, though do watch the size of the article. MAG1 10:59, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Could the fact that he was one of five commanders not to be routed in the Battle of France be included?(Halbared 07:24, 30 May 2006 (UTC))

Already there, first para. Second World War MAG1 15:50, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I read that, it seemed a bit nondesrcipt, since it was only done by a handful.(Halbared 18:10, 30 May 2006 (UTC))

I agree, this definitely seems biased towards Montgomery. The Criticism of Generalship section has the negative traits, then basically tries to argues them away and sounds to me like original research. --Awiseman 21:10, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I would rather that this section was not there precisely because it is almost inherently POV and people seem the need to either bury Montgomery or praise him to the rafters (see my comment below when it was added); on the other hand it is a valid point that this controversy is an important part of the person. It is possible to construct a summary of the criticism or otherwise (and the section does reference quite a few sources), and that is not original research. However, the central problem is that comments like Montgomery was 'too cautious' are inherently hand-waving, POV, and impossible to prove, as is the 'material' criticism (which I think is just silly as well). If they are to be included then the counter-arguments need to be as well, but I think they are inherently unresolvable. The military defeat at Arnhem and its consequences are an objective criticism, and they are dealt with head on.

It is not clear what you want to happen: the best thing would be the addition of extra material from verifiable sources.

It is perhaps worth adding that when complaining about bias, I think that this article does engage with criticism much more than most- see Omar Bradley, for example. To add a personal view, Montgomery was personally clearly a very odd man and could be very unpleasant and deeply insensitive and Arnhem was a bad defeat. These should be clearly stated in the article, and I think it does do that. However, the problem with the bias accusations is that he was also a very successful general: he was a success in France in 1940, he was largely reponsible for the expulsion of Rommel in North Africa from a position of imminent defeat, Sicily was a success, he was the principal planner for Overlord and the successful field commander in Normandy, he was a large part in bringing to a halt the German Ardennes offensive, and the crossing of the Rhine was a success as well. It's a pretty good record, and it's difficult to think of an equally good one from those of other western allied battlefield generals. MAG1 10:33, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I mean the opposite - there's a large section praising all of his various skills, then a shorter one with criticisms, with the criticisms all being argued against. Thus, an overly positive bias. --Awiseman 17:41, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

So if there are more criticisms, then add them instead of posting about 'imbalance' - is it not possible there are simply more positive attributes than negative ones? Removing facts in the name of balance would be unencyclopedic - adding facts is almost always preferable.Michael Dorosh 15:34, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

If you can't see the bias in those sections, I don't know what to tell you. The "positive" characteristics are pretty much what most generals should do - concern for human life, a builder of morale, a mentor - those are good, but hardly unique or unusual. --Awiseman 17:43, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, these are unique to Monty as not all generals displayed these traits to the same degree. Unless you can prove otherwise. His ability as a trainer is mentioned in most histories - and in few accounts of his contemporaries (Patton, Bradley, Alexander, etc.).Michael Dorosh 17:49, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

You're right, no other generals ever had concern for human life, helped the morale of their troops, or mentored anybody. --Awiseman 20:04, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

The onus is on you to prove that they did, not complain that Montgomery's propensity for this is being cited using scholarly resources.Michael Dorosh 20:40, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

However, that section is overly positive, while, as I've said, the "criticisms" section mentions a couple negative things, then argues against them with statements like "It can be argued that Rommel was still dangerous, requiring careful movement...", "The realities of the conflict Britain was fighting must also be remembered...", "Furthermore, much of his apparent caution sprang from his regard for human life...", "But this charge is hard to maintain in a war during which material weight counted above almost all factors. It was a mass production war in every theatre, and the same "material" criticism of Montgomery must then need to apply to the great Russian commanders of the Eastern Front like Zhukov or Konev..." etc etc. The writer is giving caveats like crazy to try to disprove the criticisms. --Awiseman 17:43, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

One man's caveat is another man's explanation. I agree that any explanations should be sourced rather than original research. I disagree it is "overly positive" until you can provide sources with additional negative material. We can only work with what is provided.Michael Dorosh 17:49, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

It reads like it's overly positive, whether it's sourced or not. --Awiseman 20:37, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

No, it reads the way the sources would have us read it. "Positive" is POV. I'll repeat this to you as it seems you're not understanding - if you feel there are significant negative aspects of his character that are not discussed, are relevant to the article, and can be proven, then they should be added to the article or discussed here, using reputable sources to back up your statements. We'll look forward to your constructive contributions.Michael Dorosh 20:40, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Michael, I'm no military scholar, certainly not enough to add scholarly citations. But as an observer, this article seems overly positive and tries too hard to negate the criticisms. It seems like hagiography. I'm hoping someone more knowledgable can address this, hopefully one of the regular editors. And other people agree with me here too, it's not just me thinking it's biased. --Awiseman 20:59, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I concur with awiseman. The Critisism-part makes him look as Napoleon+Hannibal+Alexander the great X 3. The credit he gets for beating Rommel could be rewritten: He won by reckognizing his own shortcomings - thus not engaging in an "even battle" and instead using WWI-tactics with material and numerical superiority to beat an already beaten enemy (IMO Rommel was beaten by planes from Malta). When you look at it, Monty refused to attack at all, until he'd recieved all the supplies he wanted. He was never really under pressure the way the preceding generals were in North Africa. And in Sicily and Normandy he also got all he wanted (more or less) and was again kicking a man already down (the german army). Actually he seems really good at that. In the ending paragraphs of the ("negative") Critisism he is compared to generals such as Konev and Zhukov. It says something in the line of "if you can critizise Monty you must also critizise the russian generals". Is that supposed to be some sort of threat? The Russian generals are text-book examples of how (not?) to win a war when you outnumber your enemy in men and material. I say that neither Zhukov, Konev or Rokosovskij were "great" generals based on the facts of their superiority and even their many defeats even when facing inferiour numbers (Moscow in particular). Also (though this is a credit to Monty) Zhukov et. al. threw away human life.

Put Monty in Mansteins shoes or even Rommel in NA. Monty would've never been able to muster an offensive - he'd be sitting in Tunis still, waiting for supplies and reinforcements. At best I'd say Monty was a good organizer and a morale-builder. But that dosn't constitute greatness on the battlefiels.

For the record: I've never served, nor have any insights into what really goes on in staff-work or anything like that.--Nwinther 12:38, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Your personal opinion is noted, but will not effect what is placed in the article. If you can "prove" that El Alamein was won in Malta, you should present your sourced information in the article. Comparisons to other commanders seem somewhat beside the point in any event. As others have stated here - let's stick to the facts and let readers interpret them.Michael Dorosh 15:34, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, he did invade Italy from Carthage, and, unlike Napoleon, won in Egypt. But seriously, though your (Nwinther) opinions are as valid as anyone else's here (though I think you would have difficulty arguing yours about North Africa), your message illustrates the problems of this section. Everyone has their opinions, all different and all impossible to prove; so if we are to discuss quality of generalship (and I am not a fan) then we can only stick to the facts of people who perhaps do know what they are talking about, otherwise the article becomes ridiculous. To my mind, the job of a general is to win battles, and Montgomery did this (he was arguably the most successful western general), end of story: there are no style marks (though Montgomery did have this as well). The one time where he was fundamentally unsuccessful was Arnhem, and I think there is criticism and explanation of this. He was also an odd and often unpleasant man, and that is dealt with as well. What is interesting is why so many people feel the need to demonstrate that despite his success, his generalship was rubbish- from a hagiographic point of view compare this page with that of Omar Bradley, for example. If there is anyone who has a decent knowledge of the history of Montgomery's reputation, it would make a good para. As to the inevitability of the victory of large, well equipped armies, see what Alexander the Great's little band did to them . MAG1 23:22, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Well said. Leithp 06:38, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

It's not clear the opposite of what. There is plenty of criticisms against him, especially his strange personality. As I said above, it seems to me that as a general he won nearly all his battles, and so there should be more positives than negatives, but I am not a fan of this sort of evaluation for anyone in an encylopaedia anyway- see below. Anyway, it doesn't matter, it's back to basics (again): if you have some verfiable facts that are not there, then stick them in. MAG1 19:52, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

He was also a strong mentor figure, as pointed out in the article, a keen proponent of physical fitness, and knew much about training soldiers, not just directing operations. The cries of "bias" because he doesn't come off looking like the lisping hunch-back he is so often potrayed as in the movies are unfounded - and the solution is as MAG1 suggests - more information, not less, from verifirable sources.Michael Dorosh 13:21, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Arbitrary break (1)

I agree wholeheartedly with Joseph. If you look at many of Montgomerÿ's battles, he only ever won when he completely outnumbered the enemy. And the American generals resenting him but accepting his skills as a general? Without a direct quotation I find that hard to believe. According to most accounts they thought he was a bumbling idiot. This article has an extremly strong bias and should be completely reworked.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sparky4311 (talk • contribs) .

I agree with the above comment. Particularly, the sentence stating that American generals "resented him but accepted his skills as a general" either needs a citation, or should be removed. Otherwise, it seems like pure opinion. Groundsquirrel13 (talk) 18:22, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

For quotes, you could try reading the article, or here is one from Bradley's memoirs with respect to Normandy

He [Montgomery] exercised his Allied authority with wisdom, forbearance, and restraint. While coordinating our movements with those of Dempsey's, Monty carefully avoided getting mixed up in U.S. command decisions, but instead granted us the latitude to operate as freely and as independently as we chose. At no time did he probe into First Army with the indulgent manner he sometimes displayed among those subordinates who were also his countrymen. I could not have wanted a more tolerant or judicious commander. Not once did he confront us with an arbitrary directive and not once did he reject any plan that we had devised.

Montgomery was disliked, even loathed, by many (not just the Americans), but the problem was one of personal relations, not military competence- a bumbling idiot is not let loose with an army group. For the full story on Anglo-American military relations, the U.S. official history of the European theatre and though old, it is really very good indeed, and available online [1]. MAG1 11:16, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Well said. Just off the top of my head, I can think of two very well-respected US Generals who thought very highly of Montgomery, and whose views are documented - Walter Bedell Smith and James M. Gavin. You'd be hard-pressed to find a more respected American soldier than Gavin; he was not hesitant at all to voice his opinion of those he found incompetent (see the Frederick Browning article for an example); he thought Montgomery was quite good at his job. Also, I would venture to say that despite what Hollywood would have us all believe, Patton too respected his abilities. Try D'Este for quotes.

Now, as MAG1 wrote, whether they *liked* him or not is a different, and much less important question. DMorpheus 14:51, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

nwinther, i couldn't agree more with your statement that rommel was beaten by the planes in malta. michael dorosh, read "panzer battles" by von mellenthin, who served on rommel's staff in north africa. the first battle at alamein from monty's side, operation lightfoot failed to drive the germans back. it wasn't until the germans ran out of gas (thus their tanks were immobile targets) that they were beaten back. had the afrika korps had sufficient gasoline, north africa would've turned out very differently. to say monty was successful at normandy is a travesty. the brits hunkered down on the beach head and let the americans do the tough fighting in the hedgerows, and when the americans had the germans partially surrounded, let them escape by not moving in to close the gap, thus prolonging the war on the western front. he's very much like zhukov and koniev, only being able to win with a vast superiority in numbers and supplies, and not even then consistently. and to say monty was critical in stopping the german offensive in the bulge is atrocious. it was the paratroopers of the 101st holding bastogne (the critical road/rail nexus in the region) and the various combat engineers blowing key bridges that stopped the germans. that, and (recurring theme) they ran out of gas for their tanks. as for his record of being undefeated in france in 1940, i'm not knowledgeable enough to make claims. however, it may be because the main german attack went through french forces and bypassed the english, who were on the border with the low countries, and then let to escape by hitler, the bumbling idiot. that's just my opinion. the only allied force that comes to mind as being even moderately successful in the 1940 campaign was the so-called frank-force, commanded by MG harold franklyn, that attacked rommel at arras. and as far as i know, monty had no part in that. 69.133.157.123 22:55, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Please supply more references. The comments on Normandy seem hopelessly wide of the mark - the mass of armour (incl SS) faced the Anglo-Canadians (as intended) and that assisted the breakout in the west (it's called coordination) - Bradley refers to this several times.

At Falaise, the orders to allow a gap were partly because Bradley was unsure of Patton's expertise in that situation and partly to allow air power free range and avoid "friendly fire" - which had been a problem. Bradley wrote: "This decision to stop Patton was mine alone." and "I doubted his [Patton] ability to hold it ... the enemy could have broken through..." and "... he's not used to having 3 or 4 German divisions hit him". And it allowed Patton to pursue the Germans - a strength.

Battle of the Bulge was primarily an American show - both the initial mistakes and the eventual recovery - but read the quotes: British units sealed off the German attack route and American units concentrated on holding and throwing back the enemy, although as you point out, their armour was immobile (and many German units retired in good order). More refs, more facts please and if they're good, add them to the article. Then perhaps we can subject all the Allied commanders to similar critical analysis. Folks at 137 08:22, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Two years ago this article see-sawed between extreme character assassination and extreme adulation. It is far more balanced today. I'd like to see similar critical analysis as the comment above says, of all the Allied commanders, but some are happy to see anothers sacred cow sacrificed while fanatically protecting their own. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.214.180.163 (talk) 12:21, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrary break (2)

moved to correct choronological order

Without question the article is biased!

But which is to be expected after all, inasmuch as it was obviously written by a British person, as betrayed by the spelling, grammar and sentence formation. In my view, his comparison to Wellington and Marlboro must surely have those military giants revolving in their graves at lightspeed.

The only question I have is why "the neutrality of this article is disputed" disclaimer has not been thus far appended?

In contrast, Omar Bradley's unbiased assessment of Montgomery in "A Soldier's Story," written by a humble, self-effacing man with no axe to grind is quite enlightening, and gives the numerical specifics of the supply situation at that time. But even before his vanity, arrogance and personality quirks had alienated not only the American generals, but also the majority of the British ones as well, Monty was regarded by his peers as slightly above mediocre, a commander who took shrewd advantage of the overwhelming amount of American weaponry and supplies afforded him courtesy of Mr. Roosevelt.

And not just Bradley. For when such a vast array of Generals contemporary to Montgomery -- again, even the various British Generals and Marshals -- who knew and fought alongside him at that time, in consensus say the salient features about him were that, 1) he was overly cautious to a fault, 2) he was more afraid of losing a battle than winning one, and that, 3) he would never engage the enemy without at least a 2-1 advantage in manpower, 4) with an even greater ratio in weapons and materiel, well, 5) that speaks volumes, doesn't it?

But, the British at that time were in desperate need of a battlefield hero to lift their spirits, and so you have "The Hero of El Alamein" myth. A close look at the specifics of the Nort African campaign bear out the fact that this victory was won more due to the Allies overabundance of resources in direct proportion to Rommel's lack thereof. 69.111.104.40 (talk) 20:12, 7 January 2009 (UTC) jfblodi, 12:12, 2009 Jan 7.

The "spelling, grammar and sentence formation" should not be the subject of criticism, because that is governed by policy on style. As for the rest, if there are valid criticisms, they will have been written about by reliable third party sources and shouldn't be too difficult to find. --Rodhullandemu 20:21, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Anonymous, have you read the extensive three-volume biography of Montgomery by Nigel Hamilton in which he draws upon the positive testimony of dozens of British and American generals, who would certainly turn over in their graves at your gross generalizations.

As to your points 1) how was he overly cautious? It's all very well for you to say he was but I don't see your evidence (or your name for that matter). 2) He still won battles though didn't he. 3) Somehow I don't think he engaged with a 2-1 superiority in 1940 in Belgium. At any rate, you'd have to be a pretty stupid soldier to fight a battle until you knew you had a good chance of winning it. 5) Volumes of hot air. When you yourself have some constructive and well-sourced additions to make to the article, do come back. --Harlsbottom (talk | library | book reviews) 21:04, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I suspect the reason that many US military personnel disliked Montgomery was:

1: Montgomery was given the task of planning the invasion, and it was successful. The critics would have preferred to have been given the job of planning it themselves, as all people think they can do a better job than anyone else. Montgomery was a clever man, (it needed one to cope with the complex nature of the planning) and cleverness isn't liked in many armies.

2: Montgomery spoke his mind when it came to military reality, not sparing people's feelings if it would save lives or bring success, and I suspect that he told some American officers that their men would not be suitable for the hardest jobs in the invasion as they would be landing straight off the boat from the US, having just finished training and having had no combat experience whatsoever - which was true. Montgomery probably said this in a tactless way, although that was not deliberate, he just wasn't very good with people. Nowadays we would say that he had 'poor social skills'. To be fair to Montgomery, he would treat British and Commonwealth people in the same manner, so it wasn't anything personal, he had seen too many things fail because of people being 'too nice' to say what needed to be said. That was why he had no qualms about getting rid of commanders he deemed unable to cope with the jobs given them.

Whether Montgomery was a great General or not, is not really that important, but he did plan and successfully carry out the biggest (and technically very difficult - invading a continent from a small island) seaborne invasion in history, which is something no one else can claim to have done. That alone makes him a cut-above most of his critics. Although this achievement is very rarely mentioned, certainly by them. Just think, by the 7th of June the invasion forces could have been withdrawing from the beaches with their tails-between-their-legs, beaten off by the defending German forces, the beaches strewn with countless allied dead, and all for nothing. That didn't happen, and whether anyone else could have done as well as Montgomery, that's debatable - many other's efforts would have ended with the results I've just described. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.40.254.22 (talk) 20:09, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

So, you wonderful editors removed my remarks for a 2nd time? All I can say is...WOW. And after me taking away all possible offensive remarks for the thin-skinned? And for posting something that was not EVEN at the level of previous stuff you've already permitted? Sheesh. Seems to me I've stumbled upon more Montie-lovers who can't stand in the light of the naked truth. Sounds like you editors are the ones with the serious BIAS problem yourselves.... {{rolleyes}} 69.229.233.40 (talk) 20:25, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Please, "editor" (single) not "editors" (plural). The editor removing your remarks is wrong and I will leave a warning on his talk page when I figure out which one is appropriate. The same editor also removed one of my comments that was completely appropriate. Rees11 (talk) 22:22, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

You are both wrong. Please stop. See Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines and Wikipedia:No personal attacks. "Do not use the talk page as a forum or soapbox for discussing the topic." "Do not strike out or delete the comments of other editors without their permission." Rees11 (talk) 22:50, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Please, I am happy to be named, don't bother with "warning" my talk page. I just thought the (removed) contribution was purely a POV rant and made no contribution to progressing the article or, indeed, suggesting how the alleged bias should be removed / balanced. Reading the box at the top of this page with the guidelines on the use of this talk page, I felt that 69.229.233.40 was just expressing an opinion and contravening most of the suggested rules! As you should know, Wikipedia is not about personal opinions but about content based on verifiable (cited), published sources. I'm not going to engage in further discussion about this because it's such a waste of time but may I leave the following points?:

1. If you feel the article is biased, use your obviously considerable energy not to add an opinion piece to the talk page (which is not what it's for) but to add some counterview to the main article supported by citations from credible published sources.
2. I deleted Rees' comment because it referred only to comment that I reverted - and therefore it no longer had relevance. I accept, however, that deleting Rees' piece without contacting him was rude. My apologies.
3. Re-reading the whole Bias section I also now accept that deleting only 69.229.233.40's contribution was inconsistent to the extent that there is plenty of equally inappropriate POV comment preceding it. In fact very little of it makes a genuine attempt to suggest exactly how the article might be improved. It's mainly just a succession of assertions which cannot, without decent substantiation, be used. If I had been consistent, I should have deleted most of it.......no, I won't go there!
4. I love my wife, not Monty. Like most historical figures he is a mixture of good and bad who was in the right place at the right time. You'll have to trust me when I say that I certainly have no interest in promoting a hagiographic article about him.
5. Having just tried to save this I find I have coincided with Rees' new comment. My point exactly.

Happy editing. Stephen Kirrage ^{talk - contribs} 23:27, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrary break (3)

Hello. This is the eminent WWII scholar otherwise known as 69.229.233.40. Thanks Steven, for your candor. I smilingly appreciate your comments (and sentiments towards your wife), as well as for having the backbone to share your name. BUT! the fact STILL remains that by removing my remarks -- while leaving others equally or more egregiously POV -- you manifest patent unfairness, and continue to allow the damage and misinformation wrought by the article's inherent and many-sided bias march on unchecked, which has the undesired effect of making Wikipedia a de facto, if unwilling, partner in that bias, and which in turn, has the unwelcome affect of reducing whatever credibility it enjoys.

When factoring in the (still uncorrected after many months) affect said article continues to foist upon the potentially thousands of uninitiated/uninformed readers who daily access this article, this becomes well nigh UNACCEPTABLE, especially when all I'm trying to accomplish is to refute such an ingrained (not to mention historically indefensible) and biased notion as the wholly undeserved epithet "Hero (???) of Al Alamein." This becomes even more important inasmuch as under discussion is such a polarizing (interestingly, almost always along NATIONAL lines) figure as His Lordship, Viscount Montgomery of Alamein. If you want my respect, sir, and I suspect you do or you wouldn't have responded as you did, you'll re-insert my last comments and let this august body of opiners either flay me alive or acquiesce to my points. If you no longer can access them in your ethereal garbage can, I still have them saved and can re-post them whenever you like.

Still trying to figure out how to properly sign my name (neither 4, nor 5, nor yet 3 tildes work for me), I remain..."Sir John, Viscount (of my house) in Sacramento." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.227.18.254 (talk) 09:43, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

It's only polite to sign Talk page edits (see Wikipedia:Signatures) and to do this you have to be logged in. If you haven't created an account in Wikipedia to do this, go to the Wikipeedia Main Page and click on log in / create an account. The Wikipedia community is generally unresponsive to Talk page entries from anonymous IP addresses (see the etiquette in the box at the top of this page). I guess the feeling is that if you don't register an account, you're not really engaged with Wikipedia and so why should your opinion be acknowledged? For example, I don't normally engage in debate with anonymous IP addresses (not sure how I got involved in this case). I strongly recommend you create an account and get engaged! Stephen Kirrage ^{talk - contribs} 12:17, 24 October 2009 (UTC)