Talk:Operation Bulbasket

	History portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Military history: British / European / French / German / North America / United States / World War II

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	British military history task force
	European military history task force
	French military history task force
	German military history task force
	North American military history task force
	United States military history task force
	World War II task force

United Kingdom

	United Kingdom portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

POV

I will not get into any discussion (modern history being not a topic that I actively edit), and I have not found a template that would exactly suit the matter, but anyone reading this article will get the idea that it is written in an unenceclopedic manner. It it right to point out that the soldiers were murdered, but it is wrong to write this as an accusition. Nor do I understand why the disinformation box reads "British victory", while the mission was ill-fated. The side message of this article is to glorify the British heroes and carry home that the Germans were evil. G Purevdorj (talk) 22:01, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Victory" is inappropriate, because the terms of reference of the operation, I assume, were to disrupt supply lines and delay reinforcements heading towards the Normandy landing area. In one sense this aim was achieved, so "success" or perhaps "partial success" would be more appropriate.

I do not agree that the article reads like an accusation, or that it glorifies one side and demonises the other. Since I'm British and G Purevdorj is German (or at least has German as his mother tongue), our viewpoints will almost certainly differ. It seems factual to me and those facts speak for themselves in this case. Maybe G Purevdorj could make some suggestions for more encyclopaedic and/or less accusatory wording, while retaining the facts as stated in the article. --TraceyR (talk) 23:03, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have amended the infobox "Result" to "Partial British success" and added some more detail to the article, including a table of those 'executed'. If there is no objection within the next three days, I shall remove the POV tag added by Purevdorj. --TraceyR (talk) 18:25, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: The American pilot was flying a P-38, not a P-51 and more or less shot himself down. He strafed an ammunition dump and was unable to avoid the debris. Also, he was not murdered in France - he returned to England and continued on. He was in fact shot down in the Korean War as well in his F-86. Both times he was shot down he evaded capture. I know these things because he was my grandfather. His name was Flamm Dee Harper and I am proud to be his grandson. -Renaldo Harper- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.162.221.237 (talk) 05:35, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Execution

In para 2 of the 'German attack' section we have:
"The decision of who was going to execute them was the cause of an argument between the German Army and the SS [my emphasis]. It was decided that the army [again] would carry out the execution. On 7 July the surviving prisoners of war, 30 SAS men and Second Lieutenant Bundy, were taken into the woods near to St Sauvant, forced to dig their own graves then executed by a German firing squad at dawn under the command of SS [and again] Major Josef Kieffer".

So, was it an army firing squad commanded by a SS officer, (I've never heard of such a 'democratic' mixture in WW II), a (mis-identified) firing squad commander [the SS had their own ranks; there is no such thing as 'SS Major'], or is the whole 'execution' just plain wrong and in need of a re-write ?

I'm rather confused.

RASAM (talk) 15:20, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The entire paragraph, with the exception of its first sentence, is sourced only to The Sun, or some web outlet thereof. The Sun is not a reliable source, and would be writing for its general interest audience, not for the sake of accurate military history. In addition, the source does not in fact mention the SS nor the regular German army (nor the supposed disagreement) at all, merely referring to "Nazis" (as the Sun likes to do), "Germans", and a "German officer". You could mark problematic statements as {{dubious}}, or you could just remove the obviously problematic statements as unsourced. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:17, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Link in article

Reference [8] at the time of posting, link https://web.archive.org/web/20110727202303/http://www.rbl-linazay-france.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=52&Itemid=61, goes to an empty page, although it's an "archive.org" link. Pixel Game (talk) 08:46, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]