Talk:Operation Gaff

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Operation Gaff article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Military history: 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 not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion not met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	World War II task force

Not a Hoax

I have a message on my User talk:PaulinSaudi:talk page by the fellow who posted the hoax box. He has said he is willing to remove it. Could some neutral party do so?

As for a reference, it is mentioned in the groundbreaking (dare I say earth-shaking?) book Codeword Dictionary. (Where I found it for inclusion in that fine work, my notes to not indicate. Paul, in Saudi (talk) 07:31, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry that I called it a possible hoax, you seem to be a sincere and worthy editor. However, regardless of its appearance in your book, at the moment the only source for this article is, well, you. (Oddly, had this article been written by a third party, I might have been more willing to accept your book as a source...) Also, I find its importance a bit questionable. I still think the article should be removed, at least until further references are available. Brianyoumans (talk) 17:49, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've found a source that confirms that this is not a hoax. Please note that the Google books link is a bit messed up, because they seem to have two books listed under the same ISBN. There's another book reference here. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:56, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good work! The importance is still a little dubious, but it is arguable. I'll leave it be. Brianyoumans (talk) 15:06, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Still or again possible hoax

A year and a half later, Marshall, Charles F. (2002). Discovering the Rommel Murder: The Life and Death of the Desert Fox. Stackpole Books. p. 122. ISBN 0811724727. points to the G-Books page for Constructing medieval furniture: plans and instructions with historical notes by Daniel Diehl. I haven't re-added any box charging a hoax, but the preceding discussion does nothing to reassure us there is no hoax, and is quite consistent with that scenario. The ref is replaced with fact tag.
--Jerzy•t 20:40, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I wrote above, that is simply a problem with Google Books having the wrong ISBN. Worldcat confirms that this ISBN is actually the Marshall book. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:06, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's a bigger problem than that. The source is of very low quality. It appears to lack an index, a sign of under-editing. It gives no sources, and thus cannot be treated as a reliable source for anything beyond what the author claims to have personally witnessed. I've only read one of the two reviews that are attached to ~~it by (IIRC) WorldCat (~~ a page on the book; that review

was written by one of several sources like Publishers' Weekly that are relied upon by library acquisitions depts~~), which~~ ,
notes the manuscript was lost for about 50 years ~~-- i.e. author probably died without succeeding in finding a publisher --~~ and
recommends that libraries considering it buy a different book in order to fill the hole they would most likely be trying to fill in considering it.
--Jerzy•t 15:07 & 23:26, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've clarified by reformatting, and struck thru my two erroneous conjectures in my immediately preceding contrib:
1. The review i read earlier and described above is actually from Library Journal (another of the group of pubs i had in mind).
2. The author is our Charles F. Marshall, and our bio for him gives a death date of 2002 - after the first edition.

I've added his YoB: 1915. He would have been nearly 80 during the preparation of the 1994 edition; there's a decent chance he was still lucid, but perhaps a better chance IMO (8 years before death) that, whether lucid or not, he was not energetic enuf to contribute much to the preparation. One scenario is that it was "lost" in the sense that he'd stashed it away bcz of discouragement by potential publishers, but his family came across it when he moved into an institutional setting, and in order to help support his care they explored the changed market (more automated production; late-WWII vets younger than he by as much as maybe 14 years becoming more nostalgic as they aged and retired). Obits in 2002 could have stimulated interest, justifying the apparently trade-paperback 2004 edition.
The two reviews i referred to were attached to a page for the book by a central library, presumably as selection aids for the public libraries that it serves. The PW one IMO damns it with faint praise but YMMV. The same source that alerted me to these also lks to a Summary that has two sentences & notes "No index or bibliography."
--Jerzy•t 23:26, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

November 2009 edits

Edits by User:86.138.188.25 make this mission a definite attempt to kill or wound Rommel. This all appears unreliable, based on a sensationalist source, so I am reverting. Cyclopaedic (talk) 15:15, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a more reliable source to confirm that this mission was intended to kill or capture Rommel. That source is itself based on the primary source of the SAS Brigade Operation Instruction No. 32.[1] Phil Bridger (talk) 18:46, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]