Talk:Bombing of Dresden/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 → Archive 10

Archive

Neutrality

See archive Talk:Bombing of Dresden in World War II/Archive 3#Neutrality

Please post reasons for "The neutrality of this article is disputed. Please see its talk page." in the next 24 hours or I will remove the template. Philip Baird Shearer 01:29, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)


Normally, crews were given a strategic aiming point - anything from a factory to a railway junction

This shows a complete lack of of awarness of pathfinders and how the technology of 44/45 limited most of the RAF night bombers from aiming at anything other than the flares put down by the Pathfinders. (See Gee (navigation), Oboe (navigation), and H2S radar. So I am going to remove it. Philip Baird Shearer 01:29, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Avoid weasel terms

Wikipedia:Avoid weasel terms -- "Many people regard" - Philip Baird Shearer

Whether they are right or wrong, clearly many believe the bombing of Dresden to have been a war crime. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] to give just a few support that view. I suggest that next time Leif use some or all of these sources.Dr Zen 08:29, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I didn't add this sentence in the first place, I just restored it and modified it slightly after Philip had removed it. All the same, I do think that the information elsewhere in the article (eg the "Was the Dresden bombing justified?" section, External links section, etc) are adequate to keep the sentence as it was, without linking sources for it from the opening paragraph. ~leif (talk)[[]] 08:53, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  1. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/3830135.stm uses weasel terms but no statistics to back them up. One can just as easily say "Many people do not regard".
  2. http://www.lewrockwell.com/shaffer/shaffer58.html did you read it? Churchill, the monster who ordered the Dresden slaughter, was knighted, and the rest is history. Are you still suggesting that this is a source which should be used by Wikipedia?
  3. http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/2WWdresden.htm Good article, but only one(?) person in it states it was a crime none apart from Churchill (?) states it was terror. -- Which is why I used his quote. BTW I've put in "(?) because I have only skimmed the article and I may have miscounted.
  4. http://www.nybooks.com/articles/2416 -- This article is why the phrase about "war crimes" is better delt with in more detail. As it is in "Bombing of Dresden in World War II#Was the Dresden bombing justified?" instead of the introductory section.
  5. http://chomsky.info/talks/1990----.htm "If the Nuremberg laws were applied, then every post-war American president would have been hanged." Enough said. If you think that this is a valid source then any conclusions drawn from it shoul be placed in a section where a counter analysis is possible.
Just because Noam Chomsky makes an extreme statement to open the article does not mean that the article is not valid or that it is nonfactual. It's pretty clear that most US presidents engage in acts which would be war crimes. Why do you think Bush is so eager to have laws exempting US personnel from war crimes prosecution??? Because everything the US does is good ? Pedant 17:18, 2004 Dec 14 (UTC)

I do not mind the statment appearing lower down but not in a brief introduction where it can not be refuted in detail. To prove the point I have turned the source on its head by adding "do not". Lets talk about it. Philip Baird Shearer 09:18, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The bit about people believing they should be tried as war criminals was redundant; it can be inferred from the fact they believe it was a warcrime. The external links should go in the links section. --Khendon 09:31, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Philip, these were just the first handful I could drag Google from Dresden. I could come up with countless others, and you know it. That's why we say "many". I'm quite happy for it to read as I had it, lose the sources, and to give the opposite view: "however, some believe it to have been necessary in the context of total war" or whatever. Weasel words are in this instance far preferable to littering the article with thousands of so-so references and bickering over them. I agree with Leif overall. The intro sums up the material presented elsewhere. Dr Zen 09:33, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

So we are all agreed that there are already good articles at the end of the document and that the references are not needed.
The sentence which is there now is even worse than the original! "Some regard the bombing as a war crime and an act of state terrorism, while others believe it was a justified act of war." This can be read that those who think that the bombing was justified think that it was a war crime and state terrorism but war justified it. Which is not true. There are good legal reasons for thinking that it was neither.
  1. as it pointed out lower down in the article. One can not say that it was a war crime.
  2. To say that this is state terrorism could be said about any act in war. For example one can argue the the invasion of Normandy in 1944 was state terrorism because it was the use of violence by a state as a means of political intimidation and control. The definition given in the article is "The use or threat of violence by the state or its agents or supporters, particularly against civilian individuals and populations, as a means of political intimidation and control (i.e. a means of repression)". The bombing of Dresden was not about "repression".
what was the firebombing of Dresden about then? Humanitarian aid? Decreasing the fire shortage? A happy barbeque party? Pedant 17:18, 2004 Dec 14 (UTC)
The article starts with the phrase "remains controversial after more than 50 years" It contains in the section on "Was the Dresden bombing justified?". The advantage of using the Churchill quote in the introduction is that it allows the concerns of "many people" to be indicated without the need to use a weasel statement. However given the first sentence this one could simpley be removed.Philip Baird Shearer 10:52, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

"It cannot be considered a crime because no one was tried." LOL. If Hitler had won, Churchill would have swung. What a foolish argument and one that even a rampant POV pusher should be ashamed of making!Dr Zen 00:20, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Where does the quote come from? Unlike the waging of unrestricted submarine warfare, for which Karl Donitz was tried and found guilty; assault by aerial bombardment on defended enemy territory was never tried, so "it is not possible to state categorically that aerial bombardment on defended enemy territory during World War II was a war crime." See Hague IV [7] Arts 25,26,27. German "aerial bombardment on defended enemy territory" (V1s and V2s) was not tried, but it was (imo) in breach of Hague IV 26. In the bombardment of Dresden
  1. What crime was committed?
  2. What crime do you think was committed? Philip Baird Shearer 08:51, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Lacking a good reason to not include the sentence in question, I have restored it again. I followed Khendon's suggestion, and removed the redundancy of saying war crimes and war criminals in the same sentence. Philip, I think that to state that "many people" believe a thing is not necessarily "weasel terms", but I would certainly not oppose improved alternate wordings that convey the same information. "~leif (talk)[[]] 10:37, Dec 10, 2004 (UTC)

Because I can add the words "do not" and the sentence you have added and it would be just as true. the wording "The controversy is centred around the legal and moral justifications for the raids." already covers the point you and I wish to make. The sentence you have added is PVO and bloat to the introduction. Yet another sentence to balance it would just bloat the introduction further. As both POVs are covered "Was the Dresden bombing justified" section why not leave the controversy to that section? [BTW centred is a correct spelling (as is centered) but squatters rights makes centred correct in this case].
I have just covered why "war crime" is a POV in (my last reply). Do I need to explain it further to you? I also covered "state terrorism" a little higher up this section but to expand it further. The definition of "state terrorism" in the article "state terrorism" does not cover acts like the bombing of Dresden "(i.e. a means of repression)". The article also goes on to say "However, many contend that states cannot commit acts of terror and/or that acts of terror cannot be committed within the scope of a declared war." See my comments above about the Normandy invasion. This is too much to add to a introductory paragraph so it is better put into the section "as the Dresden bombing justified" where the arguments can be expanded.Philip Baird Shearer 12:31, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  1. Saying that "The controversy is centred around the legal and moral justifications for the raids" does not convey the same meaning as "many people regard it as a war crime or an act of state terrorism"
  2. The article about state terrorism actually does specifically address Dresden and some of the reasons why many people believe that it qualifies.
  3. Your comments above about the invasion of Normandy are a non-sequitur - one event involved troops fighting other troops, on the ground, while the other was solely an air raid on a civilian population.
I can't/won't argue with you about if Dresden was a war crime because I suspect you'll always fall back on your argument that, since nobody was tried for it, it can't be one. That many people do regard it as one is a fact, however, and I think it's one worth of mentioning in the opening. There are numerous references to people saying it was one, and I have seen only a handful saying it was not. I don't have time to argue on and on about this right now, but unless someone can provide a good reason to not include this sentence I will probably continue to re-add it to the article if Philip keeps removing it. Philip lost his credibility, in my opinion, when he inserted DO NOT before the word regard in the sentence in question. I take the statement's continued presence in the paragraph for a good length of time (I haven't found exactly when it was first added, but there was something about war crimes in the opening paragraph at least a year ago) as approval by other editors who read it, and so far I've only seen one person (Philip) who wants no mention of war crimes there at all.
Also, btw, I did not realize that centred was a valid spelling, sorry about changing that (my spellchecker didn't know it either). I don't follow your reference to squatters rights though; what do you mean by that? ~leif (talk)[[]] 20:15, Dec 10, 2004 (UTC)
There is an agreement in English Wikipedia not to change the spellings between American spelling and other spellings, unless it is to make the spelling consistent throughout a page, therefore the first correct spelling whether American or other should be left alone to squat on the page unless there is a rule (legal reason) to evict it.

I have not said that it was not war crime. It have not said that it was not one because no one was tried for the act of bombing Dresden. I have said that as no one was tried for the ANY act of "aerial bombardment on defended enemy territory during World War II", it is not possible to state categorically that that aerial bombardment on defended enemy territory during World War II was a war crime. As the POV appears in a section were it is possible to place it in context, I do not think that a POV statement dressed up in weasel words should be in the introduction as a replacement sentence like "The controversy is centred around the legal and moral justifications for the raids." expresses the same thing without a POV. I do not want to get into an edit war with you, and you have stated that you "can't/won't argue" and that "I will probably continue to re-add it to the article if Philip keeps removing it" so I suggest that we have a straw poll on the question with two options:Philip Baird Shearer

  1. Many people regard the bombing as an act of state terrorism, and believe that the allied commanders who ordered the action and the airmen who carried it out should have been tried as war criminals.
  2. The controversy is centred around the legal and moral justifications for the raids.

Please alter (1) to whatever wording you like here on this page and then we will have a Wikipedia:Dispute resolution#Conduct a survey straw poll on the issue.Philip Baird Shearer 23:12, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I don't object to the first sentence, but think it is wrong to have it in the intro by itself, without stating the other side (that no German was tried for any Lutwaffe bombing of civilians [Warsaw, Hague, London, etc, etc], that some British leaders thought they were acting for real military goals, etc). So either we should give both sides in the intro para, or neither. I would much prefer the latter, and leave the intro with just i) a bald statement of the facts, and ii) note that it remains controversial. Noel (talk) 04:28, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
A straw poll is a good idea. Hopefully there will be a clear consensus within a week or so. ~leif (talk)[[]] 21:51, Dec 11, 2004 (UTC)

OK, but then I'd want to see four options in said poll:

  1. Simple statement that there is controversy around the legal and moral justifications for the raids.
  2. Statement that some people consider the bombings a war crime, and no countervailing viewpoint.
  3. Statement that some people consider the bombings to have been a then-acceptable act of war, and no countervailing viewpoint.
  4. Statements on both sides.

Personally, I would consider either 2 or 3 to be non-NPOV, and thus completely unaccepable, and would therefore argue that they aren't legitimate options. That leaves us with 1 or 4, either of which would be OK with me, but I think the article would flow better with 1. Noel (talk) 22:21, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Ok, if nobody objects, lets use those poll options instead. ~leif ☺ HELO 23:49, Dec 11, 2004 (UTC)

Straw poll

Which sentence should appear at the end of the opening paragraph?

  1. Simple statement that there is controversy around the legal and moral justifications for the raids.
    1. The rest are just begging for prepetual NPOV issues. →Raul654 02:21, Dec 12, 2004 (UTC)
    2. Philip Baird Shearer 21:12, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    3. Of the two NPOV-acceptable ones (1 and 4), I prefer this one, to keep the intro crisp. Noel (talk) 04:00, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    4. Go into more detail later in the article, by all means, but keep the intro free of discussion. I suggest simply deleting the last sentence of the intro and adding more facts, e.g. "x,000 civilans died and x% of the city was destroyed." [[User:GeorgeStepanek|GeorgeStepanek\talk ]] 21:25, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    5. [[User:Poccil|Peter O. (Talk, automation script)]] 22:39, Dec 13, 2004 (UTC)
    6. I agree with Noel 1 and 4 only NPOV and 1 is crisp. Nicholsr 22:54, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    7. I prefer option (1) of this straw poll. -- WLD 23:37, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    8. Agree with this. See my comments below. -- llywrch 18:24, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    9. Option 1 works better, details on both sides appear later. Edeans 08:33, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    10. Option 1 is the only possible choice for an encyclopedia. It the only choice not only because it is a flat factual statement, but also because it is bad writing practice to throw a lot of complications at the reader in the first paragraph. Ortolan88 19:26, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC) PS - added comment below under Intro ... Ortolan88

poll closed at 12:00 December 20 2004

  1. Statement that some people consider the bombings a war crime, and no countervailing viewpoint.
    1. support as this is the central issue of the article. Pedant 17:18, 2004 Dec 14 (UTC)
    2. I support this option, because the alternate point of view can be adequately addressed later in the article. The allegations that it was a war crime are much more notable than the to-be-expected position from some that it was not. ~leif (talk)[[]] 23:49, Dec 11, 2004 (UTC)
    3. I support this option because if there were no controversy there would be no article, and there is controversy because and only because some believe the bombings to have been criminal acts. It is not in the least "POV" to state that that is what the controversy is, and very much "POV" to pretend that we're just writing an article on it as a matter of interest. The interest of some here is solely to write an apologia for the bombing. Why do they feel the need? Dr Zen 06:55, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
      • Huh? Option one is to say precisely, right up top, that there is controversy over whether the bombings were justified and/or 'right'. Nobody's trying to sweep anything under the rug. And your claim that "no controversy" -> "no article" fails - see comments below about the article on the attack on Hamburg. And I consider your claim that "The interest of some here is solely to write an apologia" to be i) wrong, ii) self-righteous, iii) insulting, and iv) offensive. If you can please assume that those who disagree with you are not some combination of evil and/or stupid, we'll return the favour. Noel (talk) 13:14, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
        • Option one leaves the article not mentioning "war crimes" until halfway through it. Just saying it is controversial is a massive understatement, catering to the POV that it was not a war crime, a POV which it appears Philip was been slowly but surely promoting more in this article for quite some time. ~leif
        • I'd be OK with somewhat punchier language than "controversial", to make it clear how deep some people's assessment is, but without some more data as to how widely the "war crime" POV is held, I don't know how to balance the treatment of the two (actually, many) views. That's part of what leads me towards quite brief language in the opening - how to accurately convey what is a very complex set of views in such a small amount of language. It's easier to just put it off until you have more space... Noel (talk) 22:19, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

poll closed at 12:00 December 20 2004

  1. Statement that some people consider the bombings to have been a then-acceptable act of war, and no countervailing viewpoint.
    1. <TongueOnlyHalfInCheek=ON> I support this option, because the alternate point of view can be adequately addressed later in the article. The allegations that it was not a war crime are much more notable than the to-be-expected position from some that it was. <TongueOnlyHalfInCheek=OFF> Obviously, this is here to try and get Leif to read his words (above) and see them with other eyes. User:jnc
      • Yes, fine, hilariously funny. However, there were many "then-acceptable" acts of war that do not get their own article. Why?Dr Zen 06:55, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
      • Good question, actually. Almost every German city was heavily bombed, but only a few of these attacks have articles. E.g. Cologne, the target of the first '1,000 bomber raid', has no article on that attack. The article on the fire-bombing of Hamburg has gone to the other end of the spectrum from this one, and has no discussion of the necessity/legality/morality of area bombing of cities. Which maybe says that we ought to have an article about that specific topic, where we can marshall the data and arguments at length, instead of having it scattered in dribs and drabs in various articles on specific acts. We can then reference it from all the relevant pages (Hamburg, etc). Noel (talk) 13:14, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
        • See the article on terror bombing. It could use some work; it does not adequately cover the POV that bombing civilians is legal and acceptable, but it it does make it clear that the practice continues. ~leif

poll closed at 12:00 December 20 2004

  1. Statements on both sides.
    1. I also would support this option, if a decent NPOV sentence is written that summarizes both ~leif (talk)[[]] 23:49, Dec 11, 2004 (UTC)
    2. I don't see how choice one is workable but could vote for choice one if a workable wording could be proposed. Rmhermen 02:46, Dec 12, 2004 (UTC)
      • Huh? I think it would be much easier to craft the words for option one than acceptable wording for this one. (See the discussion below, for instance...) Noel (talk) 04:00, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

poll closed at 12:00 December 20 2004

Comments

I think that options 2, 3, and 4 are are just begging for perpetual NPOV issues and weasel words. I think that the options should be replaced with the text which is proposed for each one so that people know what they are voting for. I suggest for option (1), that to help clarify the statement the word "justifications" can be linked to the subsection heading "Was the Dresden bombing justified?":

The controversy is centred around the legal and moral justifications for the raids.

If this was done would the words be acceptable to you Rmhermen? If not what do you think would be "workable wording"?

leif Please can you place you comments in this comment section, as I can not tell which option you have voted for (one man one vote).

One man one vote?! I don't think so. Approval voting has a better chance of building consensus. ~leif
Being a simple sole I find it confusing, so I would appreciate it if you would not do it. PBS
That is outlandish. No, I most certainly will not vote against all but a single option just to satisfy your confusion. In a four-way poll, the chances of reaching consensus would be pretty slim if each person could only approve one option. Approval voting is simple and used widely on wikipedia. I'm amazed you would suggest otherwise. ~leif

leif you say "that it was a war crime", what was the alleged war crime which you think was committed? If you do that then 2 might be an option with a little less POV but I doubt it.

I have not suggested that the article should definitively state that it was a war crime. The crime that I think was committed was intentionally killing huge a huge number of civilians. I know that many people do not consider killing civilians to be a crime (I think I've actually read you say it isn't), and I don't object to representing that POV in the article also. I think a short sentence could be written for option 4 that would not add too much bloat to the opening, but if such a sentence is not written, I support option 2. ~leif
It's not at all clear that their primary intention (as opposed to an inevitable side-effect, one they knew about and accepted before-hand) was to "kill[] a huge number of civilians". Yes, this distinction is a fine hair which won't bring much comfort to the victims and their families, etc, but fine distinctions of this sort, with the same lack of comfort to the victims, are common in legal proceedings, and can have enormous effects on the outcome (e.g. someone who kills someone in what they maintain was self-defense). Noel (talk) 04:31, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I have not been able to find a primary source which says that targeting civilians in enemy territory is a crime. This surprises me because the British Government was careful to state that they were targeting property useful to the German war effort, not Germans. But this is somting we can discuss further after the poll. PBS

I think that option (4) is a realy bad idea because it adds bloat. For example:

One can argue that before the failure of the battle of Berlin (air) that the British, as the Germans before them, were committed to a "state terror" bombing campaign because they were trying to do massive material and morale damage to the enemy in a total war. But after the failure of the battle of Berlin, with the directive, dated 25 September 1944, recommending that RAF Bomber Command concentrate on oil and communications targets, which was the American position, the former policy and hopes were abandoned. The primary reason for bombing Dresden was for its communications links the secondary reason (See Yalta) was that it still had a relatively intact arms industry. There is very little to no evidence that the Allied High Command expected to be able to alter German morale, let alone Hitler's views, by this raid.

I do not see how this explanation can be comfortably placed in the introductory section (because it is so large) when there is already a section where this can be covered if necessary. To put "Many [why not some?] people regard the bombing as an act of state terrorism and many [why not some?] do not" is just POV with no useful information. "Many people regard the bombing as an act of state terrorism because they do not know about the directive, dated 25 September 1944, recommending that RAF Bomber Command concentrate on oil and communications targets". Would give a lot more information but would probably be unacceptable to you and would add bloat to the introduction when in could go into the appropriate section. Philip Baird Shearer 21:12, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

So, Philip, if it were solely up to you, would this article contain the words "war crime" at all? If it would, how do you think it should be mentioned (without using the "weasel words" you dislike)? ~leif (talk)[[]] 21:55, Dec 12, 2004 (UTC)
Oh, come on, nobody's saying that this article ought to be a total whitewash, and your implication above ('would this article contain the words "war crime" at all') is distasteful (not to mention sanctimonious). This bombing (and also Hamburg, and all the other ones that get less visibility) is very troubling, but we need to be accurate about the complexities of the situation, and also do so in a way that respects that the mental framework of today is not the framework of then, and it's unfair to apply today's standards to then (just as it's unfair to criticize, say, the Greeks of Pericles' era for allowing slavery, using today's moral framework). Noel (talk) 04:31, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I know that you are not trying to make the article be a total whitewash, but after reading the archives of this talk page, it wouldn't seem so far fetched to say that Philip is. ~leif ☺ HELO 19:14, Dec 13, 2004 (UTC)
YES "war crime" should be mentioned in the section "Was the Dresden bombing justified?" as one of the legal controversies mentioned in the phrase "The controversy is centred around the legal and moral...". Indeed to avoid "weasel words" one could start the sentence. "The legal controversy surrounding the Dresden bombing is whether it constituted a war crime..." and "The moral controversy surrounding the bombing is whether the Allies should have considered..." There is room in that section to put both sides of the argument which there is not in the introduction. But I suggest we leave that one until the introduction is bedded inPhilip Baird Shearer 23:43, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
The problem with language like "war crimes" & "state terrorism" is that they inflame readers, rather than enlighten. Their use may cause a sceptical reader to react strongly over the langauge, & ignore its content. This is of even greater importance as the article now stands, because these words are not attributed to anyone; one could conclude that this language was added to disingenuously discredit this opinion, e.g.: "Some people (wink) whine over what happened in Dresden, but here are rational reasons why it happened. And we all know that, unfortunately, civilians suffer during wartime. So this whole accusation is nothing more than making a mountain out of a mole hill."
I am not saying that no one has ever criticized this military action; I remember hearing many years ago that it was considered an atrocity -- although I do not know who should be creditted with that opinion. (And I doubt that people were simply repeating Noam Chomsky's judgement, because the people I heard it from probably never heard of him.) This article needs to add those quotations to make it a truly NPOV article. -- llywrch 18:24, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

In reply to Dr Zen (6am 13 Dec). The Bombing of Hamburg in World War II, Bombing of Kassel in World War II and The Blitz have not a mention of "war crimes" or an "apologia" yet articles have been written. Who has written "solely to write an apologia"? "Why do they feel the need" are weasel words. There is a whole section on the controversy so why emphasise one POV in the introduction? There are articles on lots of things which happened in World War II written as a matter of interest and to write "if there were no controversy there would be no article" is just wrong. You go on to say "and there is controversy because and only because some believe the bombings to have been criminal acts." No there is also the moral issue of should the Allied high command, knowing the effects of earlier raids, not have considered German civilian loss of life when selecting targets at Yalta. The arguments put forward by British political opponents of Area Bombing during the war were moral, none of them (in the texts I have seen) argued that it was illegal. It is precisely because the type of thing which you have written above that option (1) is the best so that the subject can be discussed in detail in the appropriate sub-section. Philip Baird Shearer 13:21, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I doubt Dr. Zen meant that those other events shouldn't have articles, just that the most notable thing about dresden is that it is widely believed to have been a totally unjustifiable war crime. Describing Dr. Zen's comments to you now as "weasel words" makes me wonder if you've even read the Wikipedia:Avoid weasel terms page you linked to. That guideline is about article text, not discussions. Also, having just re-read said page now, I think that the exceptions to the rule clearly apply here, to the actual article dispute in question: - "When the belief or opinion is actually the topic of discussion." - it is - "When the holders of the opinion are too diverse or numerous to qualify." - they are. If we can apply the weasel words label to things people say on talk, then I think your habit of calling things you don't like weasel words is weasel words. ~leif (talk)[[]] 19:14, Dec 13, 2004 (UTC)

I have no strong concern with how its worded. I am concerned that there be appropriate citations for whatever opinions are mentioned. If the wording is "Many people regard", that should be followed with at least three citations showing different notable people who hold this opinion. -- Jmabel | Talk 00:30, Dec 14, 2004 (UTC)

A straw poll is a good idea. Hopefully there will be a clear consensus within a week or so. ~leif (talk) 21:51, Dec 11, 2004 (UTC)

It is now over a week and there had been no additional vote for 3 days (since 19:26, 16 Dec 2004). There is a clear majority for option 1. So unless anyone objects I suggest that this straw poll is closed at 12:00 tomorrow Dec 20. --Philip Baird Shearer 22:19, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Intro for every article on every battle and every war

Should every article on every battle and every war start out like this?

The action described here was stupid and cruel and would not have happened without greed, ignorance, and human failure of the worst kind. The pain and horror of this event are unimaginable and can only be excused by hypothetical justifications of what would have happened otherwise.

In other words, my vote is for Option 1, recorded above. Ortolan88 19:35, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

'and people were sucked into the fire.'

Any evidence for this? Unless windspeeds exceeded ~150mph, unlikely. Rather sensasionalist. Dan100 18:34, Dec 18, 2004 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bombing_of_Dresden/Archive_4&oldid=1190807976"