Talk:Axis capture of Tobruk

CE

Did a cheeky little ce, auto-ed, dupe wikilinks, EngvarB, blammed a few typos, stray commas etc of this quality article. All suggestive, revert as desired. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 19:31, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Mercury!

Forgot to check before saving. ;O) Keith-264 (talk) 12:53, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

And I thought you were just trying to catch us out! Alansplodge (talk) 21:05, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Proposed merger

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was to merge 2nd Battle of Tobruk with this article . Alansplodge (talk) 22:35, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

---

May I suggest that we merge 2nd Battle of Tobruk with this article. It was created on 13 November 2019, a week before this one. Because that article has no wikilinks with any related articles, I was unaware of its existence. It's a rather slim article with only two web page references and a "Contested deletion" discussion ongoing. Comments please... Alansplodge (talk) 18:33, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Agree. There is nothing extra over there, so a wipe clean and redirect would be useful. Wdford (talk) 18:51, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

AgreeKeith-264 (talk) 19:38, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi i recived your message, of course who i agree to a "merge" antways, the "Contested deletion" was already solved, i just want to say who if you are going to made a better article or just want to do it on the basis of the one who i made i completly agree, specially since i am relatively new and i barely speak english, thanks for contacting me and my best wishes to you and your project.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Nuevousuario1011 (talk • contribs) 23:02, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

• Yes, and to the better article, regardless of which came first. Hydromania (talk) 06:40, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
• I would agree, there should be a merge, to avoid duplication. I notice the other article has been copied from the "Fall of Tobruk" section at Battle of Gazala, if that has any bearing on the decision... Xyl 54 (talk) 22:49, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks everyone for your input. Alansplodge (talk) 22:35, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Citation method

Before I'm criticised for not conforming to an established citation method, let me say I'm not happy (in this article) with the booklist cum short footnotes and suggest sticking with straight named refs which will reduce unhelpful duplication and allow use of {{rp}} templates to specify page numbers. Can we discuss, please? Cheers, Bjenks (talk) 09:21, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

I like sfns because they're simple and because it's the only method that I really know. When I add to articles using other methods I try to do it but refname is one that I've given up on and just do <ref>Smith, 1989, pp. 1–23</ref>. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 09:54, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

I've had another look at the citations you've added and can't help thinking that refname a horrible, cumbersome and complicated system. Horses for courses of course and I wish you luck with it but I'll stick with sfns. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 12:28, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

OK, I can live with that (at least until the ref list becomes too long)! I note that the editor who invoked Boog et al has not supplied any page numbers, because they don't show up in the Google version. At this early stage I see no problem in having a mixed system as long as the citations can be verified. Bjenks (talk) 15:19, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments Bjenks; note that with the Boog reference, I have been able to narrow it down to chapter, section and subsection, which encompasses only a few pages and they are directly linked by the URL. I thought it was too valuable to leave out as it is written from the Axis viewpoint. Unfortunately, the paper copy is rather beyond my budget (hardback £343, paperback £56); but if anyone has access, feel free to add the page numbers. Alansplodge (talk) 22:21, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

96,000 Axis troops?

Is it correct to claim that 96,000 Axis troops participated in the battle? 96,000 was the entire Panzerarmee Afrika, but I think that only a part of it effectively participated in the capture of Tobruk. --2.36.88.125 (talk) 07:25, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

It seems that the units which made up Rommel's reserve were the depleted Littorio Division and the 90th Light (less the "Menny" mechanised infantry group). Whether it's true to say that reserve formations didn't participate in a battle seems debatable. The Allied forces included a large number of logistic troops who did little or no fighting. Alansplodge (talk) 17:43, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Boog

Found page numbers. Does anyone know how to remove the two book references (Hartshorn, Pitt) in the text so that the page citations rectify? Regards Keith-264 (talk) 11:12, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

OK, I'll have a go at that soon. Bjenks (talk) 06:19, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• DAK in Tobruk.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:53, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

References

Tidied, homogenised and dup searched. Keith-264 (talk) 14:21, 4 August 2022 (UT

Recent edits

@Wdford: Your idea of clarity leaves much to be desired. Keith-264 (talk) 16:35, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

The fact that the Axis forced the DAF to relocate to Egypt is merely interesting. The fact that this relocation deprived Tobruk of air cover was crucial in the context of the Axis capture thereof. So we clarify the point by explaining what happened, in the CONTEXT of why this was important to the topic of the article. Please refrain from resuming your edit war. Wdford (talk) 20:11, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

You are not citing the changes, you are assuming what readers don't think and you shouldn't put items into the lead which do not appear in the body of the article. Your edits are OR and should not be repeated, certainly not without gaining consensus here. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 23:51, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Axis capture of Tobruk

Why would you think that the article named Axis capture of Tobruk it would be unwarranted to call this an Axis victory? No one has ever claimed that all members of the Axis need to be present in a battle for it to be referred to as such. I’m also just realizing that you were from the other talk page concerning flag icons and when I pointed out how you misunderstood that, you simply stopped responding.

Friedbyrd (talk) 15:47, 16 March 2024 (UTC) Copied from my talk page.

@Friedbyrd: The discussion should be in the article talk page so I've pasted it here. The trouble with refinements to articles is that they can be piecemeal and inconsistent when the change should be applied in general. The discussion about the accuracy of Axis is in one of the other Desert War articles but the person objecting made the understandable point that the Japanese weren't involved, only two of the Axis powers, hence German–Italian. As for flagicons I've nothing left to say. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 16:28, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

The term “Axis” comes from the “Berlin-Rome Axis” which referred to the German and Italian alliance in the Pact of Steel. In other words, Germany and Italy are the “Axis” with other states, including Japan, joining later. The article is properly titled, you are being pedantic over an incomplete understanding of history.

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/why-we-call-axis-powers-axis-powers-180960980/

Friedbyrd (talk) 02:06, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Good morning, that's OR do any RS make the same claim? Regards Keith-264 (talk) 08:40, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

RS? Wikipedia is not a reliable source even by its own standards. You’re the one making the incorrect claim that “the axis” refers solely to Japan Germany and Italy all together which makes zero sense since the three never fought in the same battle together once. If I can’t make simple productive edits like this because some “seniored editor” is going to be this officious about something he clearly doesn’t know much about, then so be it. You’ve already just stopped the discussion about the flagicon issue so I don’t expect to accomplish anything trying to explain this to you.

Friedbyrd (talk) 14:33, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Aaanyhow; leaving semantics aside for a moment, we do have some reliable precedents for the German and Italian forces in North Africa being referred to as the "Axis":

• Mediterranean and Middle East Volume IV: The Destruction of the Axis Forces in Africa
• The Bloody Road to Tunis: Destruction of the Axis Forces in North Africa
• Axis Forces in North Africa 1940-1943

Also used in the same context on the websites of the Imperial War Museum, and the National Army Museum in the UK, the Naval History and Heritage Command, the National Museum of the US Air Force and the Defense Technical Information Center in the USA and the Canadian War Museum.

Trust this is helpful. Alansplodge (talk) 14:57, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Might be but "The Destruction of the Axis Forces in Africa isn't about "the Axis" it's about those parts of the Axis that were in Africa. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 15:24, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Maybe you should just own up to being wrong about this. Multiple reliable sources have been given to you, you haven’t even made an argument for your case, and you’re relying on a discussion on Wikipedia as if that is at all a reliable source.

Friedbyrd (talk) 15:30, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

I suggest you look again and try to be WP:civil. Keith-264 (talk) 17:01, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Can you please just admit that you were mistaken about this? This isnt even a debate issue, you misunderstood what the axis powers actually refers too.

Friedbyrd (talk) 01:58, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

I repeat, look again and try to be WP:civil. I will grant you the last word. Keith-264 (talk) 13:32, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

I am being civil, you refusing to acknowledge that you were mistaken and stubbornly ignoring it is unproductive. Please check your ego and stop preventing constructive edits.

Friedbyrd (talk) 14:08, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

I hope you enjoyed that. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 16:20, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Considering that you are outright refusing to even engage in the discussion or argue your case, I will continue to make my edits.

Friedbyrd (talk) 21:54, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

/* Recent edits */

@Wdford: You made a tendentious edit not referred to elsewhere in the article ergo not important. Insisting on it is OR and name calling is not AGF. Keith-264 (talk) 13:31, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

There is no rule that says every detail must be included in at least two different places in the article. However if that is what it will take to solve your tendentious edit-warring, I will add it in two different places. PS: The inexperience of Klopper, who was dumped with this task when the rest of the Eighth Army galloped back to Egypt, was reported by Playfair and is included already in the Analysis section, so your tendentiousness is blatantly obvious. Do we really need to include this fact a third time? Wdford (talk) 13:40, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

If the detail is important then his length of tenure will be referred to elsewhere, such as in the Analysis and its significance explained (by a reliable source not an editor). Keith-264 (talk) 13:47, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

That has long since been done. As you know. So what is your reason for trying to exclude this detail? Wdford (talk) 14:36, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

The court of inquiry & Churchill found Klopper to be blameless, so the argument that Klopper's inexperience is relevant is at least in dispute. Even Playfair writes that if he had experience, it might have not made a difference. Reasonable discussion of the role that the length of Klopper's command role might have to play should be discussed by reference to the relevant sources but putting one argument ahead of that section is privileging a specific viewpoint. Fangz (talk) 16:44, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

My edit was not privileging a viewpoint, or even advancing a viewpoint, I was merely clarifying a relevant and undisputed FACT. The experience or inexperience of various units is also mentioned throughout the article, because it is relevant.

Yes indeed the court of inquiry (and Churchill) subsequently found Klopper to be blameless, because the British high command had stuffed up from the beginning. This stuffing up must indeed be clearly reported as the primary cause of all that went wrong thereafter. This stuffing up was also exacerbated by Churchill’s interference, which is also correctly and thoroughly reported throughout the article. Playfair is certainly correct that no amount of skill or experience by Klopper would have made a difference to the ultimate outcome, because the seeds of destruction were beyond his power to correct.

Wdford (talk) 11:07, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

That is OR unless attached to RS. Another view is that the 2nd SA Division was put into Tobruk because it was expendable. Keith-264 (talk) 11:25, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes, this is classic WP:SYNTH. Fangz (talk) 11:33, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Really? WP:OR? WP:SYNTH? This information is all in the article already, and all properly cited. Did Klopper have command of the British armoured divisions outside the perimeter? NO. Did Klopper have command of the RAF? NO. Was Klopper able to source extra artillery and minefields for Tobruk? NO. Was Klopper able to evacuate Tobruk in advance of the attack, as per the original plan? NO. Who did actually have that authority? Churchill and the British high command. Who changed the plan at the last moment, and ordered Auchinleck to prepare for an unplanned siege, only three days before the attack? Churchill. What part is WP:OR? What part is WP:SYNTH? Wdford (talk) 12:40, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

The thing you are doing right now is the definition of WP:SYNTH. The combination of disparate facts that are individually acceptable to form a conclusion that is not itself specifically argued by a reliable secondary source. Fangz (talk) 11:05, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

I think that you put that rather well. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 11:51, 30 July 2024 (UTC)