Hi. I noticed that you recently reverted my WWII edit. The information is NOT specific itself -- Source comes from a normal-level high school textbook, which should only mean that this is a surface-level look upon the war. Should you consider the information specific enough, then it would be reasonable enough to state that the toll numbers / statistics would also be considered specific. Keep in mind that Wikipedia is a community-contributed project. Should there be further questions, discuss it on the talk page. (Let's not have an edit-war, okay?) Thank you. Prowikipedians (talk) 07:37, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

The issue is that the type of information is far too specific; the WWII article is supposed to be a very broad description of the war, and as short as possible. Stating how many women served in the American WACS or WAVES is simply far too in depth for the purposes of the main article. There is, however, a great Women's roles in the World Wars article, which appears to have less information than what you had added to the WWII article; you may want to take a look at it. There's also the Effects of World War II article, which has a smallish section about social effects, which you might be able to expand some. And no, there is no edit war, just the Bold-Revert-Discuss cycle that we are currently going through. Regards, Parsecboy (talk) 13:27, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I get the point now. It was quite nice of you rememinding me to keep the discussions "one on page." I'm the "on one page" type-of-person. Cheers. No worries. Prowikipedians (talk) 10:09, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I moved this conversation to the talk page for the Korean war, in retrospect, I should have put it there to begin with. - Schrandit (talk) 17:00, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Fine by me. Parsecboy (talk) 17:56, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Hey there! You were a big help with getting Operation Varsity to GA-Cass, and I was hoping you might take a look at my next project, 17th Airborne Division. I have it for GA Nom at the moment, and any advice would be more than welcome as I wait for someone to review it. I'm also working on 13th Airborne Division as well, which is at Start-Class but I think could be B-Class material at least. Thanks for any help you can give! Skinny87 (talk) 23:49, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Sure, I'll take a look at it when I get some time, the spring quarter at school is nearing its end, and the work is slowly piling up :) Parsecboy (talk) 23:55, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the barnstar! It's funny that your user page remained on my watchlist since we had those discussions with the EU I think. Anyway, you're welcome! Cheers, --Eurocopter (talk) 15:20, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for supporting my RfA, which unfortunately didn't succeed. The majority of the opposes stated that I needed more experience in the main namespace and Wikipedia namespace and talk space, so that is what I will do. I have made a list and I hope I will be able to get through it. I will go for another RfA in about three month's time and I hope you will be able to support me then as well. If you have any other comments for me or wish to be notified when I go for another RfA, please leave them on my talk page. If you wish to nominate me for my next RfA, please wait until it has been about three months. I will not be checking back to this page so if you would like to comment or reply please use my talk page. Thanks again for participating in my RfA! ·Add§hore· ^Talk/_Cont 07:03, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

For reverting my move. Although not a newbie, I am not an expert on Wikipedia. Weatherlover819 (talk) 22:41, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

No problems with the closure, just with the code. You forgot to add {{subst:ab}} to the bottom of the deletion discussion. It's not a big deal, just don't forget next time. Don't worry about it, it's not a big problem. Happy editing, Malinaccier (talk) 20:16, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

(Slaps forehead) thanks for catching that :) Parsecboy (talk) 21:29, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Hello. I posted another question on the talk page of Linkin Park. Do you probably know if the singer of Head strong is Chester Bennington? Volkov ^talk 09:06, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

It is, at least in the clip I saw on YouTube he was the singer. Parsecboy (talk) 13:37, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Strange, on other songs like Crawling etc. he sounds completely different. But Head strong is my favourite number from Linkin Park although they've copied this song from Trapt. Volkov ^talk 16:29, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, you know the story ... and I'm still speechless. "That's not how it works I'm afraid. Obviously you believe they are stronger, but actually the arguments on neither (or no) side clearly proved the relevant policies applied clearly in their favour.". Other articles get moved around at will[1], violating relevant policies, while these Mountains stick like glue to a lesser name. What next, Black Sea moved to Morze Czarne due to linguistic imperialism? -- Matthead  Discuß   18:01, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

What can you do, right? Perhaps it would be best to do some more research into the issue, and find more reputable sources that use Giant Mountains. If the number of reliable sources we provide is overwhelming, no reasonable admin would close it as no-consensus. Essentially, the whole "oppose" argument was a bunch of smoke and mirrors: Google counts and illogical and absurd arguments like "what next, move Lodz to 'a boat'?" I'd say wait a while, and build a stronger case that can't be contradicted by such methods. Parsecboy (talk) 18:17, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

This is the stronger case, compared to the earlier ones. The Opera Corcontica topped it off, that alone justifies a move against a plethora of oppose "votes". I've waited a while, yet Molobo tried to reject it beforehand. The number of reliable sources we provided is overwhelming, while the "oppose" statements were dismal, and even false. It's just unbelievable, assuming good faith is very hard here. Can a review be requested anywhere? -- Matthead  Discuß   19:15, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest just opening a thread on Wikipedia talk:Requested moves; I've seen reviews requested there, such as 1 and 2. Parsecboy (talk) 20:01, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm too tired to put effort in something which is likely to be ignored again, as admins seldom discuss or criticize with acts of other admins. Wikipedia is a big waste of time. -- Matthead  Discuß   20:37, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I've requested a review of the closure here. Let's wait and see how it turns out. Parsecboy (talk) 13:37, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

		The Original Barnstar
		Thanks for all the help with passing 13th Airborne Division, and just your hard work in general! Skinny87 (talk) 19:28, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Hey, I've got some serious footnote combining that needs doing on Operation Tractable. I think it's the final piece of the puzzle that I need to get done. If you have any spare time in the next few days, would you be able to do that? Thanks. Cheers! Cam (Chat) 23:07, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Nathanial Ott (talk · contribs), now blocked. Acroterion _(talk) 01:20, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I was medically discharged 5 months early because I broke my back from a rough parachute landing. And the strongest army didn't react at all ?? I've thought they're taking care of their soldiers :). (Sorry for the personal question, mate). Sir Lothar (talk) 02:22, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, there's not much they could do; I wasn't a candidate for surgery or anything. My injury, a partially crushed T12, was stable, and after 3 months in a brace, about as healed as it will be. I guess you could say the silver lining was I didn't go back with my unit when it deployed to Iraq this past October. Parsecboy (talk) 03:49, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

The May 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 01:41, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello yet again. I regretfully inform you that the bot we were using to update the user status at Wikipedia:Highly Active Users, SoxBot V, was blocked for its constant updating. With this bot out of operation, a patch is in the works. Until that patch is reviewed and accepted by the developers, some options have been presented to use as workarounds: 1) Qui monobook (not available in Internet Explorer); 2) User:Hersfold/StatusTemplate; 3) Manually updating User:StatusBot/Status/USERNAME; or 4) Not worry about it and wait for the patch to go through, which hopefully won't take long. If you have another method, you can use that, too. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me. Useight (talk) 17:58, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

What exactly do you think is wrong with referencing of the page? Having read the template instructions, it seems to be intended for insertion on a page which has too many contestible statements for them each to be labelled {fact}, not just for insertion on a page which someone would like to see more specifically cited. It is not acceptable to so label a page unless you feel it has numerous incorrect facts. The absence or otherwise of line by line citations is something which is self-evident just looking at a page. Sandpiper (talk) 12:57, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I suppose I interpret it differently. The article only has one source, and is cited once, on a relatively minor detail. Many of the things, such as statistics for the vessel and combat history, need verification. That doesn't mean that I think they'r incorrect, they just need citations to make the article more reliable. If you look at the {{refimprove}} template, you'll see the line

"Refimprove uses simple, general wording so that the template can be used any time referencing in an article needs improvement."

This is why the template is relevant on SMS Goeben. I myself know how difficult it is to find reliable sources about German Imperial Navy ships (even the battlecruisers and battleships), but that doesn't give the articles a free pass on not being referenced properly. Regards, Parsecboy (talk) 14:40, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I think you are saying you are not challenging any of the facts in the article, or have any intention of deleting them, just hoping someone will come along and add references?

I make a few quotes from people at the recent deletion debate for this template, from people justifying keeping it:

current consensus at WP:V is that is considered polite to and best practice to provide warning to editors before actually removing text.

check Howard Hughes as an example where the tag is useful in keeping entries in place when another editor is bent on removing everything he/she considered OR. At least the tag held off outright reversals for awhile until suitable references were found.

However, more people seemed to agree with you (if I have your position correctly), that the purpose of the template is to encourage the insertion of citations on unchalleneged material, notwithstanding the absence of policy requiring them. I have to say I remain in agreememnt with about the one person attempting to get the tag deleted, that it is pointless using a tag to say an article could have more inline citations: there are probably no articles with enough such citations to actually source every stated fact. This is just stating the obvious absence of refs in a way intended to be annoying. In the absence of a sensible guideline to stop people arbitrarily demanding more citations, it seems my own best course to discourage such gamesmanship would be to deliberately avoid adding them to my own work. Of course, adding refs to controversial and POV points (so non-controversial ones get deleted) is an excellent way to completely bias an article. references do not guarantee an article is acurate They merely show someone somewhere considered a point. Who is going to check 100 offline refs on an article to see they even do support the point-having so many makes them impossible to verify. I could write a totally cited history of some event which totally misrepresented it, by careful choice of refs. This just encourages that sort of gamesmanship.

To be clear, I don't object or even disagree with the notion that refs can be useful (though normally are not). I do object to a faction of people who see it their task to ram this policy upon others, who think referencing at such a level is frankly unimportant (verging on a stupid waste of time).Sandpiper (talk) 21:07, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

(See, I have wasted an hour on this debate, because I think it a spreading epidemic on wiki, which I would otherwise have spent researching the articles which happened to lead me to Goeben, and likely would have included citations.)Sandpiper (talk)

Yes, I believe you have my position correctly. I don't dispute any of the information in the article, nor do I intend on removing anything. However, I am aware that I know quite a lot more about the German Imperial Navy than average people do (which isn't to say I'm an expert by any means), and while it's easy for me to state something about a specific ship, that doesn't mean I (or anyone else) should. I guess my interpretation of WP:V is that since the threshold of inclusion is verifiability, most things should have sources. And while that doesn't mean you need a ref tag on every single sentence, generally speaking, one per paragraph would be nice, because usually that one source will have most if not all of the information in that paragraph. In the end, I think the refimprove template is useful because it basically says "This article doesn't have enough citations, to where it would satisfy A-class or FA requirements, and should be improved until it does so". Also, to respond to your position that most references aren't useful, having enough references is the only way the reliability of Wikipedia can be proved.

I can't really say if the refimprove template encourages gamesmanship, as my interests here on Wiki keep me away from most controversial topics. However, I think that if someone is intent on adding a specific slant to an article, he or she will do that unless a neutral user catches it. And even still, that information likely belongs in the article somewhere, to some degree, provided it doesn't violate WP:UNDUE. For example, there is a short mention of how Hitler is respected by some groups in his article, even though it's a pretty fringe idea. Parsecboy (talk) 01:50, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Ah hitler, A few years ago I was driving into poland and they were still using the roads he built....My interpretation of verifiability is that nothing belongs here unless it could be verified. Not, unless it has been verifed and the fact attested by a cite. So, nothing needs a cite unless it becomes a point of contention. So everything stays in an article unless someone comes along and challenges it. It is not necessary, or even I would argue even desireable, to cite every fact. Sensible editors should not be going around demanding cites on facts they believe are correct. That's a general point, not specifically directed at yourself, but it is heading for a collision with policy. It is also heading for a collision with the policy that anyone can edit wiki. Anyone so long as they have a textbook in their hand? Is it expert editors only now? Sandpiper (talk) 21:14, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I suppose we interpret WP:V differentl. Again, I don't think every single sentence needs a cite, but usually one or two per paragraph is sufficient, especially if the paragraph is stating specific things, like dates, measurements, etc. I think that every article should be written with the goal of eventually (maybe even years in the future) of getting to a higher quality status, and there are increasingly stringent requirements as articles increase in quality. I wouldn't say that requiring sources conflicts with "anyone can edit wiki" so much as it encourages those who are interested in helping to build the encyclopedia to go to their library, borrow a few books, and read them so they can properly edit. Again, our only real purpose here is to build a reliable encyclopedia; one of the reasons many don't accept Wikipedia as a reliable source of information is that much of the content is unsourced, and there's no way to check the facts unless you do the research yourself. Hence, us providing where we got that information ourselves makes it all that much easier for people to check our facts. If anything, I think it detracts from "experts only", in that you can't just type whatever you want without having a reliable source to back it up. Parsecboy (talk) 14:47, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Hey there. I was wondering if you might mosey on over to 17th Airborne Division and do to the footnotes what you did at 13th Airborne Division, combine some of them. I'd be really greatful if you could. Thanks! Skinny87 (talk) 19:40, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

They should be merged now. If there's one I've missed, let me know. Good luck on the 11th ABN, if you need any help, you know where to find me. Parsecboy (talk) 13:57, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Could you restore the April 14 speedily deleted page that was at WABCO, to my userspace, please? log It sounds (from the log) that it may have been an accidental fork of the article for the defunct Westinghouse Air Brake Company. I would like to review it and merge any salvageable text. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 10:05, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Please also give me a copy of Talk:WABCO if you can. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 10:11, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Wow! Thanks for your speedy assistance. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 13:40, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

No problem! Parsecboy (talk) 13:41, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I haven't seen the history, but it something makes me think it was me who placed the speedy delete tag! A shame that I had no recollection of this after 2 months had elapsed. Thanks again. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 13:47, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

In fact, you did place the speedy tag, with the edit summary "turns out even the first submission looks like plagiarism, so everything later was a derived work. See also http://web.archive.org/web/20050412040451/http://www.americanstandard.com/CompanyHistory.asp". I know, sometimes you just forget about stuff after a while. Parsecboy (talk) 13:50, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi Nate,

Thanks for stepping in. Your response does indeed answer my question.

Neelix (talk) 16:08, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

No problem, glad I could help. Parsecboy (talk) 16:43, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Nate, thanks for taking care of that. I've just finished driving 600 miles and decided to drop in and see if I needed to deal with this. I'll drop in at least every day, but I'd appreciate it if you kept watching my talk page. -MBK₀₀₄ 06:55, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Sure, I'll keep an eye on it and help where I can. Have a good vacation! Parsecboy (talk) 11:53, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I have just asked for an A-class review of Operation Varsity, open [2] and any help you could give would be more than welcome! Skinny87 (talk) 18:38, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about mesing up the ship class - my regex wasn't clever enough to handle a ship that's changed its class, and I didn't notice the strange effect it had. Colonies Chris (talk) 19:33, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

No big deal, it was easy enough to fix :) Parsecboy (talk) 19:49, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Howdy Parsec.

I'd advice against continuing your somewhat Sysiphean debate at Talk:World War II, I don't think any amount of evidence would be sufficient. The onus is on those who wish to present a source as unreliable to take it up at the noticeboard; personal opinions stating that a source can't be used isn't worth arguing over. I'd also appreciate it if I could get your feedback on the proposal for redoing the first two paragraphs of the article. Oberiko (talk) 22:32, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, you're right; there's no sense continuing that issue. They don't want to listen to anything that doesn't match their preconceived notions. I don't intend on wasting any more time beating my head against a brick wall. Parsecboy (talk) 02:07, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

On your comment about ruffling the feathers of Baltic nationalists, just a P.S. on your user page commentary about ultranationalism being a problem on WP. Don't confuse nationalism which produces reputably sourced validated by "non-nationalist" scholarship facts with nationalism which produces nothing but empty fact-free declarations. Only the latter nationalism is a "problem" on Wikipedia. (I've had it argued that the absence of reputable sources is proof of obvious truth.) Your comment currently rather tars all nationalists with the same brush, no? —PētersV (talk) 02:15, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I tend to view the word "nationalist" as a sort of a dirty word; people who are even moderately "loyal" to their country have a strong tendency to turn a blind eye to the horrible things their country has done. For example, entirely reasonable people in the United States don't consider the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki to be war crimes, and would even argue against the point (I've been guilty of it in the past myself; it's just how people are indoctrinated). Everyone does it, at least to some degree, whether they're conscious of it or not. If one is to write history, one has to check all biases at the door, to the best of your ability (which, is often quite difficult). Again, though, I wasn't referring to you or anyone in particular in my comment on Talk:World War II. I did reply more specifically on the talk page there, I've climbed onto my soapbox here, and I won't be down for a minute or two :)

And then there are issues like Liancourt Rocks/Dokdo/Takeshima/whatever they call it now, where literally legions of SPAs go to edit war over whether Japan or Korea has legal right to a pile of barren, dead rocks that are of no use to anyone. Wikipedia is a magnet for this kind of stuff, and it's far more damaging to our reputation than simple, easily reverted and blocked vandalism. That's my point from my userpage comment. Again, I apologize for the soapboxing, but it's kind of a pet peeve. :) Parsecboy (talk) 02:36, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi, just to streamline the process, I thought I'd go straight to you again.

In the past, you moved Grand Place to that title due to a consensus at RM. (your edit) The same user has unilaterally moved it back. Can you please undo this again? Thanks. -Oreo Priest ^talk 11:49, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I just moved the page back, and I think I'll leave a comment on the mover's talk page to seek consensus before making moves that aren't uncontroversial. Regards, Parsecboy (talk) 14:04, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the message. I just thought that I would upload much better photo of the ship from my collection. Have a second look, I think it is a better photo and with verifiable reference. I am going to upload some more images of WWI German navy vessels today so have a look... Best MariaMariaflores1955 (talk) 16:25, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

That sounds great, upload away! We can always use more photographs. As for our Nassau photos, there's no reason we can't have both, right? Parsecboy (talk) 16:33, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about that one. It is the wrong Koenigsberg... I just was not sure how to delete it. I do have many of the vessels already posted (many in much better quality like - SMS Fürst Bismarck) some other photos like Stosch, Gazelle, Gefion, Amazone, Hamburg, München can't be uploaded as the articles do not exist yet. If there are any images you would like, just let me know Mariaflores1955 (talk) 17:05, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Just though I'd give you a pointer to User_talk:Nick_Dowling#Hi. I though it could be useful for you to know. Cheers--Stor stark7 ^Speak 23:14, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not exactly sure why you've pointed me to that discussion, perhaps you could explain? I've only had one interaction with Molobo, and while we did disagree, he was the only editor on his "side" who actually made semi-valid arguments (and I say semi-valid because he was relying on Google hits, which I feel is the weakest of justifications); the rest were more or less drive-by opposes, with comments like "I oppose efforts to Germanize Wikipedia". Also, I think the last time I participated at the Allied war crimes during World War II (AFAIK the only time we've crossed paths) was over a year ago.

In any case, I have no desire to insinuate myself in your disagreement; I don't need any more drama than I've already got. Regards, Parsecboy (talk) 03:42, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

No process that contains Oberiko can come to any useful end; but I will wait a day to see if I am wrong about that. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:50, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not that pessimistic, but then I also have sort of abandonded the discussion. Maybe it's because I generally agree with Oberiko (in that the 1937 start-date viewpoint should not be discounted), but I find Jooler and Colin's refusal to accept any source as valid that doesn't suit their POV more disturbing than Oberiko's stubbornness.

Personally, I think the war did start on Sept. 1, 1939, but I am also aware that it's simply the product of the horribly Euro/Amero-centric schooling I received for the majority of my formal education. Conversely, many Japanese and Chinese receive educations that are just as Japan/China-centric, and likely barely touch on the events in Poland in Sept. 1939. The key is to balance the two; something along the lines of "many Western histories use Sept 1 (or alternatively 3rd)as the start date for the war, while many Asian histories give the start date in 1937, or as early as 1931." I thought that was the general idea with the footnotes proposed by Arnoutf (I think it he was the one who suggested it), but that was a few days ago, and, like I said above, I've mostly abandoned the issue since then. Parsecboy (talk) 03:01, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Any start date must be somewhat conventional. This is the convention in the English-speaking world, for good reason; and we should document it, even if the reason were bad. (We should also document that some disagree.) I do not join Jooler in discounting Oberiko's sources; my objection is simpler. Oberiko is reading out of context; many of them do not say what Oberiko says they do. One of my next edits will be citing this. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:31, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I plan to restore the link in the infobox, because I wrote the paragraph on chronology to have something to link to. If you have a problem with this, let me know. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:35, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

No longer possible. But see Talk:World_War_II#What_do_Oberiko.27s_sources_actually_say.3F (and the section above, where he quotes me as saying something I did not. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:02, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

No, don't worry, you won't make me cry. This is just my first real medcab case, so I'm somewhat of a newbie at it. Have a good day :-)  Mm40 (talk | contribs)  10:20, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I was just trying to pre-emptively lighten the mood, I figured you'll be ok :) You know how discussions on Wikipedia can get. Parsecboy (talk) 12:39, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Hey Parsec. 11th Airborne Division is up for GA Review, and I was wondering if you ahd time to swing by and take a look at it? If not don't worry. Thanks anyway. Skinny87 (talk) 17:19, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

it's from a certain point of view because it is islamophobic.--Velanthis (talk) 04:34, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

It's not Islamophobic to state that Hitler remarked that he admired Islam; it's sourced from Albert Speer's personal diary. No, many don't like being associated in any way with someone as despicable as Hitler, but Reductio ad Hitlerum is a logical fallacy, and we don't censor articles because some things might be offensive. Parsecboy (talk) 04:56, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi there, I just found in my collection the same photo postcard of SMS Fürst Bismarck as you had uploaded. I replaced the image as this one does not have the lines on it. I hope you agree that it is of better quality. If not feel free to undo my change. Hope your weekend is great Mariaflores1955 (talk) 21:12, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

That looks pretty good, it's actually got a little more background in your version of the photo, and it doesn't have the slight changes in shade. My weekend is pretty good, hope yours is good as well :) Parsecboy (talk) 00:01, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

		The Working Man's Barnstar
		To Parsecboy, for all his contuining hard work in improving 11th Airborne Division! Skinny87 (talk) 21:12, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! Parsecboy (talk) 21:15, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Say, NickDowling commented that MacArthur didn't want to use the 11th as an airborne unit and more as a light infantry unit, and that he also planned to use it as the lead unit for the invasion of Japan. To be honest, 75% f my reference books for airborne warfare are useless, and those few that have info on the 11th don't really mention higher politics or command decisions. I don't suppose you had any books on the Pacific Theatre that might be able to cite these, would you? I don't have any unfortunately, not my area of interest. Skinny87 (talk) 21:34, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I don't have any books that mention that either. I wonder if we can find anything about it through google books or google scholar... Parsecboy (talk) 21:59, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I haven't found anything specifically about spearheading the invasion, but here's one for leading the occupation: [Heros Among Us]. Oh, here's one that might tell you what you're looking for: it's another book by Flanagan - The Angels:A History of the 11th Airborne Division. This book, The Invasion of Japan: Alternative to the Bomb, states that the 11th was assigned as Sixth Army's followup force (on page 173, which is in the preview), and later (on page 202, also in the preview), it states quite clearly that, according to Mac's plan, 11th Airborne was to be the AFPAC reserve, and would be based in Kyushu once it was taken. It would seem MacArthur's intentions were the opposite from what NickDowling said. That's all I've been able to find on google books so far. Parsecboy (talk) 22:12, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Parsec, you are nothing short of a miracle worker. I'll add this into the article as soon as I can. Skinny87 (talk) 22:17, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Glad I could help :) Parsecboy (talk) 00:31, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Can you grant rollback permission to my account? Outdawg (talk) 01:10, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Outdawg (talk) 01:17, 17 June 2008 (UTC)