text:
Talk:Bombing of Berlin in World War II

Restoration of page
The original entries on this talk page seem to have been accedently deleted Revision as of 14:54, 27 October 2006 -- Revision as of 14:55, 27 October 2006 --Philip Baird Shearer 20:29, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Battle honour
What does "battle honour" mean here? Get-back-world-respect 00:51, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

That men displayed personal courage and resolve in carrying out their duties. Uncool 1 16:21, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

 * See Battle honour, roughly speaking the UK/Commonwealth equivalent of the US campaign streamer or Presidential Unit Citation. David Underdown 13:33, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Suspected copyvio
While I understand that facts cannot be copyrighted, I suspect (based on another editor's message on my talkpage) that this could be a copyvio from. I haven't been able to pin-point the copyvio though. Can some one double check to be sure? --Gurubrahma 18:57, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

 * I put most of the time line onto this page. It is based on the RAF pages for that period:
 * http://www.raf.mod.uk/bombercommand/nov43.html
 * http://www.raf.mod.uk/bombercommand/dec43.html
 * http://www.raf.mod.uk/bombercommand/jan44.html
 * http://www.raf.mod.uk/bombercommand/feb44.html
 * http://www.raf.mod.uk/bombercommand/mar44.html
 * However it is not a cut and past and I have tried to make sure that no two sentences are the same and to introduce a slightly different way of describing what is basically a list. If there are any specific sentences which you consider to be a CVIO then lets talk about it and alter those sentences. --Philip Baird Shearer 17:23, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

From my Talk page:
 * well,maybe no two sentences are alike,but if you have indeed altered the main article from the webpage,then you should have also wikified it,added sufficient templates and discussed this on the talk page prior to this.you could have atleast removed the numbering,which wasnt done.you can still write the article,but since i am not a admin,i cant direct you,maybe you can change the whole stylr of the article.--Jayanthv86 04:18, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

The numbering is mine and is not on the RAF pages. They represent the 16 day that the main raids took place on Berlin, as many other sources state there were 16 raids but not the dates they took place. I did not fully wikify it or finish the list (see the bottom entires are not fleshed out) because I ran out of steam and hoped that someone else would do the job. As for your other comments, it does not need templates and there is no need to discuss anything on a talk page before adding text to an article. If you think that these are valid points then there are other templates which could be used which are more appropriate (see: Template messages/Cleanup), so I suggest that we removed the ASAP --Philip Baird Shearer 09:33, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

 * As I remarked above, facts cannot be copyrighted; Philip Baird Shearer's comments seem to clear the misunderstanding about the copyvio; also, this is not listed on the copyright listing problems for 23 January, 2006, the date it was tagged on. So, I too suggest that we revert the article to the edit before the copyvio tag was slapped. --Gurubrahma 16:18, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Removed. --Philip Baird Shearer 14:18, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Not encyclopedic
A long list of which attack was conducted on which day is not worth an encyclopedia article. Get-back-world-respect 02:59, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

 * I already used this article, and found it quite helpful. There are many articles in Wikipedia that wouldn't be found in a paper encyclopedia because of space limitations. That's a problem with paper encyclopedias that we shouldn't feel constrained to imitate.
 * Rbraunwa 05:08, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I do not think a paper encyclopedia would not include this for space limitations but because listing air attacks is not the task of an encyclopedia. An encyclopedia summarizes important facts. Get-back-world-respect 13:24, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Casualties? Photos?
What is known about civilian casualties? Can anyone provide photos of the destruction? Get-back-world-respect 15:14, 7 February 2006 (UTC

Numbers of bombers lost
The first paragraph states that the RAF lost 450 aircraft during the sixteen raids, then in the same paragraph two sentences later, it states that the attacks culminated with the British losing over a thousand aircraft. Now which one is it, 450 or over a thousand? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 15:36, 8 May 2006 (talk • contribs) 207.159.196.2.

 * 450 on the 16 Berlin raids, but there were a lot of raids on a lot of different targets during the battle during which the RAF also lost machines. For example the final attack of the battle (on Nuremberg) when the RAF lost 95 aircraft. --Philip Baird Shearer 17:00, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

 * The Luftwaffe had large numbers of night fighters stationed all over Germany and to prevent the Germans concentrating these night fighters in one place against RAF Bomber Command, the British went to great lengths to confuse the German defenders as to the bomber's target each night. One of the techniques used was to route the bombers around likely targets before turning on to the final course for the actual target, and using 'dog legs' in the courses flown, with numerous changes of heading, all intended to deny to the defenders knowledge of the intended target until the last minute - the German night defences were almost entirely based around radar in the form of the Kammhuber Line. Another method was to attack other cities during campaigns against places like Berlin, again so that the Germans couldn't just station their night fighters in anticipation of further attacks against the main target.

 * This is also one of the reasons for the Mosquito 'nuisance' LNSF attacks, as these alerted the German defences and resulted in many wasted German night fighter sorties, with large consumption of aviation petrol, and lead to the inevitable accidents and loss of aircraft and crews that result from simply flying at night. Another was the extensive use of No. 100 Group RAF, with a number of Electronic countermeasures fitted in their aircraft, all intended to confuse the German defences as to the main bomber stream's actual target.

 * The attack on Nuremberg was an occasion when none of the above techniques were used, combined with unusually clear weather, and as a result, the RAF had it's heaviest losses in any one attack on Germany.

 * The point about the RAF's 'Battle of Berlin' is that the German defenders weren't told about it - it was secret. So the RAF couldn't have just attacked Berlin night-by-night, as the German's would have eventually realised this and moved their night fighters to areas around Berlin. So to prevent this the RAF attacked other cities as well.

 * BTW, in judging RAF Bomber Command's losses 1939-45 one needs to bear in mind that the total RAF and Commonwealth losses for that period were around 55,000 aircrew killed or missing. To give this some perspective, bad although these losses were, they pale into insignificance when compared with the losses on the Western Front in WW I, where the British Army lost ~60,000 killed on the first day of the Battle of the Somme. That static situation, together with the resultant massive British and French losses, is what RAF Bomber Command was set up for to prevent, and what the subsequent bombing of Germany was intended to ensure did not happen again. That BTW, is why when the RAF was formed in 1918 it's main bomber force was made up of long-range strategic night bombers such as the Handley Page 0/400, Vickers Vimy, and the later Vickers Virginia and Handley Page Hinaidi.

Questions

 * Why are attacks on Frankfurt and Nuremberg included in an article called Battle of Berlin (air)? Either they should be removed or the article retitled Stategic bombing of Germany.
 * Why does the list stop in 1944? The biggest raid on Berlin was (from memory) the one on 4 February 1945, and raids continued well into April, when the Russkis took over. Adam 05:27, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

 * Because the campaign was known as the Battle of Berlin. The RAF could not bomb Berlin every night (as the German air defences could have been concentrated). But the campaign's aim was to destroy Berlin. It is well known campaign and is usually referred to as the "Battle of Berlin" see for example http://www.awm.gov.au/wartime/25/article.asp as an example.

 * It stops in 1944 because that was the end of the campaign. Because of losses it probably could not have been sustained, and also because the strategic bomber forces switched to tactical bombing in France to support of the Normandy landing. --Philip Baird Shearer 07:29, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

 * Weather was another issue - some planned raids on Berlin were switched to other targets when it was believed that the weather over the 'big city' would be problematic. Lovingboth 15:31, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that's correct. Read and Fisher The Fall of Berlin say that the last RAF and USAAF air raids on Berlin were on 25 April 1945. In any case, we should have a more general Stategic bombing of Germany article. Adam 08:54, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

 * The stratigic raids on Germany restarted in September 1944 once the tactical support of the D-day landings ended. There are already several articles on bombing. I do not think that we need another one but we do need many more articles on the major cities (in various countries) which were devestated by repeated air raids. For overview articles see:
 * Aerial bombing during World War II
 * Area bombardment
 * Aerial bombing of cities
 * Strategic bombing
 * Strategic bombing during World War II
 * Terror bombing
 * See also Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Military aviation task force. I think there are too many articles and they need consolidating.
 * Visit this RAF site to get a feel for just how much the bombing of Germany was an industrial process: http://www.raf.mod.uk/bombercommand/diary.html --Philip Baird Shearer 09:26, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

BTW I am all in favour of expanding this article to cover all the other raids on Berlin, but to date not even the 16 of the battle are fully covered. --Philip Baird Shearer 09:28, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

OK. I was in Berlin recently and I bought a superb large-scale aerial photo of the city in May 1945, showing the extent of the devastation. I could scan and upload it section by section but I don't what its copyright status might be. Adam 10:05, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Rewrite
I have rewritten this crap article and given it a title that describes its contents. Adam 14:55, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

 * Well done, I have been thinking along the same lines myself recently, but have not had time to do it. --Philip Baird Shearer 17:34, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Thunderclap
I have removed the references to Thunderclap because it is not clear to me that the raids in 1945 were Thunderclap. What Taylor says in Dresden, Tuesday 13 February 1945page 214 is that in a minute of a meeting on January 30th that Sir Douglas Evill reported that given that oil and tank factories were to remain the priority, that a Thunderclap attack would not be feasible, but that the Joint Intelligence Sub-Committeethought that an attack even on a lesser scale against Berlin would assist the military campaign on the Easter front. As Taylor puts it with his focus on the Dresden raid "In Other words, Thunderclap was to be replaced by a number of very powerful - but not, in numbers of aircraft dispatched, freakishly large - air raids on eastern German cities, including Dresden". --Philip Baird Shearer 17:34, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

RAF losses
The current source says: The Battle of Berlin cost Bomber Command 500 aircraft, with their crews killed or captured (Grayling, 332). Is that aircraft lost on the 16 raids on Berlin or total losses for the Battle? If it is the former then a quick count of the losses as published on the RAF web site are well above 500 (On a quick count I made it close to 550). On top of that the RAF lost a lot of other aircraft attacking other cities during the battle for example 95 on the night of March 30/31 1944 attacking Nuremberg. --Philip Baird Shearer 20:15, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Re Thunderclap and most of your other edits, fair enough. I have done some minor fixes. Re the RAF losses over Berlin, I have restored Grayling's figure. This is an article about attacks on Berlin, not Nuremberg or anywhere else. If you can calculate a more accurate figure for Berlin alone, please do so. Adam 02:23, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Battle of Berlin
By the same token I have gone through the "timeline" and removed references to raids on other cities. The complete timeline belongs in another article. Adam 02:23, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

 * The section is about the Battle of Berlin. The battle includes the attacks on other cities. That is why so many articles on the battle include the casualty figures that they do. Are you suggesting that there should be two articles? Or do you need me to produce a source which shows that the other raids are part of the Battle of Berlin? --Philip Baird Shearer 13:02, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm suggesting (in fact I'm insisting) that an article called Bombing of Berlin in World War II must be about the bombing of Berlin, not about the bombing of other cities. I don't see what kind of logic can include bombing Nuremberg as part of a "Battle of Berlin". If there were diversionary attacks on other cities as part of the attacks on Berlin that can be noted, but doesn't need to be detailed. But many of the raids I deleted were clearly not diversions, they were full-scale attacks on other cities. They cannot be part of this article. Adam 13:10, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

 * Major raids on the other cities were in part diversionary raids. If the RAF had flown nothing but major raids against Berlin for months on end the Germans would have concentrated their defences and the RAF would have been wiped out. The major raids on other cities were necessary to keep the Germans defenders guessing. There are many sources which support this point of view, do you have a source which says that the Battle of Berlin only consisted of the 16 major Berlin raids? --Philip Baird Shearer 14:20, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

The subject of this article is not the "battle of Berlin", which was after all just a catch-phrase of Harris' - six months of bombing a city isn't a "battle" in the real sense of the word. The subject of this article is the history of the bombing of Berlin. Raids on other places, even if they served as diversions for attacks on Berlin (and many of those listed did not), are not part of that topic. Adam 14:40, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

 * It is more than just a catch phrase, unless you are of the opinion that the Battle of Britain is also just a catch phrase. The RAF lost far more men in the Battle of Berlin than they lost in the Battle of Britain (I believe I read recently they lost more on the Nuremberg raid than they lost in the Battle of Britain. Here is a reference on Nuremberg being part of the Battle of Berlin: RAF Bomber Command campaign diary March 1944 30/31 March 1944: "Pilot Officer Cyril Barton, a Halifax pilot of No 578 Squadron, was awarded a posthumous Victoria Cross for carrying on to the target in the Nuremberg ... Pilot Officer Barton's Victoria Cross was the only one awarded during the Battle of Berlin, which had now officially ended". --Philip Baird Shearer 14:49, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Well if you want to write an article about the Battle of Berlin as officially defined, you are welcome to do so. This article is about the bombing of Berlin, which went from 1940 to 1945, and did not include bombing Nuremberg, which is a long way from Berlin. Adam 14:59, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

 * I think you mean Battle of Berlin (air) and looking at the history of this page:
 * 10:01, 23 September 2006 Dermo69 m (moved Battle of Berlin (air) to Bombing of Berlin: Battle of Berlin,how pathetic.This was no battle,it was the destruction of a city)
 * 14:54, 27 October 2006 Adam Carr m (moved Bombing of Berlin to Allied bombing of Berlin in World War II)
 * 17:18, 27 October 2006 Philip Baird Shearer m (moved Allied bombing of Berlin in World War II to Bombing of Berlin in World War II: Name to the same format as all the other similar articles)
 * So I see no point in forking a page out of this one when the battle can be covered in the sectin Battle of Berlin. --Philip Baird Shearer 15:31, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

i don't really follow that last point, but since i have rewritten the article its past history is irrelevant. i hate to be stubborn, but i am not going to argue about this all night - an article with this title cannot include detailed material about attacks on other cities, and i will revert any such material. if you want to cover that topic you will have to do so somewhere else. Adam 16:11, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

 * My point was that this article was under the name Battle of Berlin (air) until just over a month ago and had been there for a couple of years. We are now faced with a dilema. Either we can write another article about the Battle of Berlin (air) or we can keep it as a subsection in this article. I am in favour of keeping it in this article because othewise there will be duplication of information, you are not. So lets wait see what others think and see if we can build a consensus. --Philip Baird Shearer 17:38, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

The attacks on Berlin which were part of the Battle of Berlin belong in this article. Attacks on other cities do not. So if you want to write about those attacks on other cities, you will have recreate Battle of Berlin (air). In that case the entire timeline (which has more detail than is necessary for this article) can be removed and put there. Adam 01:23, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

In fact I have done it for you - Battle of Berlin (air). Enjoy. Adam 01:50, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Targeting the VI Panzer Army
Another matter. You say, citing Taylor (whom I haven't read), that the 3 Feb 1945 raid on Berlin was due to the VI Panzer Army passing through the city. Grayling doesn't mention this and says the raid was a straightforward area bombing designed to flatten the whole of central Berlin, which it did. If the raid had a clear military target, why did Doolittle protest about it and have to be overruled by Spaatz? Adam 02:21, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

 * The Americans frequently said that they were aiming for a specific target but in reality went in for Harris style city busting. For example in the Dresden raid they used a mix of HE and incendiary closer to the RAF mix than the usual precision mix, but the target for the first US raid was the Friedrichstadt marshalling yards (which they bombed from a height of 28,000 in partial to full cloud cover). So I think the Taylor point is significant for the timing of the raid not so much the specific target.

 * One has to remember that the British had broken the railway ENIGMA early in the war so they probably knew as much about German railway transport as the Germans. A point that is not made in the older histories is that when the Allies talked about communications, hitting large telephone exchanges (in the cities) was almost more important than hitting the railways or roads, because no telephone network put more information into radio traffic that the British could read. This of course was never explained to the air forces at the time, because even Harris was not let in on the ULTRA secret (he was too low in the food chain). Indeed if he had, he might have been more inclined to believe his superiors when they said that they thought the oil strategy was working, as he would have known that the source for this was intercepted German messages about critical oil shortages.Philip Baird Shearer 14:01, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

With respect, that doesn't really answer my question
 * Was VI Pz in fact passing through the city on 3 Feb? What exactly does Taylor say?
 * Was this in fact the motive, or a motive, or just a pretext, for the USAAF raid?
 * If it was the reason, why did Doolittle protest?
 * Is Taylor wrong, or is Grayling? Adam 03:06, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Also: "USAAF raids in 1944 and 1945 killed many civilians in Berlin. [citation needed]" Do you really think the assertion that air raids killed civilians needs to be referenced? Adam 03:14, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

 * The citation is not for that specific sentence but for the whole paragraph. I do not doubt that most of it is true, (although I do not know "if war production in greater Berlin did not fall"). But some question the validity of some of or all of it, and it is the only paragraph in that section which is not referenced. Comparing the article Bombing of Pforzheim in World War II with Bombing of Braunschweig in World War II, I think makes the point.

 * The pages in Taylor before 215 are discussing the targets in eastern Germany to be bombed to aid the Russians. As it is the Brits documents which are being reviewed they talk about area bombing various cities: Berlin, Leipzig, Dresden, Chemnitz. It is mainly from a British perspective, but there is mention of Portal and Bottomley meeting Spaatz who was on a brief visit to England from SHAEF on the 28 January, and that Spaatz, and Bottomley would consult with Tedder (Eisenhower's British deputy at SHAEF and himself an airman). On the 29th Churchill flew to Malta for a 6 day meeting with the US President preparing for the Yalta Conference.(page 213). The paragraph before the last on page 215 says "The first objective would be the hearts and brains of the eastern cities, then their viscera - the transport links - and finally any industrial manufacturing". The final paragraph says:
 * "Weather conditions in the first week and second weeks of February were, as so often in the winter of 1944-5, poor. Despite this, a massive attack was indeed mounted against Berlin by the U.S. Eight Air Force, just as General Spaatz had promised. On February 3, almost a thousand B-17 Flying Fortresses attacked Berlin in daylight. Marshalling yards through the vast urban area were the official targets, with the importance if the raid underlined by the belief that the Sixth Panzer Army was moving through the German capital on its way to the Russian front."
 * The next page goes into details about the raid and on page 217 "Some claim that this was 'area bombing' by the Americans in all but name, and in this they had some justification." and in the next paragraph "The next day, February 4, with the ruins of Berlin's Regierungsviertel still smouldering, the 'Big Three'... began their first formal meeting...". The clincher of what the real target was whatever the official documents say is to look at what the mix of ordinance carried by the B-17. Was it a railway or city busting mix?  But unfortunately Taylor does not do this analysis as he does in the Dresden raid, but he does however write on page 216,
 * "Two thousand tons of air ordnance was dropped in less than an hour, including more than six thousand high-explosive bombs, a thousand air mines, and about the same quantity of liquid incendiary canisters. A witches brew fit to make a firestorm, But the failure of the second wave to capitalize on the concentrated bombing achieved by the first saved Berlin from the fate of Hamburg and Kassel."
 * I do not think either Grayling or Taylor is wrong. As with Dresden, the target could have been railways but with the right ordianace mix (the very large area of Berlin at that time covered with marshaling yards station etc), and the known bomb scattering, the effect would be the same as an area bombardment. BTW a check of the German Sixth Panzer Army article shows that they did move from the Western Front (Battle of the Bulge) to the Eastern Front (Operation Frühlingserwachen) around this time although there is no conformation exactly when the moved or if they moved through Berlin.--Philip Baird Shearer 08:22, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

OK thanks for all that. My summary is that
 * the Allied leaders decided to bomb the crap out of Berlin and other eastern cities to aid the Russian advance.
 * the 3 Feb raid was really area bombing whatever it was called.
 * Probably but I think you need a source like Taylor's "Some claim that this was 'area bombing' by the Americans in all but name, and in this they had some justification." because it is controversial. --Philip Baird Shearer 09:55, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * the US was still squeamish about area bombing in Europe (tho not in Japan), so the fig-leaf pretext about marshalling yards etc was given out to make them feel better.
 * Targeted stratigic bombing may still have been U.S. policy at this time in the Far East. The first fire raid took place on December 18 against Hankow, leaving it burning for 3 days, but that was an interdiction strike (because of Operation Ichi-Go). I am not sure when the policy officialy changed allowing the massive incendiary attacks on sixty-four Japanese cities. --Philip Baird Shearer 09:55, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I suspect that the U.S. position on strategic targeted bombardment was legal position based on the inter-war draft proposals for aerial warfare, as much or more than the moral/squeamish one. On this legal position the British and the America may have differed in late 1944. However once once the U.S. decided adopted stratigic area bombardment in the Far East (and then dropped of the atomic bombs), their legal interpretaion of the laws of war in this area ended up the same as the British. There is a description of treaties etc. under Area bombardment --Philip Baird Shearer 11:31, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

 * VI Pz may or may not have been passing through the city at the time, but even if it was, this was also only a pretext.
 * Yes but the Allies though it was, and the evidence available on Wikipedia does not contradict this. --Philip Baird Shearer 09:55, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Do you agree? If so I will work this up into an NPOV para and put it in the article.
 * I think it is fairy close to that now. But as always a Wikipedia article can be improved --Philip Baird Shearer 09:55, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

On war production, I am just starting on Adam Tooze's massive tome on the Nazi economy, Wages of Destruction - when I finish it I will be expert enough to write the Economic history of Nazi Germany. My present understanding, however, from Grayling's comments about the effectiveness of area bombing, is that German war production continued to rise until the start of 1945 when they ran out of oil. Since Berlin was a major manufacturing centre, I presume that was true for Berlin as well. Adam 08:36, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

 * The British and the Americans were in two different moral positions. The British had had six months of the Germans trying to bomb the c**p out of them earlier in 1940-41, and so felt no need to justify any bombing of Germany. The Americans OTOH, hadn't been bombed.

 * FYI, at the time, The Blitz was the heaviest bombing campaign in world history. It was subsequently surpassed within a year or two by the German attacks on Malta. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.55.0 (talk) 09:22, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Start of the RAF's 'Battle of Berlin'
Moved to: Talk:Battle of Berlin (air)

1941 Soviet bombing of Berlin
I have moved the following text to this page for further discussion
 * On 8 August 1941 the Soviets started a bombing campaign against Berlin, which ended on 5 September as the air-base had to be evacuated because of the advancing German troops in Estonia. The Soviet Union suffered from unreliability of the plane engines. The short-lived campaign was a retaliation to the German bombings of Moscow, ordered by Hitler as a preliminary measure to prepare to advance to Moscow.

The above was not sources. I have looked on the internet and some unreliable sources do mention the campaign, but they disagree on who, when and where.

 * Soviet Bombing raids zhukov.mitsi.com cites http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/Bunker/3351/index.html
 * ''Also, the Soviet navy (V-VS-VMF, Voyenno Morsky Flot) had sent a token raid on August 7, using 14 Pe.8 heavy bombers. ...  Finally, at 9:15 p.m. on August 11, the 14 Pe-8s took to the sky.  ...   The remaining 11 Pe-8s pressed on toward Berlin, releasing their bombloads over various parts of the city. ...   "Eleven of our aircraft reached the target, six aircraft regained their base, one was shot down by our own anti-aircraft artillery, one is missing and the rest made forced landings owing to engine failures. My aircraft crash-landed in a forest." ...  Raids on Berlin continued, too. Naval DB-3s flew a total of 10 sorties over Berlin before their base at Saaremaa had to be evacuated in the face of imminent German capture. The final attack was made on the night of September 4-5. A total of 86 naval aircraft participated in the raids, of which 33 were reported to have reached Berlin, while others bombed secondary targets, including Stettin, Königsberg, Memel, Danzig, Swinemünde and Libau. Daylight bombing was even tried, but met with no success and was cancelled.
 * Aviation Timeline:
 * ''7-8 August A small force of Soviet Naval Aviation Il-4 (DB3F) bombers takes-off from Estonian Islands of Dagö and Saaremaa and attacks the Berlin area. The city was brightly lit and the raid precipitates the introduction of blackout regulations in the German capital.

 * Naval Aviators
 * ''At the beginning of August 1941, however, our aviation bombed the Nazi Germany capital. The idea of this air-raid on Berlin from the Estonian Saaremaa Island was suggested by the Navy Armed Forces Commander-in-Chief Lieutenant-General S.F. Zhavoronkov. Since it was impossible to reach Berlin from the rear aerodromes due to the fuel supply shortages, it was decided to use the Saaremaa Island for this purpose. On the night of 7 August, five airplanes bombed Berlin. These planes were piloted by Colonel Evgeniy Preobrazhenskiy, Captain Andrey Efremov, Mikhail Plotkin, Vassiliy Grechnikov and senior lieutenant Petr Trychkov. The rest ten airplanes dropped their bombs on the reserve target which was the Schtettin port constructions as a heavy thunderstorm, raging that night, prevented them from reaching Berlin. Within a period from 7 August to 4 September, the air group headed by Preobrazhenskiy conducted 52 operational flights, at that, 33 airplanes managed to hit their targets dropped more than 36 t high-explosive and fire-bombs along with 34 bombs with propaganda leaflets.

Does anyone have any reliable sources? --Philip Baird Shearer (talk)

 * These are all sounding like direct quotes from Ray Wagner's book, which I happen to have. Unfortunately I didn't have it in my plans to look at the history of Long Range Aviation at this right moment, and will be largely inactive for the next two days, so will have to wait. I will return to the subject, but just thought that the titling of the other article was odd.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠ ♥ ♦ ♣ 14:58, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

 * Bill Gunston mentions bombing missions with Yermolayev Yer-2s from Rzhev carrying a 1 tonne bomb load in The Osprey Encyclopedia of Russian Aircrft 1875-1995 London:Osprey, 1995. ISBN 1 85532 405 9 (p.502), an attack by TB-7s (i.e. Petlyakov Pe-8s) of 412 Polk under Brigadier M V Vodopyanov on 9 August 1941 (p281).Nigel Ish (talk) 17:09, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Olaf Groehler also mentions the Soviet bombing of Berlin in 1941, in his "Geschichte d. Luftkrieges, 1910-1980". I will look up the page number. Kurfürst (talk) 10:21, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

 * The Soviet raid of Aug 1941 did in fact take place- Read this

--Woogie10w (talk) 15:07, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

 * Russian article has sources Бомбардировки Берлина советской авиацией в 1941 году. Ходок (talk) 17:47, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Name
Was Berlin notably bombed during some other time? If not, this article should be moved to a simpler title, Bombing of Berlin (now a redirect here). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 15:38, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

 * I would not support a move. -- PBS (talk) 18:21, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

 * Because...? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 19:08, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

1939 Polish bombing of Berlin
By the Polish Air Force, in early September 1939, noted by :

Selected Vital Records from the Jamaican Daily Gleaner: Life on the Island of Jamaica as seen through Newspaper Extracts, Volume 2: 1916-1939, Heritage Books, ISBN 0788445839, 9780788445835 Page 484 It has 2 entries about this:
 * Willmott, in his GREAT CRUSADE
 * "The China monthly review", Published by J.W. Powell, 1939 Item notes: v. 90-91 pp. 195,393 "German planes are bombing Polish towns. Polish planes have bombed Berlin. British planes have bombed the German naval bases at Wilhelmshaven and Cux-taven"
 * Great pages in history from the Wisconsin state journal, 1852-2002 By Frank M. Denton, Univ of Wisconsin Press, 2002, ISBN 0299183343, 9780299183349 p.47 Sep 1. 1939 "PARIS--Polish sources report Berlin attacked by Polish bombers. ..."
 * Aeronautics, 1939 Item notes: v. 1-2, p. 26 "Tuesday 5th September", "POLISH broadcasts claimed that 30 Polish aeroplanes had bombed Berlin and all returned safely. German reconnaissance flights were reported to have been ..."
 * The Chronicle of the Lodz Ghetto, 1941-1944 by Lucjan Dobroszycki, Richard Lourie "On the 6th, 7th, and 8th of September, the Polish press reported that Polish ... that Berlin had been bombed by thirty Polish planes, and that French troops" No preview available just what came up in the Google search
 * Here is a primary source The War Journal Of Norman Mingay "Wed. Sept 6th 1939, 30 Polish planed bomb Berlin. RAF drop 3,000,000 more leaflets over Ruhr..."
 * September 2, 1939. "GERMANY & POLAND AT WAR CAPITALS BOMBED"
 * September 6, 1939. "... Thirty Polish 'Planes Bomb Berlin"

Kurfürst (talk) 14:44, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Dubious.--Jacurek (talk) 14:50, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

 * I think just as, this needs a modern secondary source with details of the raids. As these newspaper reports are reports of Polish radio broadcasts, not reports on the actual raids. The Polish radio broadcasts my be contemporary propaganda there is no way to tell without a reliable secondary source that has looked in detail into the reports. --PBS (talk) 16:39, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

 * I see Kurfürst couldn't resist the temptation to spread the crap theory about the Polish bombing further. Good job. Loosmark (talk) 21:22, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

 * This is like the D grade horror movie where the hand comes out of the grave and/or the story of Rasputin- --Woogie10w (talk) 01:28, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

 * H. P. Wilmott of Sandhurst, in his "Great Crusade" also notes the bombing of Berlin by the PLW. This is a reliable secondary source and it says the same, ie. bombers attacking Berlin on 1 September 1939. I am intending to look up the event in German literature, too, there is an excellent source for the daily events of the war. Kurfürst (talk) 10:09, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Time Magazine, 11 September 1939 issue: "Germany... claimed to have massacred more than half of the 47-plane Polish Squadron that tried to bomb Berlin." It seems that it was not only a Polish claim about bombing Berlin. Kurfürst (talk) 10:17, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Staff directive 12/1/IIIOp (dated 9.1.39)

"The Commander in Chief has instructed that no offensive actions or bombardments shall be carried out beyond the frontiers of the State. The frontiers can be crossed only by small reconnaissance units."

ref. Jerzy B. Cynk "History of the Polish Air Force 1918-1968", p. 131--Woogie10w (talk) 11:09, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

 * So why did they bomb Berlin then..? Kurfürst (talk) 11:53, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Kurfürst, I don't want to be rude here, but when will you give up? The reasons for not including this information which is most likely Polish war propaganda of the time, was explained to you dozens of times on several different pages by several different editors who reached consensus already. Therefore, why the hell you keep trying to insert this alleged 1939 Polish air raid on Berlin and why you keep asking the same questions repeatedly and repeatedly, over and over.....you driving people nuts.--Jacurek (talk) 15:15, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Polish historians researched the 1939 war in great detail. Basically everything is known. That an operation of that size, which would have been by far the greatest operation of the Polish Air Force in 1939, would have gone unoticed by them is simply ridiculous. There would have been books written just about it. These "sources" which Kurfürst keeps machine gunnning at us are clearly originated by war-time rumors and propaganda which spread during every war. Kurfürst is not stupid and knows this very well but he's trying to push the story anyway coz it will serve him to trivialise the Nazi's terror bombings on Warsaw, something along the lines of "Poles bombed Berlin, Germans bombed Warsaw". Loosmark (talk) 12:00, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * You are very right Loosmark. Intentions behind these edits are obvious.--Jacurek (talk) 15:42, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

 * What did Willmott actually state in his book? Word for word. In any case, I will check and verify this citation. I met Willmott twenty or so years ago, the man is a serious military historian who is respected. His two books on the Pacific war are excellant, a good read.--Woogie10w (talk) 23:57, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

 * Which two books about the Pacific war do you mean? I have The Battle of Leyte Gulf: The Last Fleet Action and IMO the book is far from excellent. Loosmark (talk) 08:22, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

 * Empires in the Balance & The Barrier & the Javilin--Woogie10w (talk) 12:03, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

 * Also I highly reccomend the 96 issues of the Second World War series published in the US 1973-75 by Marshall Cavandish Ed Barrie Pitt. This is out of print but well worth the money. --Woogie10w (talk) 12:03, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

 * I will have to look it up again in the library, but he notes "the Polish air force bombed Berlin on 1 September 1939." These may not be the exact words (as noted, I will look up the exact quote), but should be very close. Also IMHO the best and most balanced book on WW2, and his conclusions are both sober minded, and thoughtful. Kurfürst (talk) 11:04, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

 * Yo man, be cool. I will be checking this out--Woogie10w (talk) 12:03, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

 * It's hard to tell which book is best and most balanced on WW2, I have seen many very good and balanced book on the topic. But anyway even books which are very good sometimes contain big errors or innacuracies (i can provide some example of anybody is interesting). And of course books which deal with a specific more narrow topic are usually much more acurate than the general books about the WW2. Loosmark (talk) 11:15, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

 * Thanks. I'm not surprised at all.. Loosmark (talk) 18:35, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

 * I met Willmott years ago, I respect him as a top notch historian. I would not like to see his name tagged onto blatant disinformation from the German Propaganda Ministry circa. Sept 1939--Woogie10w (talk) 19:02, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

 * Of course Willmott mentions it, and of course you don't have 'The Great Crusade' - otherwise, why would you ask for a cite? This is a rather cheap tactic, and it will be very unpleasent for your credibility when I present the scan of the page here. Kurfürst (talk) 20:23, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

 * Of course I have The Great Crusade by H P Willmott- What page to I have to turn to to see the mention of a Polish attack on Berlin on 1 Sept 1939? Maybe I missed it, I am an old man with grey hair--Woogie10w (talk) 20:45, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

 * Like I said, I have to look up in the library, but it is probably a good idea to look up - where he describes the Polish campaign? I have a fairly visual memory, and at least in the edition I saw it, it was on the left page in the upper 2/3s of the text, a short sentence being devoted to it. Like I said, I will look it up, wiki is not running anywhere is it? Kurfürst (talk) 20:52, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

 * Please realize that I am just an old man with grey hair, one foot in the grave and the other on a banana peel.--Woogie10w (talk) 21:10, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

 * I WAS WRONG-KURFURST IS RIGHT on page 274 Willmott says "on Sept 1, 1939 when Polish aircraft attacked Berlin"--Woogie10w (talk) 00:53, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * There is still a lack of reliable secondary sources to confirm this. Extraordinary claims need extraordinary references. Hohum (talk) 15:10, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

We should present Willmott's statement and point out that Polish sources do not confirm the raid. Let the readers decide who to believe since there contasting opinions on this topic. We can only present what the sources are saying not our own POV on the topic. --Woogie10w (talk) 16:19, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:REDFLAG "Exceptional claims require exceptional sources"; a Wikipedia Policy, says otherwise. Excellent secondary sources specialising specifically in the air war in europe and specifically the Polish and German air wars don't mention it. One brief mention in Willmott is the single decent secondary source, but is far from being exceptional, and doesn't even have any relevant detail, like strength, unit involved, damage caused, losses takem; the rest are too close to the event or questionable as authorities. IMO policy clearly states it should be left out entirely. Hohum (talk) 16:33, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with Hohum, a source would need to give such a controversal statement some credibility. At least some of following: which units were involved, who give the order and why, name of any pilot involved (and maybe some recollection), from which fields did they take off, how were they able to penetrate so deep into Germany without being detected etc, etc, etc. The lack of any details whatsoever clearly indicates it's simply a war propaganda or a rumor. Loosmark (talk) 16:48, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * There was no Polish bombing of Berlin in 1939. In September 1939, one Polish plane PZL.23B bombed a German factory in Olawa, near Wroclaw, also one plane bombed a street manifestation in Gdansk (Sept. 7, the article about it is here ), there also was bombing of a rail station in Nidzica. That was all. There is an interesting article about Polish propaganda in 1939, by a renowned historian Dariusz Baliszewski. He says that the myth of bombing of Berlin was made up by Polish propaganda, so that civilan population would believe the war was not lost. The article is here, translation upon request . Also, Waclaw Subotkin wrote a book "History of Polish aviation", in which he stated  '''despite orders prohibiting bombing of targets in Germany, pilot Waclaw Buczylko bombed on September 2 a German chemical factory in Olawa. Tymek (talk) 18:19, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I will also add other examples. On September 3, Polish plane P.23 dropped a few bombs over Pyskowice, and on September 6, one plane Karas got as far as over Koenigsberg (but did not bomb the city), where it was forced to land. Photos of this machine were frequently presented in German newspapers, to show threat of aerial bombing. The lone Karas over Koenigsberg was the furthest Polish airforce got into Germany. Tymek (talk) 18:30, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

 * Willmott does not use footnotes, we never know the source of his information. This is a major shortcoming of his Great Crusade.  The Polish editors should be able to give us an official and or academic sources re: the air war in Sept 1939. Not a web page or a sentence from Google books.  That would solve our problem, we need official/academic published sources with decent footnotes.--Woogie10w (talk) 21:53, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * It will be as difficult as to find a source as it would be on the fact that Canada never bombed Los Angeles. This also never happened. We may have to find a historian that examines Polish war propaganda of the time.--Jacurek (talk) 22:12, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Jacurek, we don't need to find counter sources to keep fringe ideas out. They need exceptional sources to be included in the first place. It would be interesting if you did unearth more information though. Hohum (talk) 22:33, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

As a rule of thumb when editing we should use only official/academic published sources that have decent footnotes. Web pages and secondary sources lacking footnotes should be avoided. Willmott's book is a secondary source lacking footnotes and should be avoided. I am playing the devils advocate hoping to improve this page with high quality sources that will be respected by readers.--Woogie10w (talk) 23:22, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

First bombing of Berlin by allied forces June 7th 1940 by the French
The French used a modified commercial airplane to bomb Berlin. The name of the plane was "Jules Verne". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.10.72.71 (talk) 20:04, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

 * Reference here. Although it says 8 June. However, a minor attack like this probably doesn't qualify as strategic bombing. ( Hohum  @ ) 16:12, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * It is already mentioned in the timeline - the raid took place on the night of 7-8th June.Nigel Ish (talk) 07:48, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

"damage was slight"
I've amended the section under 1940 - 1942 to include discussion of implications of the bombing. The article just noted "damage was slight" when referring to the 24-25 August 1940 British raid, considering only the material effect of the raid. However the psychological effect was much greater: it occurred at the point at which the Luftwaffe were critically close to defeating British south eastern Fighter Command (and hence were very close to being able to invade with air superiority). However the Berlin raid so enraged Hitler that he ordered his bombers to shift to bombing British cities, starting the Blitz, which gave the British Royal Air Force enough time to recover and rebuild. It has been argued that this was a crucial turning point of the war, Once Fighter Command in Britain was rebuilt, Britain won the aerial Battle of Britain and Hitler had to shelve the 1940 invasion plans as a result. So I think to summarise the 25th August 1940 British raid as only inflicting slight damage overlooks the much greater strategic effect it had on the war. --mgaved (talk) 07:42, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

If the rest of this article shows the total lack of scholorship in the above statement I really shouldn't bother reading it. Germany never got close to being able to invade the UK. I suggest you read the Battle of Britain article elsewhere in Wiki. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.218.21.5 (talk) 13:23, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Copyright vio? (again)
At the risk of being a bore, I'd like to raise the matter again.

Compare the article with this site - for example the sections with the sub-titles 'Prelude' and '1940-1942':

http://en.academic.ru/dic.nsf/enwiki/469156

There are whole sentences that are identical on both sites. Norvo (talk) 17:18, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

 * Many sites mirror wikipedia. Do you have evidence that this one came before the wikipedia contents that it matches?  Dicklyon (talk) 02:36, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm aware of the general problem, of course. In this case, I do not know which came first. Norvo (talk) 17:43, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

 * Then it's not clear what point you're raising. The existence of identical whole sentences is not in itself worthy of much attention, lacking a reason to believe what was copied from where.  If you can point out what sentences are the same, and when they were added to wikipedia, and by whom, that might be a useful step.  If copied sentences were added by different people at different times, then the copy probably went from wikipedia to there.  If they all got added at once by an editor without much evidence of normal contributions, then maybe it needs to be looked at more closely.  So far, you've given us nothing.  Dicklyon (talk) 06:28, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

January-March 1943
This entire period of bombing appears to be missing; in fact the Battle of Berlin section skips to November 1943. There was heavy destruction of the city at the beginning of 1943, but the corresponding German article unfortunately offers no sources to enable me to insert it. Yngvadottir (talk) 06:21, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

London - Berlin distance
My bad, checked on Google maps and saw that it really was about 1000km.Žiga Auer (talk) 07:46, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Bombing of Berlin in World War II. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.raf.mod.uk/history/sqn_hons_ww2_1.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 01:54, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 one external links on Bombing of Berlin in World War II. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090303234843/http://www.raf.mod.uk:80/bombercommand/dec43.html to http://www.raf.mod.uk/bombercommand/dec43.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070611030432/http://www.raf.mod.uk/bombercommand/nov43.html to http://www.raf.mod.uk/bombercommand/nov43.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070611031951/http://www.raf.mod.uk/bombercommand/dec43.html to http://www.raf.mod.uk/bombercommand/dec43.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071112183144/http://www.raf.mod.uk:80/bombercommand/nov43.html to http://www.raf.mod.uk/bombercommand/nov43.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081102053414/http://www.raf.mod.uk:80/bombercommand/dec43.html to http://www.raf.mod.uk/bombercommand/dec43.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 17:25, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on Bombing of Berlin in World War II. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.raf.mod.uk/bombercommand/dec43.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070611025957/http://www.raf.mod.uk/bombercommand/jan44.html to http://www.raf.mod.uk/bombercommand/jan44.html
 * Added archive http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20070706011932/http:/www.raf.mod.uk/bombercommand/feb44.html to http://www.raf.mod.uk/bombercommand/feb44.html
 * Added archive http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20070706011932/http://www.raf.mod.uk/bombercommand/mar44.html to http://www.raf.mod.uk/bombercommand/mar44.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130929142523/http://www.usaaf.net/chron/45/feb45.htm to http://www.usaaf.net/chron/45/feb45.htm
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.raf.mod.uk/bombercommand/nov43.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.raf.mod.uk/bombercommand/dec43.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070611025957/http://www.raf.mod.uk/bombercommand/jan44.html to http://www.raf.mod.uk/bombercommand/jan44.html
 * Added archive http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20070706011932/http:/www.raf.mod.uk/bombercommand/feb44.html to http://www.raf.mod.uk/bombercommand/feb44.html
 * Added archive http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20070706011932/http://www.raf.mod.uk/bombercommand/mar44.html to http://www.raf.mod.uk/bombercommand/mar44.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 05:44, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Quoting Neo Nazi propaganda as fact
In the 1940 to 1943 section there is a line, and I quote, 'The bombing raids on Berlin prompted Hitler to order the shift of the Luftwaffe's target from British airfields and air defenses to British cities, at a time during the Battle of Britain when the British air defenses were critically close to collapse. It has been argued that this action may actually have saved Britain from defeat.[13]'

This is widely attributed as neo nazi propaganda developed after the war to explain Nazi Germany's defeats. At the time that Hitler ordered the targets to be changed, German intelligence sources thought that the RAF was about to collapse, only thinking that they had some 117 effective fighters left. The actual figure was 300% higher at 216 spitfires and 356 hurricanes. There is no denying that the RAF was exhausted and stretched thin, however it was in now way about to collapse. In actual fact in terms of fighter production, the UK was out producing Germany. So as stated before, this is a popular myth fabricated by Neo Nazis to to lessen the impact of German defeats and I'm honesty surprised to find it here on Wikipedia. The only reason that it is in the BBC article that the writer used as a source is becuase that they too fell for it. If no one objects, I will be changing the wording to take out the last sentence and somewhat alter the one before to better reflect the actual situation. Ælfrēd (talk) 17:52, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

 * At some time during The Blitz German bombers had mistakenly hit housing within the docks area (the docks being the intended target) and the British government assumed the bombing had been deliberate. As a result, they ordered a retaliatory attack on Berlin. That the German bombing had been a mistake was only discovered by the British after the war. The Luftwaffe crews that bombed the houses were subsequently disciplined by Goring but the British did not know that at the time.

 * Prior to this both the Luftwaffe and the RAF had tried to confine their attacks to military targets but the switch to night bombing, forced by the fighter defences on each side, made this difficult.

 * The switch from bombing the airfields to bombing London made little difference as RAF fighters were quite capable of being flown from ad-hoc airfields, or being operated from RAF stations further north. By the end of the battle RAF Fighter Command was actually considerably stronger than it had been when the battle commenced.

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bombing of Berlin in World War II. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051024203509/http://www.usaaf.net/ww2/atlanticwall/awpg4.htm to http://www.usaaf.net/ww2/atlanticwall/awpg4.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 05:47, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Missing!
In https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Staatsoper_Unter_den_Linden it says "wurde die Staatsoper am 10. April 1941 durch Luftangriffe der Alliierten schwer beschädigt" (trans: the Staatsoper was heavily damaged by an Allied air attack on 10. April"! This attack seems to be missing in Your list! 80.151.9.187 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:00, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Wrong presentation!
The destruction on Rotterdam were essentially caused by the ignition of vegetable oil tanks touched by some bombs and this is the main cause of destruction of the city !

Not the bombing itself !

The German's used light bombs of 50 kg and 57 planes could not possibly destroy a complete city .. as the UK and US massive bombing of 1000+ heavy planes add demonstrated all along the war.

So please, be fair and precise in your saying. 2A02:A03F:6088:2B00:18C1:530B:3938:3225 (talk) 13:41, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Soviet draft article
See Draft:Soviet air raids on Berlin in 1941. Needs a lot of work. Srnec (talk) 23:53, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Results in infobox
Probably to introduce a bit of balance, I think we could include a refernce to the strategic failure for the British airforce. The article itself says at multiple points, that many historians see the operation as a failure, and its normal for the infobox to reflect statements like that in body. The British bombing campaign did damage to Berlin, but the Germans did such catastrophic damage to the RAF, destroying so many British aircraft, it was seen as a failed operation (with the losses exceeding their threshold for stopping the campaign).

The body of the article mentions the Brits lost 16% of their bombers in one night operation alone in November 1944 (which is insane). After that, the Brits stopped bombing Berlin. The fact the Brits were suffering such huge losses, and then called off the operation would indicate that the Germans were successful in stopping the operation.

title: Talk:Bombing of Berlin in World War II


text:
Corn Exchange, Manchester

The Corn Exchange, Manchester is a food court and former shopping centre in Exchange Square, Manchester, England. The building was originally used as a corn exchange and was previously named the Corn & Produce Exchange, and subsequently The Triangle. Following an IRA bomb attack on central Manchester in 1996, it was renovated and was a modern shopping centre until 2014. The building was sold to investors and has been re-developed into a number of food outlets. It is a grade II listed building.

History
The first Corn Exchange built on this site was designed by Richard Lane and completed in 1837. By the late 19th century, it was considered too small, and civic officials decided to commission a larger building. The current building was designed in the Baroque style, and built in two sections. Each section was designed by a different architect, the first by Ball & Elce and built between 1896 and 1899, and the second by Potts, Son, & Hennings and built between 1899 and 1903.

The volume of trading in corn declined significantly in the wake of the Great Depression of British Agriculture and the building was largely disused in the wake of the Second World War. In the 1960s to early 1980s, while the interior fell into disuse, the rear side of the Corn Exchange on Fennel Street became home to various nightclubs, including Pips, an important part of Manchester's music scene, where in 1978 Joy Division played their first gig under this name. A number of shops with street access on the building's basement level also continued to operate throughout this period. The Corn Exchange was briefly used by the Royal Exchange Theatre Company from 1976 and it served as a filming location for Granada Television's Brideshead Revisited in 1981.

Over time, the interior developed into a large market emporium, and was a gathering place for alternative subcultures. Small stallholders sold items such as clothes, jewellery, historical paraphernalia and second-hand records. Most of the shops were temporary structures built on the central trading floor, while a few operated from the rooms arranged around the perimeter. A café was located in part of the basement, to the northeast of the ground floor.

In 1996, the IRA carried out a bomb attack on central Manchester. All of the Corn Exchange's windows were blown in by the blast; the glass dome shattering and falling onto the market area below. Structural and masonry damage were also reported. The landlord invoked a force majeure condition in the lease to evict all tenants. Some businesses moved to new premises, mostly in the north of the city, where many foundered. The Corn Exchange was subsequently renovated and reopened as the Triangle Shopping Centre, named in reference to the building's shape. In 2005, the then-owners, the Blackstone Group and its UK-based partner, Milligan Retail Resorts International, sold the complex to the Norwich Property Trust, for £67 million.

In 2012, The Triangle was relaunched as Corn Exchange, Manchester and plans were revealed to convert the building into a food outlet and hotel. A demolition company commenced work to strip out modern interior materials and fixtures in 2014, and a food outlet opened in the complex in 2015. An apartment hotel, developed by Roomzzz Aparthotels, opened in 2018. It accommodates a reception area on the ground floor and 114 rooms on the upper floors.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Corn Exchange, Manchester


text: User talk:81.182.63.137

title: User talk:81.182.63.137


text:
Talk:Community of practice

/Archive 1

Untitled
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_of_practice#CITEREFWenger_et._al2004 is not a good ref link JaapB (talk) 13:18, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Summary of discussions up to November 11, 2009
For further information on any of the following topics one must visit /Archive 1.

This article is of key interest to WikiProject_Community.

This page was nominated for deletion, but the nomination was revoked. In the early creation of this page it was discussed that CoPs should be broken up into specific types of CoPs. It was decided that this was not the best approach as describing a particular type of CoP only explains a particular use of a CoP.

The only external link found thus far that fits the Wikipedia criteria is Etienne Wenger's homepage.

The structure of the article has been debated and what is there now is simply the best to date. This is the opinion of the currently active collaborators.

A section contrasting CoPs to Project Teams was added and removed, but because the differences were deemed important the note, Contrast with Project team was added to the see also section.

The idea of duality, reification and participation as well as legitimate peripheral participation have been judged essential. The role that CoPs can play in KM is also critical. The 7 actions Wenger proposed for cultivating CoP's are considered crucial.

A section on future and possible uses may be added.

The argument about collocated vs virtual Communities of Practice could be bought out more clearly.

Wenger 2004 should be Wenger 2002.

Buzzwords are still being dealt with. At this moment an answer from an editor stated that the article does indeed still contain too many buzzwords. Do we remove them or parenthetically define them? We were referred to request advice/help from a copy editor. The request has been made.

Expanding and Defining Terms and Buzzwords
I think we should perhaps give brief examples/definition of the different 'benefits of social capital'. While most are self-explanatory, 'leveraging the best-practices' is definitely not. Do we need to cite a brief example for all, or just those that might not be readily understood?Chawt (talk) 12:21, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Don't forget you can check out the Social capital wikipedia entry too. It is a start class article.

Mecha ant 00:34, 10 November 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mecha-ant (talk • contribs)

Removed several sections (Wenger quotes) that were buzzword-heavy. Removed unattributed section text about Organizational learning. Please feel free to add back the sections LATER WORKS and ORGANIZATIONAL LEARNING once the information can be attributed and verified.--Kchorst (talk) 18:48, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I have replace the section on 'later works' as this is the only part that talks about LPP and dualities - see the summary above "The idea of duality, reification and participation as well as legitimate peripheral participation have been judged essential."

I don't think we can simply dismiss these as 'buzzwords' as they are (depending on which view you take) the mechanisms that make Communities of Practice work. legitimate peripheral participation has a section all of its own although dualities (in the sense that Wenger used the term) does not.

Perhaps somebody should write one.

Compo (talk) 10:19, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I removed the later works section again simply because the terms within it are not defined or clearly linking the early works to the present work. While the text in the section may be essential, important, and true, the contents I removed do not include definitions, nor explanations of what the dualities mean or how they apply to CoPs. As one example, "reification" has many meanings (none in the article, and several to link to within wikipedia)..if it's important, which is the one that Wenger refers to? My editing approach is to have the text be clear first, then added to the article. If it is so essential, it should be correct and complete to the average wikipedia reader, no? --Kchorst (talk) 17:48, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Dear Kchorst "The idea of duality ... [has] been judged essential". Please do not delete something that others have agreed as essential because you do not think they are well enough explained. If one were to remove everything that was not well explained from Wikipedia there would not be very much left. Things that need improvement are there to be improved, removing them simply leaves a lacunae. If something needs improvement, improve it don't take the easy option and delete it.

Compo (talk) 07:38, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Dualities / Buzzwords
To end the removal / reinstatement of the section that includes a reference to dualities, I have created a page to clarify the term Duality_(CoPs)

Compo (talk) 09:05, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Please read the talk page and try to think of other editors before you make changes - Chawt has just made 16 separate edits, including the deletion of the sections on dualities that were previously identified as "essential". If one editor just hacks out things they consider to be buzzwords, all it leaves are lacunae for other to find and fill in. If the same thing happens repeatedly, then the task becomes impossible.

Compo (talk) 15:59, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I have reinstated 'later work section' again. The explanation given by is Chawt "it is FULL of buzzwords/jargon and it is impossible to understand as none of the terms are explained." In response to similar comments, I have created a whole new page duality to explain these terms. This section refers to Wenger's 1998 work which marked a major change in the way that CoPs were described. The theme was agreed as important by other editors. Simply deleting a whole section followed by multiple other edits is not the way forward.

Compo (talk) 19:46, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Removal of 'Buzzwords' tag
I think that we have a reasonable job of cleaning up this article. I propose that we remove the 'Buzzwords' tag now. Does anybody have any objections to this? Compo (talk) 16:36, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

 * Agreed. Also would be good if it was not ranked a stub-class article. Mecha ant 04:20, 17 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mecha-ant (talk • contribs)

 * OK the buzzword tag has been removed Compo (talk) 13:46, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

- Garrett W. {☎ ✍} 07:53, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, go talk to someone at the relevant WikiProjects to see if they'll re-evaluate it and maybe move it up from stub-class to something higher.

Adding a reference
I don't know how to add a reference to Wenger's new book that extends Wenger (2002) using concepts from Wenger (1998) to the realm of technology mediated communities:

Etienne Wenger, Nancy White, and John D. Smith, '''Digital Habitats: stewarding technology for communities''' (Portland, OR: CPsquare, 2009)

http://isbn.nu/9780982503607 Smithjd8 20:37, 31 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smithjd8 (talk • contribs)

Adding mention of 'communities of influence'
There is a particular kind of community of practice which some (including myself) are referring to as a 'community of influence'. I think it might be reasonable to mention this somewhere in this page and would appreciate other contributors' views. I can offer references, including a number of journal articles and a recently published book, though these are all by me and my co-authors (the book was published in May 2011 by Radcliffe, title: "Communities of Influence: improving healthcare through conversations and connections"). I think one might start by adding a sub-entry on this page (which already mentions communities of interest, distinguishing them from communities of practice). Should I ask a reputable colleague to write and sign the text rather than doing it myself? If I do it myself and my name appears in the references, is it likely to be deleted? Or does one just try and see what happens?! Grateful for suggestions from more experienced wiki editors. Alison Donaldson (talk) 07:53, 3 September 2011 (UTC)Alison Donaldson
 * Hi Dr. Donaldson, seeing that this book and the concept of "communities of influence" are both very new I think it would be best to 1. wait and see the kind of impact it gets in the field, and 2. that the data be added by someone who is neither a co-author of the book or has been asked to add it by one of the authors. In order to include a concept we need to show that it is notable (which means that it has been the topic of substantial coverage in third party sources) and that it is not given undue weight in relation to the main topic of the article. In this case the topic of "communities of practice" is a very well known concept with a very large body of literature, and the relative weight of the communities of influence and communities of interest in this article should be relative to the relative size and impact of the literatures. If you could point me to some other literature apart from the one co-authored by your self that uses the concepts then I would be better able to form an assessment of how to weigh them. My initial judgment, not having heard of any of the two concepts you mention, but being somewhat familiar with the literature on communities of practice, is that it is probably of too marginal relevance to include in the article as of yet. But this judgment could be changed if you point me to sources showing that the concepts are well established in the literature. The relevant policies to know about are the policies regarding weight, notability and conflicts of interest (I don't think conflict of interest necessarily applies here, but it is good to know what the policy says). Best regards. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:44, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Thank you for the prompt and helpful response. Unless somebody else has a different suggestion, it does sound sensible to wait and see if 'communities of influence' gets taken up in the literature. By the way, two of the three co-authors have met Etienne Wenger (I haven't personally) and we have alerted him to the publication of the book. Let's see what happens... Best wishes, Alison Donaldson (talk) 20:03, 3 September 2011 (UTC)Alison Donaldson
 * Congratulations with the book, and I wish you the best and hope the books gets a whopping impact in the field. Perhaps when a couple of reviews come out the concept will merit its own article, where it wouldn't have to be weighted in relation to its relevance to the topic of communities of practice. Also you are quite right that someone else might have a different opinion - I am in no position to decide whether to include or not include mention of the concept or not, what I gave you was my personal judgment which may well vary from those of other editors. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:45, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Proposed Changes
I believe that we should talk about how Wenger and Lave coined the term community of practice. "People usually think of apprenticeship as a relationship between a student and a master, but studies of apprenticeship reveal a more complex set of social relationships through which learning takes place mostly with journeymen and more advanced apprentices." They coined it through the examination of apprenticeships. Gbmaruggi (talk) 22:35, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Citation template
The citation template is unusual and makes the article difficult to read. Is there any reason for it? WP:CITET Volunteer1234 (talk) 16:33, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

 * Yes: the page seems to be largely a loose pile of original research, synthesis, and personal essay. That last is readily apparent by the bloated "further reading" list, clearly the bibliography from someone's class paper, who likely appeared here only to share their enlightened state with the world without bothering to learn how citations work in Wikipedia. If up to me, I'd simply remove everything that's not explicitly supported by the four references. Anyone else want to clean it up before I get bored? Weeb Dingle (talk) 16:02, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
 * What do you mean, "the citation template is unusual and makes the article difficult to read"? Are you talking about the usage of Harvard referencing? Or do you mean something else? – Tea2min (talk) 05:49, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
 * It's a phenomenon I've seen in a few W'pedia articles. Unable to prove that the page doesn't deserve the template, much less to make suitable repairs, the "editor" claims the template makes the page esthetically unappealing and removes it. But credit to : those removals are almost always done without any attempt at discussion. Weeb Dingle (talk) 16:43, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

title: Talk:Community of practice


text:
Talk:Cookie

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progresscookie cliker on Talk:HTTP cookie which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 01:01, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

"Biscuit" and "cookie"
Question from an Italian: if "biscuit" (British English) and "cookie" (American English) are, practically, the same thing, why are there two different pages, biscuit and this one (cookie)? JacktheBrown (talk) 15:05, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Cookie


text:
Nubiology

Nubiology is the scientific study of ancient Nubia. The term was coined by Kazimierz Michałowski.

Origins of Nubiology
Nubiology refers to the study of ancient civilisations of Nubia, in parts of modern-day Egypt and Sudan. The main location of Nubia was in the Middle Nile from Aswan to Khartoum.

Nubian civilisations
Some archaeological sites have shown evidence which indicates that some Nubia civilisations might have been around even longer than some of the early Acheulean phases. Around the Acheulean period they would mostly use large cutting tools, hand axes and cleavers and are sites which are often neighbouring next to areas of Nubia. There were advancements in the north of Nubia in the Kharga Oasis and the Dakhla Oasis, they discovered Acheulean materials around the springs. These springs were artesian springs that were originally lakes which had been filled with warm water, these group would then settle their groups around these areas. There have been Nubia sites that have helped to determine the date the oldest phases of the Middle Stone Age in two different regions of Nubia.

In northern Sudan in the island of Sai there was evidence of two groups of the Middle Stone Ages and the Acheuleans who were identified as Sangoan that both occupied those lands simultaneously. The Sangoan's used core-axes as opposed to hand-axes, they had three horizons from 220 to 150 ka ago, the younger hosrizons showed artefacts that were related to the Lupemban Nubian Complex assemblages with examples of red and yellow ochre that may have shown evidence of extra utilitarian activities. There was a constant movement of Nubian immigration into Egypt, there has been evidence of artefacts such as cemeteries, potteries and some indication of Nubian settlements, due to their immigration the Nubians would either return to their home countries or be forced to integrate into Egpytian society and leave behind their former lives. This process is now referred to as ‘acculturation’ or ‘cultural entanglement’, it was also known as ‘creolization’ Aswan as this was the main frontier region for elements of both Egyptian and Nubian cultures. The knowledge and the skills that were brought to Egypt by the Nubians were then implemented by the Egyptians as they were able to use and profit from the Nubias workforce, specific knowledge and their variety of other skills. Nubians were able to have somewhat good communication with their neighbours in the Nile Valley, they kept this due to the changes in climate conditions in Eastern Sahara, the Nile Valley and other Western Desert regions. Archaeological researched showed that these climate changing issues are what led to many people migrating showing the formation of ‘creolization’ and ‘cultural entanglement’.

Nubiology in the present day
There are still various projects active in the archaeological field in Egypt and Sudan researching into Nubiology both locally and globally from other international countries with an interest in the area. These projects have been a mixture of both state and non-state archeological organisations or individual reasonings behind these projects. Many of the countries involved in these projects have had involvement in this for large amounts of time, for example many European countries have had large involvement in it dating back over multiple centuries. The number of countries participating in this has been growing over the years, especially within more recent decades. These countries have chosen over the years to participate in archeology and Nubiology for a variety of reasons based on different social and political interests within each country. Most of the organised archaeological projects have to at least some involvement from outside countries such as Japan, Britain, China, Qatar and Russia. This level of involvement is more prominent in Egypt but does also happen in Sudan through co-operation with the Egyptian and Sudanese governments to perform any of the field work. Research into archeology by countries like Qatar in more recent years has become important for more projects as they began to look more into Egypt and especially Sudans Nubiology as a way to provide more of a focus onto their histories, it was a part of Qatar's cultural diplomacy that allowed for the increased amount of international recognition and for their national identity. Many of the historians that are researching into Nubiology archaeology now will typically already have previous background knowledge in other similar fields like Egyptology, European, North America and the Middle East. The study of Nubian archaeology has become a more useful subject in order to understand the differing African cultures in areas such as the Middle Nile.

Important Nubian discoveries
From 1998 there have been a series of excavations in Banganarti, which is located in the area of Old Dongola in North Sudan, it was a Polish archaeological project that was supervised by Bogdan Żurawski. There was several buildings including the main centre building, the seven chapels, the Lower Church and the Upper Church. The Upper Church that they were able to the uncover was dedicated to the Archangel Raphael and the church was decorated with murals that many of them were eventually destroyed. Within the seven easterns chapels they all had similar murals and a depiction of the Nubian king who was shown as being protected by the archangel and the twelve apostles, they were also depictions of the Nubian kings holding sceptres that showed a small silouette of Jesus Christ on top of them. The buildings within these structures showed there were refuge forts built in Selib, it showed that they had carefully thought how their warning systems and where to take refuge if it was needed. They would either seeks refuge in Selib or in the island of Tanqasi that had a church, a well and a basin used to water flocks. These sites showed that it was preferred by these societies to live in more open settlements around the Middle Nile as it was closer to their fields and then if necessary they could then seek refuge in the Nubian forts when it was required. Excavation of a site in the Western Desert in Egypt by R. Schild was believed to have artefacts that could be a part of Oldowan, they did an examination of some samples of lag gravel from a sandstone ridge located near Gebel Nabta. Here they were able to find around a dozen flakes, multiple choppers that had been severely abraded and some bifacial discoidal specimens.

From the area around Kaddanarti and Kabrinarti there are three excavation sites near the Third Cataract vicinity that also had evidence of stone finds and bones within the layers of coarse pebbles, it was determined that these artefacts to be Lower Paleolithic and preceded the Acheulean period. The stone finds that were discovered consisted of items like brown flint, petrified wood, flakes and othe stone tools including choppers, whislt the bones belonged to large bovids, antelopes, hippopotamus that were largely mineralised. There was also some evidence of a Levallois core that was a type of Nubia found from Kaddanarti which is a core that is usually related to the Middle Stone Age.

List of Nubiologists
• Solange Ashby

• E. A. Wallis Budge

• Dows Dunham

• John Garstang

• Stefan Jakobielski

• Fritz Hintze

• Ursula Hintze

• Karl Richard Lepsius

• Kazimierz Michałowski

• George Andrew Reisner

• Claude Rilly

• Peter Shinnie

• Jean Vercoutter

title: Nubiology


text:
Talk:Thin Lizzy (album)

Album cover.
Wasn't there another album cover? Brakn (talk) 10:30, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, there was a US cover, but it's very hard to find - never made it to CD. Bretonbanquet (talk) 10:46, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Additional musicians?
Ivor Raymonde – mellotron on "Honesty Is No Excuse" Eric Wrixon – keyboards on "The Farmer" Gary Moore – additional guitar and keyboards on tracks 16-19 Midge Ure – additional vocals and guitar on tracks 16-19

How did they get these additional musicians to record with them in such a short time? In 5 days!? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8003:554E:7801:3953:A7C7:D925:B378 (talk) 04:21, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Eric Wrixon was with band for the recording of their single (not album) "Farmer" & "I Need You". Midge Ure & Gary Moore weren't part of the band in 1971, they went to re-do some guitar parts in 1977 for some remix of the first album. I'm not sure what Raymonde was doing in Decca at the time and how he eventually ended up playing on one of the album tracksProgrock70s (talk) 19:46, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Genre sources in infobox
Might be just me, but literally none of these links work. Can someone who knows how to add references clean these up? Or I'll remove the lot. Bretonbanquet (talk) 13:34, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

 * The ref name argument should almost always be used in citations. Used properly, repeatedly citing the same source will simply repeat the footnote from when it was first cited. Regardless, if citing the same source multiple times in a row in close proximity, just cite it once at the end rather than after every term. Regardless of that, that mess should not have been there. The then-cited source states that the band was influenced by genres x, y, z, apple, butter, and charlie, but none of this is to say that the end product fits into those categories. Just as you wouldn't classify a brownie as being an egg simply because an egg was one of the many things mixed together to make it. This last part is simply my take on the matter and reasonable minds may differ. GabberFlasted (talk) 14:16, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Can someone please explain why this source got rejected so many times? (Ramzine- the interview with Eric Bell), it seems ok by WP:EXPLICITGENRES since it actually used genre words such as progressive rock, hard rock. Would appreciate if someone give a good explanation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.139.79.41 (talk) 18:36, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Was it you who added it? Bretonbanquet (talk) 09:30, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Obviously no as you can check te diffs. But I'm confused and would like to know what's its problem. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.139.69.63 (talk) 10:20, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

 * Right, so it's that source added by a blocked editor who asked exactly the same question when he got reverted, which you're now asking having never edited before today. Do you mean the sentence by the interviewer: "Thin Lizzy were inspired and influenced by a variety of different styles and genres (hard rock, blues, folk, psychedelic rock, progressive rock, etc.)"? Bretonbanquet (talk) 11:10, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes I'm asking about that.213.139.69.63 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 11:15, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The reason is in the sentence I quoted. "Inspired and influenced" – that is not a reference to the actual genres of this album. It's a comment on the band's general stylistic influences. It needs to be something that actually describes the album, or songs on the album, as those particular genres. Bretonbanquet (talk) 11:20, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

But if you check Queen (Queen album) the same thing goes on there too, "The album was influenced by heavy metal and progressive rock", users were allowed to put these genres on Infobox. What's the difference between these 2 albums? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.139.69.63 (talk) 11:32, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
 * What editors do on that page has nothing to do with this page. But that sentence in the lead specifically states the album was influenced by those genres, so the point stands. The infobox genres could have been sourced another way, or not sourced at all, I have no idea. Stick to this article. If these genres are so obvious then they should be easily sourced. Bretonbanquet (talk) 11:40, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

This doesn't sound like a very valid reason when you said "what editors do on that page has nothing to do with this page". Maybe what you're trying to say is Queen's debut album page is referring to "the album" but what the interviewer said is referring to "the band" and not "the album", is that right? If that's what you mean then I think it's ok to add these genres to Thin Lizzy band page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.139.69.63 (talk) 12:23, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I think it's very clear what I said, perhaps go back and read it again. For the avoidance of doubt, it is not OK to add these genres to the main Thin Lizzy page with this source, which does not support any genre at all. Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:21, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Thin Lizzy (album)


text: Talk:Shades of a Blue Orphanage

title: Talk:Shades of a Blue Orphanage


text:
User:VeryVerily/Requests for assistance

 * This is a sandbox for a working proposal. It is not active yet.

Since Wikipedia is an open project, permitting anyone to edit, we occasionally attract those whose goal is to make vast, systematic edits to the encyclopedia in order to promote theories and ideas which have very little acceptance. The most vigorous such attacks have come from unreformed communists, who attack all articles pertaining to communism to remove reference to communist atrocities, the repressive nature of communist regimes, and so on, while spinning theories blaming other forces, such as "capitalists" or the United States for the suffering under these regimes. There are also often corresponding "anti-capitalist" rants inserted across a spectrum of articles. These edits go far beyond "revisionism" - a dubious but scholarly effort to reinvent communist regimes as merely mildly repressive - and are instead efforts to weight all communism articles heavily towards a pro-Red view.

I have fought a battle - sometimes lonely, sometimes not - to protect Wikipedia's articles from repeated such attacks, by users who often rely on armies of sockpuppets to prosecute their activities. But I know others would help out if they knew, and so this page exists. My proposal is that if a Wikipedia article is under heavy attack, an alert can be added to this page by me or anyone else involved in this process.

Those who wish to participate may add this page to their watchlist and be apprised of new alerts.

Active alerts
These are sample entries, not necessarily kept up to date.

Kulak
Shorne attempting to blame the kulaks for their own mass murder.

Inactive alerts
For pages under recent attack but currently protected or not under assault.

Khmer Rouge - protected
Shorne and Ruy Lopez attempting to remove negative info on the KR, in particular with respect to their many victims.

title: User:VeryVerily/Requests for assistance


text:
Secrets (Black and Blue)

"Secrets" is a 1973 BBC Television play by Michael Palin and Terry Jones of one-hour duration, starring Warren Mitchell as the owner of a chocolate factory. The play was part of a series called Black and Blue, which featured black and blue (saucy) comedy.

Story
A man working high-up on a very tall chocolate mixing vat tries to lean over the vat but overbalances and without being noticed falls in. This now-contaminated chocolate is processed and packed ready for distribution along with the normal production. It is only much later that quality control finds a chocolate containing a thumb to confirm the missing man's gruesome fate.

The chocolate company is suffering poor sales and intends to send out chocolates with market research questionnaires to different parts of the country to get customer feedback. Before anyone had missed the worker and shut down the production line to investigate matters, the contaminated chocolates were boxed and sent out with normal production to Worthing. Despite attempts to recover the suspect chocolates, they had all been sold and eaten.

The returned questionnaires were examined carefully to find unsurprising confirmation that people did not like the factory's chocolates, except for a group of customers who had been pleasantly surprised by the taste of the new chocolate. Comments like "Wonderful Meaty Flavour" were common and customers were keen to purchase more of the same.

Faced with this dilemma, the factory tried to respond to the apparent demand for meat in its chocolates by blending beef with its chocolate recipe, leading to scenes with loud "mooing and bangs" as workers attempted to process an unfortunate cow. Further market research results were disastrous. There was only one possible conclusion, that the public liked the taste of human flesh. But this solution was not socially acceptable, so they could not "just" include people in their chocolates.

Faced with ever-increasing financial disaster, the factory decided to start a campaign designed to try to alter attitudes to what was effectively cannibalism. They admitted what the source of the new flavour was and attempted to persuade people to donate their bodies for inclusion in the new flavour chocolate, so there would be a fresh supply of "recycling" corpses to flavour the new chocolates.

This eventually proved a great success and the factory flourished to the extent that the chocolates had major advertising slots on TV, culminating in an advert which featured a "Game Show Prize" style of conveyor belt, where instead of prizes, the conveyor passed across the TV screen loaded with a selection of deceased bishops and judges and other notable persons, while viewers were reminded by voice and logo that "Only the Best People Go into Our Chocolates".

Soylent Green, which took an altogether more serious view of a similar subject, was released in the same year. A feature film remake of Secrets, Consuming Passions, was released in 1988.

Preservation and DVD release
The original videotape of the play was wiped by the BBC following a large number of complaints after the first broadcast. The only known surviving version is a VHS copy of a half-inch reel-to-reel domestic videotape recording made by producer Mark Shivas from the master tape at the BBC and transferred onto VHS in the 1980s. In 2004 this version was included as an extra on the Region 2 DVD of Palin and Jones's series Ripping Yarns. The recording is fuzzy and grainy, and frequently flickers and rolls.

title: Secrets (Black and Blue)


text:
Computer network naming scheme

In computing, a naming scheme is a system for assigning and managing names of objects connected into computer networks. It typically consists of a namespace and processes for assigning, storing, and resolving names.

Naming schemes in computing
Server naming is a common tradition. It makes it more convenient to refer to a machine by name than by its IP address.

Network naming can be hierarchical in nature, such as the Internet's Domain Name System. Indeed, the Internet employs several universally applicable naming methods: uniform resource name (URN), uniform resource locator (URL), and uniform resource identifier (URI).

Naming systems have several other characteristics. The entities that assign and manage names can be distributed, centralized, or hierarchical. Names can be human-readable or not human-readable.

title: Computer network naming scheme