Talk:Capture of the Caen canal and Orne river bridges

Infobox
Please add and cite Strength & Casualties, thanks. Kirk (talk) 18:30, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Citation for Operation DEADSTICK as name for training for, not execution of, Coup De Main
Penny Bates brought together the private papers of her father, Maj John Howard, to create 'The Pegasus Diaries'[TPD]; a significant part of the 'Diaries' is John Howard's Five Year Diary of the War. On p. 86 of TPD we read that, on 23 March 1944, Howard was at a brefing for a full-scale divisional exercise that would include D Coy OBLI 'landing' and capturing three small bridges. He wrote, 'The overall military exercise for the rehearsal of D-Day was to become known as Operation DEADSTICK, and I would realize in due course that this was the first part.'

Best

Marve001 (talk) 22:27, 15 January 2013 (UTC)


 * What do the secondary sources cited in the article say about this? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:33, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Cited to Fowler in lead that the operation was called Deadstick, without going back into the library's that's all I can remember. However Google has some results on a web search and a books search has several references.. Jim Sweeney (talk) 07:48, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Gentlemen,

If Major John Howard, Officer Commanding the Coup De Main, says the exercise was called Operation Deadstick then that's all the evidence we need; after all, he is a Primary Source, so outweighs all Secondary Sources.

Best

Marve001 (talk) 17:14, 17 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Strange though it may be, Wikipedia does not work like that. Please read WP:PRIMARY.


 * Incidentally, can I assume you're aware that "Coup de main" is a noun phrase in itself? So that one can correctly say "Operation Deadstick was a coup de main"? Both of you may be interested that the article Coup de main also mentions what we're discussing. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:35, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Search on 'Deadstick'

Best

Marve001 (talk) 20:16, 17 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Talk:Coup de main also has another references for the name In several written sources, quite notably "The Eagle" which is the Glider Pilot Regiment Association magazine it states that the landing at Pegasus Bridge had the official name Operation Deadstick. A point worth adding? Reference can be found on page 6 of Vol.10 No.9 2004 edition Jim Sweeney (talk) 20:26, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

I have that article in front of me and nowhere does it state that "the landing at Pegasus Bridge had the official name Operation Deadstick"; it refers to the surviving pilots who took part in Operation Deadstick but does not link that name to the coup de main.

Best

Marve001 (talk) 20:50, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Book results for Operation Deadstick name


 * Pegasus Bridge - Ambrose page 61
 * Pegasus Bridge - Benouville, D-Day 1944 - Fowler page 12
 * Voices of D-Day: The Story of the Allied Invasion, Told by Those Who Were There - Drez page 44
 * Raiders: World War Two True Stories - Kemp page 241
 * Airborne armour: Tetrarch, Locust, Hamilcar and the 6th Airborne Armoured Reconnaissance Regiment, 1938-50 - Flint page 95
 * One night in June: the story of Operation Tonga, the initial phase of the invasion of Normandy, 1944 - Shannon & Wright page 27
 * D-Day then and now - Volume 1 - Ramsey page 258
 * Surprise attack: lightning strikes of the world's elite forces - Darman
 * The Airborne - Brown & Reed page 54

I did search for "'Operation Coup De Main" with a negative result. Jim Sweeney (talk) 03:06, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Here're two references:

http://www.6juin1944.com/assaut/aeropgb/en_page.php?page=tonga

http://www.americandday.org/D-Day/Operation_Tonga-Order_of_battle.html

Best

Marve001 (talk) 19:53, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
 * They appear to be mirror sites and unfortunately are not classed as reliable. Jim Sweeney (talk) 19:58, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Accepted.

I now realise that I am, in some way, incorrect in my knowledge; having spoken to fellow airborne historians, the truth of the matter is that the Divisional exercise was called 'Deadstick' and this name stuck for the landing, in an UNOFFICIAL capacity; it was never the official code name, which was 'Coup de Main'. Unfortunately, the only sources for this are primary and therefore not admissable as evidence in Wiki articles. However, I think if, in the article's opening sentence, the word 'code' was changed to 'unofficial' then we would have an accurate description.

I leave it with you.

Best

Marve001 (talk) 13:08, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Outside the scope of the article?
The 6th Airborne retained control of the area between the Rivers Orne and Dives until 14 June, when the 51st (Highland) Infantry Division took over the southern part of the Orne bridgehead. In the weeks that followed, the 6th Airborne Division was reinforced by the Dutch Princess Irene Brigade and the 1st Belgian Infantry Brigade. A period of static warfare ended on 22 August, when the division crossed the River Dives. Within nine days the 6th Airborne Division had advanced 45 mi to the mouth of the River Seine. Between 6 June and 26 August, when they were pulled out of the front line the division's casualties were; 821 killed, 2,709 wounded, and 927 missing.

Appropriateness of Operation Deadstick as article title

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: Article moved to new title per consensus RandomCanadian (talk / contribs)  15:31, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Away from Wiki, a few historians and I have been looking into the accuracy of the name Operation Deadstick. This article has used the name since it was created in 2011, which has been challenged once or twice. It’s not actually referenced in the article, but there are a number of references to support it listed in a topic above (Citation for Operation DEADSTICK as name for training for, not execution of, Coup De Main).

However, it’s become quite evident from looking through historical primary sources that there is no contemporary document that supports the name Operation Deadstick. Instead, the name Coup de Main is used variously as the Operation title, or to describe the body of men carrying out the mission (the Coup de Main party). Documents that have been consulted and which use this phrase and do not use Deadstick include: Copies of these documents can be seen on this Twitter thread (please note I am not presenting Twitter as a reliable source, I’m merely linking to copies of the primary sources).
 * 298 Squadron Operations Record Book
 * 298 Squadron Summary of Events Log
 * 298 Pilot Reports
 * 644 Squadron Operations Record Book
 * 644 Squadron Summary of Events Log
 * Tarrant Rushton’s operations book
 * Commanding Officer, B Squadron 1 Wing, Glider Pilot Regiment report
 * 6th Airborne Division War Diary
 * 6th Airborne Division Report on Operations in Normandy
 * 2nd Oxfordshire and Buckinghamshire War Diary
 * General Gale’s Operation Instruction No.1 to 5 Para Brigade Group

Put simply, there is no contemporary documentation that has yet come to light that refers to Operation Deadstick. Author Neil Barber addresses the origins of the name in The Pegasus and Orne Bridges, page 27, where he identified that the name was coined by an individual, rather than being from a list of codewords (this makes sense given the meaning of deadstick in the context of a deadstick landing – an unpowered aircraft landing). The name Exercise Deadstick is used for May exercises in the 298 Operations Record Book, but only then and not in June.

The origin of the name Operation Deadstick for the actual operation on 6 June seems to stem back to Stephen Ambrose’s 1985 book Pegasus Bridge, where he uses it four time (without references I should add). It is arguable that all of the uses of it shown in the topic above (and many many more of course), stem from this initial use.

I realise that this is a quandary for Wikipedia, that puts verifiability over truth. But it strikes me that by keeping this title, we’re promulgating a myth that was probably first created by a questionable author. I don’t think, in Wikipedia’s own interests or the interests of decent history, we should be doing that. I don't doubt that many contemporary uses of Deadstick are based on its use in this article.

Quite how to tackle it I’m not sure. The questions would be, is this entering the realm of original research to correct a myth? Unfortunately I don’t have a published source where someone has already done this investigation into primary source documents to refute published sources. Obviously if someone had already published it in a book, that would be easier. There are of course plenty of sources that don’t use Deadstick, many of whom I’d argue are more reliable references. Lloyd Clark in Orne Bridgehead (edited by Simon Trew), Carl Shilletto, Neil Barber are a few from looking through my shelves. Perhaps we could change the title and include a note using these to explain the divergence of names?

Secondly, if the article title were changed – what to?

Thoughts on the suitability of the name, the appropriateness of the research and of course any other historical sources, are welcome. Cheers, Ranger Steve   Talk  12:07, 23 January 2021 (UTC)


 * What is said in primary sources is usually best treated with caution (although I am also personally guilty of using [long time ago] war diaries - in combination with secondary sources, of course - to shore up articles about military units, so no worries there), and particularly in this case because the policy that applies is WP:COMMONNAME (which is one of the areas where we are more prone to disregard the "truth" if it is not what is most commonly in use). Now, if the information about the actual name of the operations is, indeed, that it was called "Coup de main", then there is no objection to including it in the article, maybe something like

"Operation Deadstick (officially known as "Operation Coup de main") is ..."


 * Sadly, as far as I understand, the job of Wikipedia is not righting the record - if this however gets published into some proper academic publication or becomes the mainstream view then that is subject to change. Note that in that case, we'd still have to deal with Coup de main being more common as a jargonish expression.RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:37, 24 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Yes, that's the quandary. Wiki reflects published sources, not original research. That said, although primary sources aren't always the most reliable without analysis, here they're fairly good evidence of the realitry of the situation and my concern is that we have an article title that's inaccurate, and which stems from an author whose reliability has been questioned on more than one occasion elsewhere. I'm wondering if, based on the primary source evidence, we should make a change and reference it using the sources that DO use 'coup de main' instead of the ones that use Deadstick. Ranger Steve   Talk  11:58, 24 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Yes, indeed, there are no significant difficulties with using primary sources such as these so long they're not used to support things not written in them. Now the problem is that instead of the wrong name being published by just that one questionable author, it's been taken and repeated by subsequent sources (see the section above about citations for the name - there's a good list of them, and secondary sources which do use "Coup de main" are not very plentiful) so has become the WP:COMMONNAME... Now, IMHO, this could be a valid case to have a discussion about WP:COMMONNAME and its applicability when the common name is manifestly wrong (although in this case it still does meet other criteria of article titles, such as being unambiguous and recognizable) - or possibly even go for WP:IAR - but of course that requires more than just my opinion so I suggest waiting for further input. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:58, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I'd suggest inserting a note into the lede discussing the issue much as you've done here.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:43, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Isn't "coup-de-main" just a description of the type of operation rather than an operation codename? The British practice was (and still is) to use codenames unconnected with the actual operation for security reasons; something like "Operation Surprise Attack" might be a bit of a giveaway. Alansplodge (talk) 12:37, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Not being deeply involved in this subject, it seems clear to me that (a) the article title is derived from a source of questionable authority. I think an editor is allowed to discount information from a historical source that does not meet the standards of WP:HISTRS. (b) If there is no good RS for an alternative operation name, then the article should be titled something like British D Day air landings. However theoretical one might be about "Wikipedia not righting wrongs", I think we should avoid being so rigid on that idea that a questionable article title is used.ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 21:08, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
 * We need to find a more specific title than "British D Day air landings", since Operation Tonga covers this and all the other activities of the UK 6th Airborne Division on D-Day. Alansplodge (talk) 23:09, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

A more specific title would include [type of event] [location] [(date)], but that tends towards the overly verbose: "D-Day airborne assaults on Caen canal and Orne river bridges". Operation Coup de main could work as it does appear to be the official designation, if we can get through the other reservations about it. For the record, "Deadstick" is not any less of a suggestive name than "Coup de main", given what a Deadstick landing is...

For the record, the criteria for an article title are 1) recognizability (as in, the article subject can be recognized from the title) 2) naturalness (as in, someone looking for the information would naturally tend to look for this) 3) precision 4) conciseness 5) consistency with other similar articles.

On criteria 1) and 2), "Deadstick" is probably the winner (although there's nothing that prevents us changing the title to something less wrong and have that name redirect to it). 3) and 4) are probably tied (since, well, there is no other event known as "Operation Coup de main", despite the potential confusion with a plain coup de main). Have no clue about 5, although the overarching operation is obviously titled on WP by its operation title, "Operation Tonga". I don't know enough about smaller scale tactical engagements to confirm smaller examples. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:11, 26 January 2021 (UTC)


 * My personal preference would be to change the title and then insert in the first line something like "The capture of the Caen canal and Orne river bridges (sometimes known as Coup de Main or Operation Deadstick) took place in the early hours of 6 June 1944 as part of the Normandy landings of the Second World War." Then I'd include a note which would itself include the difference in naming of the operation in books. It's probably too much OR to explain that Deadstick only emerges after Ambrose (although this is very interesting in that regard). But that would solve quite a lot I feel.


 * Regarding a title, I don't think there'd be anything wrong with something like "Capture of the Caen canal and Orne river bridges" or possibly "Capture of Pegasus and Horsa bridges" which is certainly a common name. We have lots and lots of actions that are descriptive rather than named, it's not unusual. Ranger Steve   Talk  11:59, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support "Capture of Pegasus and Horsa bridges" as the most common name. Alansplodge (talk) 20:06, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Also support "Capture of Pegasus and Horsa bridges".ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 22:15, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I'd go with "Capture of the Caen canal and Orne river bridges" as the article title is descriptive as it stands and tells more at glance to the casual reader. 1) actual placenames which give a hint to location. 3) The bridges don't get those names until after the operation (1989 for Horsa) 4)You can use the name as a direct drop in replacement without piping most of the time as opposed to piping or writing "gliders would be used for the capture of Pegasus and Horsa bridges over the Caen canal and Orne river respectively" . GraemeLeggett (talk) 22:38, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Also support the more geographic names as that would be the most recognisable title (not all readers would be familiar with the "codenames", which in addition are anachronistic). We should agree to which variant before moving the article (what we are having is already a proper discussion to get WP:CONSENSUS on the subject so don't think we'd need to go through the formality of a WP:RM (and anyway, that doesn't really work well with multiple alternatives if one of them doesn't get overwhelming support). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:29, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

(think that's everyone) If nobody objects I'm going to be WP:BOLD and move the article to what appears to be the most suitable title based on the discussion above, Capture of the Caen canal and Orne river bridges. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:52, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * OK with thatThoughtIdRetired (talk) 07:38, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Fine by me. GraemeLeggett (talk) 08:49, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Alansplodge (talk) 12:28, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Fine by me - I was going to do it myself this week as the discussion seems to be leading that way. I think it might be Caen Canal though (rather than Caen canal) – it certainly is in the article. Ranger Steve   Talk  12:35, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:41, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Reverted overall operation name in short description
As per the edit summary, I do not see why using an operation name is an improvement. For those that are totally absorbed in the detail of military history, this might be great, but operation names have no meaning for the encyclopaedia reader for whom this project is intended. One might just about get away with Operation Overlord on a scale of general comprehensibility, but that's it. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 06:44, 5 August 2021 (UTC)