Talk:SUSFU

We already have ways to deal with missing sources; this is not one of them.
I changed this:
 * The Navy version went: "Situation Normal; Army Fucked Up", while the Army retort was "Some Navy Asshole Fucked Up". Beyond serviceman apocrypha, there are no official sources for these variants.

to this:
 * The Navy version went: "Situation Normal; Army Fucked Up", while the Army retort was "Some Navy Asshole Fucked Up".

There's already a citation needed tag there. You don't need to say something to the effect of "this jerk who wrote the previous statement didn't provide a source. Besides, no sources exist anyway." I think following the rules of Wikipedia, one could just as easily put [citation needed], because it's pretty hard to prove definitively that the evidence does not exist. Ufwuct (talk) 13:28, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Rick Atkinson
For the "citation needed" tag relating to Rick Atkinson, the noted author does mention several Army acronyms in the book The Day of Battle: The War in Sicily and Italy, 1943-1944, as evidenced by these excerpts. However, since I do not have a copy of the book, I am unable to verify if he specifically deals with the idea of the terms ridiculing Army acronyms. Could someone else possibly verify this? -- Keith Lehwald (talk) 00:08, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Merge
Someone else added the tag, but I agree. I might attempt to do so, next time I see this, if someone else hasn't already... :) -- Quiddity (talk) 05:16, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Just clicking around articles and ended up on that one and I agree. That article appears to have been copy/pasted (at least in part) form this one anyway. Lara  04:24, 28 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Besides the fact that this may not be notable in and of its own, SUSFU is just a paraphrase of SNAFU. At most, it should be a section in SNAFU and not its own article. Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:13, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed. This is exactly the same meaning. Doing it myself now. Jimthing (talk) 17:26, 10 June 2011 (UTC)