Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/45th Infantry Division (United States)/archive 1


 * The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.  No further edits should be made to this discussion.

No consensus to promote. EyeSerene talk 08:41, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

45th Infantry Division (United States)

 * Nominator(s): — Ed! (talk)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review. — Ed! (talk) 20:30, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments
 * Your images are in need of alt text. No problems were reported with external links. Due to a glitch, I am unable to check the disambig links.
 * Done. — Ed! (talk) 14:37, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * In the section "France and Germany" you need to cite the Dachau concentration camp liberation sentence; as I understand it there are conflicting reports as to whether the it was the 42nd or the 45th that actually liberated the camp, and as such I expect a source will be demanded for your claim of the 45th.
 * Done. — Ed! (talk) 14:37, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * In the same section, last sentence has no source for the number of claimed POWs. See if you can find one.
 * Done. — Ed! (talk) 14:37, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Otherwise it looks good. Well done! TomStar81 (Talk) 22:52, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment - endashes (–) should be used between date ranges, not emdashes (&mdash;). Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 08:04, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Fixed. — Ed! (talk) 14:29, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * They are still present in the "Honors" section. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 23:45, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Fixed. — Ed! (talk) 02:08, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Conditional Support pending a check of the disambig links; tool should be back up on or about 10 August. TomStar81 (Talk) 01:40, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Disambig tool seems to have gotten back on its feet; its reporting three dismabig links in the article; these need to be located and if at all possible fixed. TomStar81 (Talk) 18:48, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Fixed. — Ed! (talk) 02:08, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Support - I went through and made a few tweaks here and there. One possible issue though, if you take the article to FAC: File:45th INFANTRY DIVISION swastika.jpg might have an incorrect license. The patch is a piece of US heraldry, and should probably use PD-USGov-Military-Badge as its license tag. Everything looks good to me. Nice work! Parsecboy (talk) 13:03, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Fixed. I added that lisence to the image page. — Ed! (talk) 03:13, 25 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Support, but it'd be nice if you could expand a bit on the war crimes - those seem some pretty serious allegations and it'd be nice if they could be covered more deeply. – Joe   N  02:00, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I added more detail to the section. How does it look now? — Ed! (talk) 03:13, 25 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Support, although it would be nice to find a ref for Mauldin as per the GA review. I've added a link to Operation Avalanche. Ranger Steve (talk) 06:40, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Done. — Ed! (talk) 03:30, 25 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Ed!, I understand what you're trying to do here - a series of projects covering major US Army formations - and in general I support it. Yet your sources are far too heavily Department of the Army official line. Apart from the Korean War, there's not a single period of the Division's history that is not backed up by solid third-party sources. We're not USArmyWiki, and we should be aiming for impartial coverage. I realise the wide availability of U.S. Federal Govt sources free to use on the Net means we will incorporate large amounts of it, but here I feel that that coverage hasbeen used to the point that the article is slanted. Where's the divisional history? Biographies? Memoirs? For example, if this had been the 40th Infantry instead of the 45th, we could have used Hackworth's About Face which sits beside me as I write. We really need a lot more of these sources before this article - and the others like it - can be promoted. My 2 cents. Buckshot06(prof) 10:44, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I couldn't disagree more. If you can specify how the article is slanted and what major co ntroversies are ommitted from this article, please do. I used four different non-government sources (2 books, 2 web sites) to detail the division's alleged World War II war crimes, which were completely uncovered in any US government source, and they were the only two controversies I could find in my researching the subject. I also used as many book sources as are avaliable to me at the time, trying the best I could to reserve US military sources only for the specific dates, facts and figures of the article, which are generally not well recorded in other sources I found. Frankly, many of the US government sources aren't even required to satisfy WP:V, but I preferred to overcite as opposed to not having enough sources. In short, I wrote most of the article based on independant sources using the Government ones to back those up and provide the most specific facts and figures. As a national guard division, the unit essentially does not exist outside of wartime call ups, with the exception of weekend and summer training, so there isn't a whole lot to cover outside of the division's service in World War II and Korea, and no sources, government or otherwise, are likely to detail such periods. If you've got additional sources that you feel would contribute to the article, feel free to add them. — Ed! (talk) 15:04, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Have you looked into the official histories of the US Army in World War II and the Korean War? While they were funded and published by the Army they were written by independent and professional historians and are highly regarded. The three volumes on World War II in the Med look highly relevant (they're online here) and the three volumes on the Korean War are here. Nick-D (talk) 11:24, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I've used some of thouse sources for the article, unfortunately they show up in the article has having been published by the Army, which seems to be funding Buckshot's idea of the supposed "bias" of the article. — Ed! (talk) 23:05, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * With all respect, I can't see any of the volumes in the World War II or Korean War series listed among the references consulted. Shelby Stanton's book World War II Order of Battle may also be of some use - it provides a detailed history of changes to the composition of units and a useful summary of what they did during the war. Nick-D (talk) 11:33, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The "Garland" source is one of the references from the WWII list you pointed out. Unfortunately, all of the references here, as far as I can tell, are published by the US Government Printing office. Despite their neutrality, this label simply does not address the concerns I am seeing about the article being "biased" simply for having US government sources. — Ed! (talk) 21:42, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd also echo this oppose; it's a good article, but it's too centered around official US Army sources. I've pointed this out to you before, Ed, on several of your brigade articles. More secondary sources that aren't Army-centric or written are needed. Skinny87 (talk) 15:09, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Where exactly? — Ed! (talk) 23:06, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I tried looking for the diffs, but I'm useless with them, sorry :) I do remember it was either on your talkpage somewhere, or in one of the reviews for the brigade articles you penned. Anyway, I'm going to make this an official Oppose just to maker things clear. My primary problem with the article is that it places too heavy a reliance on primary, US Army-based souyrces and has not integrated a sufficient amount of secondary sources, such as those NickD highlighted above. When this has been done, I'll gladly strike my oppose. Skinny87 (talk) 12:47, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * And I'll clarify: What's the bias? This article has been slung with vague accusations of "bias" yet no one seems willing to point out how it is biased. What details have been left out? What figure are you disputing? I do not see this challenge as actionable, the only response I can think of to "the article places too heavy a reliance on primary, US Army-based souyrces" is to completely rework the sources. But I don't see the problem here. There is nothing being disputed, except the US government sources, for the simple fact that they are US Government sources. Several of these sources are independant historians commissioned by the government to pen histories. I can't change the fact that their books were published by the US government, but it doesn't change their neutrality. I've also pooled the criticism of the division into areas (for example, the war crimes section) as opposed to dispersing them through the article. The more mundane statistics and dates, I don't see why they are being disputed when there's nothing to say that they are incorrect, and I seriously doube there is any rational reason that some kind of "bias" is being applied to the article for the simple fact that it uses US government sources, which happen to be the best doccuments recounting the division's history. And I would say that most are indeed secondary sources because they were written by historians employed by the US government, not division members themselves. I can't fathom what exactly you're getting at here. — Ed! (talk) 21:30, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I think that what they might mean is that there are few books in the article that discuss major battle arenas the 45th were involved in. A few more books about specific battles by more popular authors might help - something like Armageddon by Max Hastings would probably describe their actions in Germany for instance.  I think that might be what's being driven at here anyway, but apologies if I've got the wrong end of the stick.  On a different note, are you going to address the issues raised by Joe N and myself? Ranger Steve (talk) 20:55, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Ranger Steve has the idea. I'm not asking for the entire article to be rewritten, just for more independent secondary sources to be added describing the division's actions. Armageddon is a good start, and there must be others; the division fought in enough theatres to gain attention. Skinny87 (talk) 10:13, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry to say that I don't have access to that book right now. I've been looking for other sources but am having a hard time of it; most of the sources I can find still have "Department of the Army" publishing information. — Ed! (talk) 22:11, 25 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.