Talk:German bombing of Rotterdam

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archives (Index)

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Requested move 9 July 2017[edit]

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved – Consensus for descriptive title German bombing of Rotterdam — JFG talk 15:10, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rotterdam Blitz → Bombing of Rotterdam – Per WP:COMMONNAME. Significantly fewer book search results for: "Rotterdam Blitz" (1 100) vs "Bombing of Rotterdam" (4 300). K.e.coffman (talk) 03:04, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose There is a dab page at Bombing of Rotterdam because of Allied bombing of Rotterdam. As the WP:AT policy makes clear in the WP:COMMONNAME Ambiguous or inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined in reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources. Bombing of Rotterdam is ambiguous. Also the same section of the policy it states "Editors should also consider the criteria outlined above", One of those criteria is "Consistency – The title is consistent with the pattern of similar articles' titles", in this case the consistent naming convention is to use Blitz for German bombings eg Belfast Blitz, Liverpool Blitz etc and for Western Allied attacks "Bombing of name in World War II" as in Bombing of Cologne in World War II. -- PBS (talk) 15:52, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- I don't find the "Bombing of Rotterdam" to be ambiguous as it's the best known one. The hat note at the top of the article already takes care of Allied bombing of Rotterdam. Per WP:2DABS, the disambig page is not required.
Separately, I don't believe that the "consistent naming convention is to use Blitz for German bombings". We don't have articles called the Warsaw Blitz, the Stalingrad Blitz, the Wieluń Blitz, etc.
"Blitz" seems to be the term used to describe the German raids on British cities specifically, not all of the German raids. Hence the move to the Bombing of Rotterdam title seems appropriate. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:02, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • As the article on the Allied bombing of Rotterdam makes clear information about the Allied bombings was no emphasised for many years after the War, while that of the Germans was, but in fact as the article states "During the 128 [Allied] raids casualties amounted to 884 killed and a further 631 wounded" which according to this is just about the same casualty levels as those inflicted by the Germans, to move this article to the name you propose is a POV title for which there is a common non biased alternative. -- PBS (talk) 15:32, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Disambiguate, perhaps German Bombing of Rotterdam. Big POV problem. Blitz implied generic Nazi warfare, but it was the war crime of a devastating attack during negotiated ceasefire. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:10, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • what is your evidence that "Blitz implied generic Nazi warfare"? -- PBS (talk) 14:44, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • i meant present tense, "Blitz implies generic Nazi warfare". By "Blitz", it implies that the attack was the German blitzkrieg style of battle. Blitz meaning Blitzkrieg, defined even loosely by the opening sentence of that article, this attack was not blitzkrieg. That's my argument, logic not evidence. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:26, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmmm. Blitzkrieg, lightning war. Blitz, German air raids on U.K. Cities. Rotterdam was before, was not the same. Rotterdam was not like the other blitzes. But I'm not sure. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:53, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have a dog in this fight, but have you guys considered: "German bombing of Rotterdam" as an alternative? Kierzek (talk) 23:33, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, German bombing of Rotterdam, lower case b bombing. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:06, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I would oppose "German bombing of Rotterdam", as it's not a common name for the event. Side comment: I would not go as far as calling it an outright war crime; from what I read, while the surrender was being negotiated, the word did not reach the Luftwaffe in time for it to call off the attack (which was still indiscriminate, however). K.e.coffman (talk) 00:12, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It is used, unlike other options. https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=1940+bombing+of+Rotterdam+%2CGerman+bombing+of+Rotterdam%2Cnazi+bombing+of+Rotterdam%2CLufftwaffe+bombing+of+Rotterdam&case_insensitive=on&year_start=1800&year_end=2000&corpus=15&smoothing=3&share=&direct_url=t1%3B%2CGerman%20bombing%20of%20Rotterdam%3B%2Cc0
Disambiguation is required because there is another bombing of Rotterdam, more significant in terms of coverage. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:25, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above Ngram seems to omit the proposed title; I've included it here: [1]. I would suggest that German bombing of Rotterdam be a redirect to Bombing of Rotterdam; it's used, but not as frequently as the proposed name. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:30, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It is silly to ngram compare like that a short phrase with a long phrase. At least add "the " to the front. However, I agree with PBS that the proposed is not acceptable. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:40, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Also the comparison does not go beyond 2001. A search of Google books with no time limit returns 63 books for "German bombing of Rotterdam" and 82 for "Rotterdam Blitz". Putting a time restriction on both for just the 21st century returns 31 each. -- PBS (talk) 10:31, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per K.e.coffman's usage of "Blitz". While Bombing of Rotterdam has slightly less search results, this is only by 10,000, which is a small amount. -- Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 23:47, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @User:Iazyges "this is only by 10,000" are you doing a search on all websites? If so that is irrelevant because most will not be reliable sources. Using Google Books is a better proxy for assessing usage in reliable sources. Hence the above mention of ngrams which survey Google Books, or the search that I did above. -- PBS (talk) 10:31, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - the proposed title appears to be more widely used, and I'd hazard a guess that use of "Rotterdam Blitz" is probably increased by the fact that that's been the wiki title for the past 11 years or so. It's also worth pointing out that this move has been proposed a number of times over the years, which suggests that the title isn't as "stable" as one might expect. This strikes me as an example of the Yogurt Principle. Parsecboy (talk) 00:14, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per others above, this article should be at German bombing of Rotterdam which deals with the precision issue by differentiating it from Allied bombing of Rotterdam, but is consistent with it. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:22, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support German bombing of Rotterdam, clear, recognisable, as concise as is possible, and raises none of the issues of blitz. Andrewa (talk) 08:12, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    "and raises none of the issues of blitz." what issues are raised by blitz? -- PBS (talk) 10:09, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support German bombing of Rotterdam per nom and above comments.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:50, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which comments? - -PBS (talk) 13:32, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Both "Bombing of Rotterdam" (ambiguous) and "German bombing of Rotterdam" (hardly used). I'm not sure that the google book searches are a particularly helpful indicator when one of the search terms is a simple descriptive phrase. If you think it is a valid method - "German bombing of Rotterdam" gets a puny 484 hits. (Hohum @) 11:55, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Google searching for ""German bombing of Rotterdam" -wikipedia" gave me "About 2,960 results", and scrolling down the first few pages, they are pretty good hits. Leaving out the "-wikipedia" gives a pretty good indication that calling this bombing a "blitz" is a wikipedia thing. Comparing Google scholar results for "German bombing of Rotterdam" versus "Rotterdam blitz" also gives clearly better quality results for the first. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:26, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support German bombing of Rotterdam its a clear, concise, and naturally disambiguated title that tells the reader what they are reading about. There is no good reason to keep it at blitz, and aiding in clarity for the reader is preferred when it won't come at the cost of concision. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:59, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support German bombing of Rotterdam, seems to me to sum it up.Slatersteven (talk) 09:59, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Regarding contradictory-tagged statement on number of wounded and dead[edit]

I saw the statement 'Although exact numbers are not known, nearly 1,000 people were killed and 85,000 made homeless.' marked as contradictory with the leading text, and on attempting to verify the source I found both the link dead and the (archived version) containing different numbers and talking about the total of dead and wounded during the invasion, specifically mentioning also hand-to-hand combat. Unless there's another source for those new numbers, the sentence should probably be deleted?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.105.18.45 (talk • contribs) 02:13, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is not clear to me which number the 1,000 or the 85,000 that you think is inaccurate. For previous discussions of the numbers with sources see:
Here are sources for the about 1000
  • Grayling, A.C. (2014). Among the Dead Cities: Is the Targeting of Civilians in War Ever Justified?. A&C Black. pp. 30–. ISBN 978-1-4725-3405-7. "one hundred tons of explosives and incendiaries on Rotterdam, Killing 900 civilians".
  • Air Power History (Volumes 44-45). Air Force Historical Foundation. 1997. p. 71. "At Rotterdam on May 14, 1940 approximately 900 civilian were killed"
  • Wilms, Wilfried; Rasch, William (2006). Bombs Away!: Representing the Air War Over Europe and Japan. Rodopi. p. 399. ISBN 90-420-1759-7."Though widely believed at the time 'on 14 May [1940] came the bombing of Rotterdam, killing it was believed, 30,000 civilians. The true number as we now know was 1000, and in any case the raid might have been justified as preceding a military advance' (LongmateThe Bombers P. 83)."
Here are sources for both numbers:
  • Veranneman, Jean-Michel (2014). Belgium in the Second World War. Pen and Sword. p. 41. ISBN 978-1-78337-607-0. "where the bombing of Rotterdam caused at least 1,000 dead and 85,000 homeless"
  • Mitcham, Samuel W. (2008). The Rise of the Wehrmacht. Vol. 1. ABC-CLIO. p. 299. ISBN 978-0-275-99641-3. "Nine hundred and eighty people were killed and 78,000 left homeless."
-- PBS (talk) 14:09, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The precise number in the Infobox "884 civilian dead" I think s probably wrong it is the same as the number claimed as the total killed by the Allies when they bombed Rotterdam (at that time in this article). This number was added with Revision as of 19:43, 31 December 2012. -- PBS (talk) 14:36, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 1 February 2019[edit]

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 section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus to move the page to the proposed title at this time, but I have altered the redirect to point at this page per the discussion below; a hatnote remains in place for the article on the Allied bombing. Dekimasuよ! 21:47, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

German bombing of Rotterdam → Bombing of Rotterdam – Per WP:TWODABS; this is the primary topic. A hatnote can take care of the Allied bombing of Rotterdam. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:57, 1 February 2019 (UTC)--Relisting. Warm Regards, ZI Jony (Talk) 04:53, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please see monthly pageviews: [2]. --K.e.coffman (talk) 06:57, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move per rationale, primary topic. buidhe 09:11, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose clearly No Primary - just looking at Page Views given, out of the question. In ictu oculi (talk) 12:09, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose but redirect proposed title here, per the existence of the article 'Allied bombing of Rotterdam'. The redirect of the proposed title can include a hatnote to the other page. Randy Kryn (talk) 16:13, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per NOPRIMARY, but support redirect idea of Randy Kryn above -- Whats new?(talk) 07:18, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Ww2[edit]

Did Germany and Thier allis bomb windmills? 105.163.158.50 (talk) 17:34, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:German_bombing_of_Rotterdam&oldid=1207394158"