Talk:Battle of Maastricht

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information and associated task forces: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces (nations and regions): United States military history task force

There is a little problem with the "Battle of Maastricht": it never happened :o). The Dutch immediately capitulated after a German ultimatum.--MWAK (talk) 09:23, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean it never happened? Look at the references at the bottom. The Battle of the Netherlands went from May 10-15. (Red4tribe (talk) 15:18, 22 April 2008 (UTC))

Well, the last is certainly true — though the "15" had better be replaced by either a "14" or "17". The purported "Battle of Maastricht" however, boils down to a few minor delaying actions by some light infantry on the city outskirts. Calling that a "battle" rather stretches the meaning of the word. Perhaps it should also be pointed out that the sites you refer to are rather deceptive in that they uncritically repeat major losses claimed by some Dutch reports to have been inflicted on the Germans, whereas these cannot be confirmed by German sources.

Now, I'm not saying that the events as such deserve no attention in a separate article; indeed it would be a good thing if you expanded the text with more details about the fights. But perhaps we can come up with some title that more adequately covers the facts? "German capture of Maastricht"?--MWAK (talk) 06:42, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I see you indeed have expanded the article — and this is good — but you also basically have copied the text of the site — and this is not good! Unless you happen to be the author, this constitutes a serious copyvio! Could you retell it using your own words?--MWAK (talk) 17:41, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, don't worry, that is what I am getting around to. (Red4tribe (talk) 18:12, 23 April 2008 (UTC))