Talk:Battle of France/Archive 8

RFC - "Decisive"
I have extended full protection for one more week while the RFC plays out. Please note, I don't have an opinion here, the question is presented simply to answer the issue at hand. I will not vote but I will take action if any editor makes personal attacks or is grossly uncivil.

Proposal
The issue is to include or exclude the word "decisive" in the infobox as a descriptor of the victory. The current template strongly discourages the use of a qualifier, but under WP:IAR, it does not prohibit it, thus it is a matter of local consensus. The template is a stable one so we can assume it has consensus as a general guideline. The sole question is whether or not this particular article should be an exception to standard practice, for whatever reason.

At an appropriate time (a week or longer), this will be closed and will provide a clear consensus as to the state of the article, and will serve as demonstration of that consensus until a new RFC demonstrates otherwise. At that time, anyone edit warring against the consensus will be blocked. Please use short, policy based reasons in the polling area and not just a vote. Please keep threaded comments in the "Discussion" area.

You are encouraged to advertise this RFC on appropriate projects so long as it is a neutral notification and not an endorsement of any side of the issue. Notifying editors individually will probably be seen as canvassing, so I don't suggest it. Again, keep it civil, on topic and professional, please.

'''Until this RFC closes, do not modify the current infobox entry, even if protection expires. This will be seen as edit warring and will result in a block without warning.''' This isn't an endorsement of the current version, it is a preventative measure to stop warring until a consensus is reached. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 12:04, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Polling

 * German victory because "result – optional – this parameter may use one of two standard terms: "X victory" or "Inconclusive"." adds to RS consensus in last survey of sources.Keith-264 (talk) 12:35, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Decisive, are you kidding? The template documentation are not "rules" we are obliged to follow. What we are obliged to do is provide the reader with a clear and concise description of the outcome of a conflict. This is basic stuff that's generally understood across our project, that's why we write all sorts of things under "outcome", qualifiers, bullet points, links to all sorts of sections or other articles etc... It's perfectly fine to add a single qualifier here for purposes of clarity.
 * The argument that this was not a "decisive" conflict because it didn't "decide" World War II is ridiculous and risible on its face. That's just not what the word necessarily means, both in general and in the aforementioned general use in this capacity across the project. It would mean that no victory by the losing side in any war could ever be described as "decisive" in English parlance... it's ridiculous. The objective in this operation was to militarily defeat Allied forces on the continent ; that was achieved in a decisive manner. This battle is one of the most "decisive" confrontations in world history, with a massive effect on the course of WWII, and arguably the most significant and one-sided defeat of Allied forces in both world wars (rivaled only perhaps by the First Battle of Kiev). A deluge of sources can be found to that effect.
 * As always, I'll be blunt: this is nationalist POV-pushing on Keith's part, he should have long been banned from this article (as per warnings by moderators). He is, in my earnest opinion, transparently engaged in all this REPEATED, pointless disruption because Britain was defeated here (in fact absolutely thrashed and humiliated), but since his(?) country remained in the war, he wants us to say this wasn't a "decisive" defeat for her. He repeatedly failed to push this, and is trying to have his way by wearing opposition down with this obnoxious conduct... -- Director  ( talk )  12:39, 24 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Decisive victory because this battle is one of the definitive examples of a decisive victory. Binksternet (talk) 12:50, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Decisive victory + fix the infobox documentation. While there was overuse of decisive and other descriptors in various infobox military conflict uses - stating that this battle (that knocked France out of the war, capitulating to Germany) was not decisive is stretching it. In general one should be careful to not overstate or over describe results - however when the result is so clear saying German victory (tactical? a "normal" victory?) obscures the total nature of this victory.Icewhiz (talk) 13:18, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Exclude Noting that the issue in this RfC is not whether the victory was decisive, but whether that adjective should be included in the infobox result parameter, the template guideline clearly states the options available for the result parameter and excludes the use of a qualifier. Whilst there has been plenty of debate on whether or not the victory was decisive, I've yet to see a rationale to convince me that this particular battle was so decisive that it warrants an exception to the guideline. Factotem (talk) 13:45, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Also taking this opportunity to clarify my !vote. Not only do I not see a convincing reason in the many TP discussions on this subject to qualify the result, I don't see any direct support for doing so in the article itself, which has implications in terms of WP:LEAD, WP:RS and, by extension of the latter, WP:OR. Factotem (talk) 09:39, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

— Berean Hunter   (talk)  21:58, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Decisive. The victory is a clear example of what a Decisive victory is (definition wise). I understand that the template states "result – optional – this parameter may use one of two standard terms: 'X victory' or 'Inconclusive'", but it is a template and not a policy. If it were a policy, I would reconsider. Gabe1e (talk) 14:32, 24 January 2018 (UTC) Sock edit stricken. Editor IP socked elsewhere just to stir the pot.
 *  Decisive w/ caveat Just victory The guidelines template documentation in this case are is not at all ambiguous. Template:Infobox military conflict clearly states 'Do not introduce non-standard terms like "decisive", "marginal" or "tactical", or contradictory statements like "decisive tactical victory but strategic defeat"'. The question is whether the nature of the outcome, in this specific case, is significant enough for an exception to be made to override the editorial intent of the template creators/MilHist project . I firmly believe that the immediate outcome, the partition of France and the surrender of her forces, pushing the Allies off of the Continent and the achievement of the German High Command's strategic goals with new, startling and decisive methods (see Blitzkrieg) fully justifies a local consensus for the exception. To my knowledge there is no 'back end' issue, ie Wikidata, which requires the use of prescribed terms for the field. If there is a such reason to to restrict the field to specific terms then the adjective 'decisive' should not be used and the template's documentation should be updated. Note to closing admin: I was called by  - evidently I opined on a behavior issue related to this question back in Oct 2015. Weight that per WP:Canvass as you see fit.  Jbh  Talk  20:22, 24 January 2018 (UTC) Last edited: Documentation is editorial suggestion not policy or guideline. We are not discussing guidelines but rather the documentation of a template which at most reflects general consensus within the MilHist project. I also note that, as part of the reasoning in the reverted close, it was mentioned that the template documentation was changed 3 months ago with only a weak consensus to remove terms like 'decisive'. Until that time the term was permitted and has, evidently, been the status quo for this article for a considerable time (years).  05:36, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Update - While I still believe what I said above and think that the victory is properly described as 'decisive' the discussion here has convinced me that the editors who changed the template documentation had good reason for doing so - it cuts down on long festering silly drama like we are seeing here. One word in an infobox simply does not have enough impact on the value of an article to our readers to justify the time-suck this kind of dispute causes. It is better that the template documentation be followed than for exceptions to be litigated in this and, with this as precedent, other articles. Jbh  Talk  16:45, 8 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Decisive. Please see my comments above for my reasoning :) Note that I am very open for a new discussion based on the bullet points. I personally think that the bullets could be removed altogether, as they change month-by-month, but in the end it is up to a consensus of us fine editors to decide that. KevinNinja (talk) 21:43, 24 January 2018 (UTC)


 * German victory (w/o the qualifier) – I voted for “decisive victory” in the first RfC, but my thinking on this matter has since evolved. Not because the battle of France was not a resounding success for Germany, but because the qualifier is simply unnecessary. I.e. are there such things as “indecisive victories”? “German victory” is shorter and less emotive; the phrasing does not invite the question of “what other victories are out there?” etc. Victory is a victory, best leave it at that. That said, I could live with “Decisive German victory” since both variants are essentially the same thing.  K.e.coffman (talk) 21:54, 24 January 2018 (UTC)


 * RM "decisive" This isn't about the decisiveness of the campaign; as that can, and should, be exemplified at the body of the article with the appropriated sources. The infobox needs to be kept short and objective exactly to avoid this kind of stuff. RedUser (talk) 22:17, 24 January 2018 (UTC)


 * RM "decisive"/Exclude So it's always true that a "decisive victory" is also a "victory", but whether a victory qualifies as "decisive" is an extra level of subjectivity. The fact of the matter is it was a decisive victory, but it's also a fact that there must of been those who didn't think so because there were resistance elements that kept fighting.  Now, chances are that there are probably more published accounts that just call it a "victory" and not "decisive victory", but even if that isn't the case, a neutral point of view still favours no qualifier. 198.84.171.88 (talk) 10:35, 25 January 2018 (UTC)


 * No "decisive" Invited by the bot.  By most measures, it probably could be considered decisive.  However, such a characterization does not add informatoin or enclyclopedic information. So IMO there is little argument for putting it in.  So, my opinion is if it's disputed, leave it out. North8000 (talk) 13:44, 28 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Yes, decisive  - same reasons as I gave in last year discussion Archive 6
 * Matches the template option for this term
 * Comparison that "decisive" is used for [Invasion of Poland]] and Battle of Britain for less lopsided results
 * Definition at Decisive victory "The term decisive victory refers to a military victory in battle that definitively resolves the objective being fought over, ending one stage of the conflict and beginning another stage. "
 * I think that in history references commonly it is called by terms like 'unexpectedly swift' or 'complete domination' to emphasize the distinctive qualities of the result being shockingly unexpected more than just decisive was a factor to acions before the event and to responses after the event. Markbassett (talk) 21:10, 28 January 2018 (UTC)


 * @Mark, point of information: it doesn't match the template option, it changed last year, hence this discussion.Keith-264 (talk) 16:56, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Pls take care not to compromise the RFC with extraneous outbursts. KevinNinja (talk) 04:10, 4 February 2018 (UTC)


 *  Decisive Exclude Decisive Victories or defeats are hardly ever black or white and I discourage any other qualifiers, but this is one of the most clear examples of a decisive victory (i.e. close to a 100% victory in terms of objectives, annexations, casualty & strength ratios, or to put in another way, no question about it whether it was a victory). Then again, it doesn't add a huge amount of info, so I can live with German victory as well. If we start stripping all qualitative parameters b/c they are subjective/interpretative, we might one day end up in a situation where aren't bold enough to say anything. Manelolo (talk) 16:10, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
 * After reading the new template doc (which is quite finely written, may I add), I would actually verge on the side of just putting "German victory" into the box and adding "See the Aftermath section" to the result and avoiding speculation. My bad for not reading the revised doc sooner. Manelolo (talk) 14:42, 3 February 2018 (UTC)


 * No "Decisive". The operational campaign was very successful, the long-term strategic results -- not so much.  It led the Germans to miss-apply their operational success to Russia.  This ambivalence cannot be captured in a word; any attempt to do so can only misinform the reader -- the worst thing we can do in WP.  Oh, and per new infobox guidelines, meant to get rid of repetitive time-wasting discussions exactly like this one, says to just say "victory".  Please, let's move on and work to actually improve WP by focusing elsewhere.  --A&#8239;D&#8239;Monroe&#8239;III(talk)  17:21, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Decisive This battle was a loud and clear victory, smashing a few armies in the process. That the overall commander made mistakes that altered the war after that, is not something you can blame this offensive for. The Banner talk 16:32, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Omit the word "Decisive". There is some question as to whether it was decisive AND WP does not recommend the use of such adjectives in an infobox. So, I would remove it. Peter K Burian (talk) 15:45, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
 * German victory, omit 'decisive', for reasons offered by others, the infobox is a summary and the adjective is -at best- unnecessary. It's that same old deja vu again! I vaguely recall being invited to a previous RfC on exactly the same question, quite some time ago. Part of the discussion then was over the meaning of 'decisive', those in favour of the term believed that it meant 'total', 'unambiguous' in military terms, which would fit the bill for the B of F. Those who were more cautious about the use of the term, pointed out that historians may avoid the use of the adjective in situations where nothing long term was actually decided by the battle, ie where the future was not actually decided by the battle, the war not settled by it. It may well be the case that sources don't use the term for precisely this reason, ie that whilst German victory was clear cut, German control of France was a mere historical 'blip'. Regardless of the reasons, if use of the term is not near-universal by good historians, it doesn't belong and, regardless, the proper place to make clear the scale of their military success, is in the text, not to treat the infobox as a 'score card'. Pincrete (talk) 14:41, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Discussion
So what's the deal here, Keith? Are we just gonna keep voting on this until we get the right answer, how do you think this works? -- Director  ( talk )  15:29, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I withhold comment. KevinNinja (talk) 22:21, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I follow Leopold von Ranke's ideal of how it really was and Clausewitz's use of decisive to mean a battle that had political effects, rather than as a synonym for big. That's why my point of view here is that of the 12 RS who called it a German victory and not the 5 who didn't. You aren't following the RS and aren't following the result criterion; I think that's why you can't resist personal abuse, it's all you've got. Keith-264 (talk) 22:12, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Cherry-picking RS doesn't serve anyone good. KevinNinja (talk) 22:16, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm too vain to stoop, it's a revealing remark about you though, don't you think? If anyone wants to discuss this matter rather than resort to personal ranting, I'll be happy to oblige. apologies everyone I forgot about this. Keith-264 (talk) 22:34, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Talking to you is a waste of time. You'll never change your opinion (as has been recorded for the past few years...) KevinNinja (talk)
 * Kevin, I've removed your disruptive comments in the polling. The whole idea of an RFC is to get opinions of people who have NOT edited this article and can opine on the proposition without have a preconceived notion.  You would do better to simply stop commenting.  Everyone knows your opinion.  If you continue to be disruptive, you force my hand.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 23:38, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Apologies. Coming back to the same issue many times over the years has made me quite unlike myself and bitter about the topic. I will abstain. I believe the same applies to other editors on this topic who may seem a bit outlandish. Previous consensuses reached not being respected is not something I can say I like. As Director put it, voting until we get the right answer is not what should be happening. I think as an Admin you should recognize this as well. But you are correct that I should abstain from the disruptive edits, I am more than happy to abide and I recognize my mistake. KevinNinja (talk) 23:59, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Prefixing the result with "decisive" is a nuance which does not generate any significant improvement to this article. The infobox is not designed to accommodate nuance, which is, I believe, what the strictures in the template guideline are intended to discourage. I do not agree that we should allow any exemptions from that guideline, but if we do, then I believe the bar should be set very high, so that exceptions are indeed exceptional. If this victory was so exceptionally decisive that it warrants such an exemption, then I think there should be direct discussion of this subject in the article, something I do not currently see. Factotem (talk) 13:30, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I would suggest that a Significance sub-section to be introduced into the Aftermath section detailing the significance of such a defeat for the Western powers (a surprise attack in the Ardennes, first real large-scale Blitzkrieg, pushed off the continent, only a naval invasion in 1944 an option, Hitler avoided a 2-front war in the first years of the Eastern Front). KevinNinja (talk) 15:22, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
 * That's the analysis subsection; trouble is, it wasn't a Blitzkrieg if the term is defined as a politico-diplomatic-military-economic strategy. The advance from the Meuse to Abbeville was local insubordination which caused consternation in the corps, army and OKH and OKW HQs. The inability of the Anglo-French to cut off the Panzers before infantry divisions filled the vacuum is far more significant than Guderian's coup. By not folding, the British kept the German economy blockaded while the US and USSR accelerated their rearmaments so Hitler really didn't have much of a choice after the Allied defeat. Gradual economic strangulation while the Great Powers rearmed or a genuine Blitzkrieg against the USSR to secure the resources of Ukraine and Caucasus in 1941 before the Anglo-Americans became unbeatable. Most of this comes from Frieser and Tooze. RegardsKeith-264 (talk) 16:33, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I've just re-read the Analysis and it looks rather good, if a little wordy; did I have a hand in it? May seems a fairly modern and mainstream source but it looks unfinished. Kevin's suggestions look like they would fit in to some subsequent paragraphs quite neatly. Keith-264 (talk) 16:43, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I believe the reason it's good is because you  had a hand in it. I also believe that an Aftermath section that brings up the points I mentioned would allow BOF to become more nicely categorized into the time period of the war (especially as it regards the last point we both made on how it affected the Eastern political sphere leading up to Barbarossa). KevinNinja (talk) 18:25, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
 * This would work great, I agree with the change. It would also remove all the bullets, so it would be much easier to describe how the victory was. This could also conclude the "decisive" argument. Gabe1e (talk) 16:59, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I believe the article Operation Barbarossa adopted this strategy due to the same reasons. Gabe1e (talk) 17:01, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
 * We should be careful to compare BOF to OB. Operation Barbarossa never officially "ended" in the common sense. Thus a "See Aftermath" section is perfect for OB. The same does not apply to BOF since it was a definitive war-ending battle that did not carry on against France (I would consider it to be the most humiliating result of a battle, considering the effects of WW1 on French morale and the resulting armistice in the same rail carriage that the Germans signed their armistice in... the humiliation of a nation). On a side note (I am a huge Eastern Front nerd); some of the battles of Barbarossa reinvented large-scale warfare (largest encirclement in the history of warfare in Kiev, incredible speed at which German troops moved in the first few months) but overall the operation was not successful due to Hitler's tactical blunders in moving Panzer divisions North and South instead of focusing on the real objective that could have decided the war: Moscow. Moscow was a decisive victory for the Soviets as it stopped German advances right when they could have won the war, ultimately ending in the Wehrmacht's destruction in the East (and in the West as a result... the Soviets won the war, not the Western Powers, who simply capitalized on Soviet gains in the East). KevinNinja (talk) 17:42, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I think that's where we differ, was the defeat of Poland decisive? Belgium, Holland, Denmark and Norway? Anyway, that's by the by; have you read Frieser and Tooze? If not I highly recommend them, Tooze is a very good synthesis of lots of economic research into the Nazi economy and Frieser is an excellent operational level synthesis of the campaign. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 18:24, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
 * @KevinNinja, I see what you mean. @Keith, I would consider BoF more decisive than Poland as it officially drove the allies off the mainland. Poland was also decisive as the campaign was very efficient and ended the Polish front. It ended one part of the war, and started another, in this case the Phoney War. Gabe1e (talk) 18:45, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Good points. I would also add that Belgium and Holland were mere "stepping stones" to reach the ultimate objective: the capitulation of France, which is the only objective that could drive the Allies from the mainland of the continent; German advances on Holland and Belgium served as an illusion to the main advance on France in the Ardennes. KevinNinja (talk) 19:16, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Was Case Yellow intended to end the war or was it a desperate throw of the dice, before Anglo-French rearmament made them unbeatable in fact as well as theory? I don't think that driving the British out of Europe was the intention or that the French collapse was anticipated, judging by the opinions of German generals at the time. It seems to me that the Germans thought that the could occupy the Low Countries and France north of the Somme so that the Luftwaffe would be in range of the English Midlands. If Poland was decisive, what wasn't? Surely the point about France 1940 is that it didn't end the war but it did close Hitler's options; that's why Hitler ordered preparations for war against the USSR on 22 June. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 22:21, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

I've asked to close in a week or so, assuming there isn't any issue with that. I don't need to start and close the same discussion, even if I'm not invested in the content. He's very familiar with military history articles, but I don't think he's done any editing here. He's an admin and CU and has closed lots of discussions over the years without controversy. This will be faster, which is good considering it was an edit war that brought us here. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 01:52, 26 January 2018 (UTC)


 * "Was Case Yellow supposed to end the war" = red herring. What we must regard here is the immediate military-historical context of this specific military confrontation. Or to be exact for these purposes: the Western European theater of operations. Within that context this was, in technical terms, a Super Duper Decisive Defeat. To follow the logic that any battle won by the ultimate losers can't be "decisive" is plainly absurd from the common use of the term, in sources as well as colloquially. To enter the realm of speculation on the possible aims and goals is pointless: obviously everyone on both sides of any conflict would like to see said conflict end the war in their favor.
 * The context of this battle is the Western European theater of World War II, the Western Front. In that context, it is an exemplar of a decisive defeat. -- Director  ( talk )  17:51, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The RS are against you and that should be our guide. Keith-264 (talk) 18:28, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Your RS, even cherry-picked as they are - still do not support you. And can be countered, with the greatest facility, by an entire parade of sources stating the plain fact that, as far as the Western Front in Europe was concerned - this battle decided it. And you know that full well. Buy you choose to "skip" over the immediate context of the theatre of operations - unto the whole bloody war... but that's a transparent red herring. -- Director  ( talk )


 * This is what consensus is supposed to decide. It doesn't seem to be a matter of who is "right" as much as which interpretation has consensus.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 18:00, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I object to Director summarily removing content from the talk page and I object to his insinuation that my comment was dishonest. WP:AGF I deserve an apology. Keith-264 (talk) 18:53, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
 * And I understand that objection. In the future, please strike comments rather than remove them, excepting circumstances that are bad enough they need redacting or RevDel.  No need to make a fuss about it, but striking is the preferred method of dealing with those types of comments.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 21:08, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
 * No problem. -- Director  ( talk )  21:25, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I prostrate myself at your feet, Keith. You know I love you. -- Director  ( talk )  21:25, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Reverted close
I have reverted the close by. People were still trying to participate (see history where someone just reverted themselves). Additionally, the rationale wasn't policy based and the unilateral claim of "thus the status quo of Decisive German victory remains" without explaining how they determined the status quo is invalid. I have reopened the discussion so that others can participate, such as who tried but was cut off by the close. The RFC does not seem to have run its full course. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 17:57, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
 * , those comments were only after I added the closing template; before that the last real comment (on the actual debate) was 4-5 days ago, though we could wait a week or two more, perhaps. Jbhunley as far as I can see merely tried to update his rationale, not add to participation. Decisive german victory has been there for years on this article (and I explained why I did not consider the infobox documentation in determining the status quo). I'm not sure how my rationale wasn't policy based. Galobtter (pingó mió) 18:11, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I note that Manelolo participated just before I put the closing template, which I did not note. Then we can close it a week or two hence, perhaps. Though I don't think there was anything wrong with my close otherwise. Galobtter (pingó mió) 18:16, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Not sure it matters how the status quo was established if a majority of editors agree with it remaining... KevinNinja (talk) 19:37, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
 * It was established before the infobox criterion change so it can't be assumed that all editors are unmoved by it or by time to reflect on the difference between decisive as a synonym of big and as a term for war deciding. Keith-264 (talk) 21:10, 2 February 2018 (UTC)


 * My comments were simply a rewording and clarification. I used 'guideline' where I should have said 'template documentation' - nothing that should effect the close. I have no objection to the close as it was. Simply from reading the close it looks like put a good deal of thought into it and made a reasoned judgement. In particular I find that their observation that the template's documentation originally permitted terms such as 'decisive' and it was changed with a weak consensus just 3 months ago has bearing on what represents the status quo for this article. It was not the best close I have ever seen but I think it is well above the threshold that we, by AGF, typically let stand.  Jbh  Talk  05:29, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Like I said I am willing to wait another week or so to see if more comments come in etc, and then reclose. Galobtter (pingó mió) 05:49, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Or someone else can close, certainly won't be complaining if that happens (do have other things to be doing...) Galobtter (pingó mió) 12:41, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
 * @JBH, if you define the altered template criterion as having a weak consensus, will you use the same definition here? Galobbter included reasons irrelevant to the RFC, which made his (?) decision dubious anyway. The RS are still about 2:1 against decisive.Keith-264 (talk) 08:51, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure how the recency of the change or the fact that "decisive" was fomerly an accepted option is relevant. Having said that, the distinction between template documentation and guideline is a valid point. I was under the mistaken belief that they carried equal weight in determining consensus, and did not learn until after this RfC started that template documentation actually carries no more authority than an essay. Having said that, it nevertheless represents a general consensus of sorts; the recent change continues the same aspiration to eliminate a needless source of editorial conflict as informed the previous, more widely discussed version did (and it's interesting to note the thinking behind including "decisive" as both tactical and strategic there); and whilst accepting that it carries questionable weight, I'm not sure it should be dismissed so completely. Factotem (talk) 09:37, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your refreshingly undogmatic comment. What meaning to be given to decisive? If it is to be the technical term, it shouldn't be used in the infobox because the bofF didn't determine the result of the war and the infobox Result criteria are irrelevant. This leaves its use as a synonym of big, which invites the question why bother? What does big not connote that decisive does? Most of the RS that were consulted in 2016 didn't use decisive in either sense so it can't be a difference over sources only superlatives. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 10:16, 3 February 2018 (UTC)


 * This is an extremely divisive issue. The close just needs to be a strong one that is based in policy and will hold up to scrutiny.  To do that requires some experience handing contentious closes.  Most RFCs can be closed by anyone, but it is helpful to have contentious ones closed by an admin with experience in the general field and policies, which is why I suggested Berean Hunter.  There are a dozen others I can think of as well, but he has thousands of edits in military history articles and has closed hundreds of discussions, many contentious.  Hopefully, once it is closed, there will be some finality to the issue, and how it is closed will determine that.  Then I look forward to moving on, once the issue has been settled here.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 12:47, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

(moved from the polling area by dennis brown)
 * Comment Wow. People, please be smarter than this..? The context of this conflict is NOT the whole damn war - it is the Western Front. This battle CLOSED operations in the Western Front of WWII. Not forever - but it closed the front. Fighting was over. It was a decisive defeat... Again: if you're manipulated to look at the whole war, then no single skirmish ever won by the ultimate loser in any war can ever be described as "decisive". That is NOT how this term is used, either colloquially, in sources, or on this project.
 * Did the Battle of Trafalgar "decide" the War of the Third Coalition? NO! But is it a "decisive" victory when looked at in its proper context? Of course! Ugh... Has Wiki really veered this far off into politics? -- Director  ( talk )  23:21, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Pls take care not to compromise the RFC with extraneous outbursts.Keith-264 (talk) 23:24, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
 * What part of "Comment" do you find ambiguous, Keith? The "Com"? The "-ment"? -- Director  ( talk )  00:58, 4 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment I can also not understand why some people take 1 battle and put it in the context of the entire war to decide outcome. Imagine being a British reporter in 1940, you would surely say that the Germans decisively won the Battle of France. After all, your great army that was supposed to defend France like in the last war swam for their damn lives on the shores of Dunkirk. The Germans forced an unprecedented surrender of France in little more than a month, something they couldn't do in 4 years in 1914. An unprecedented victory. Perhaps the most decisive in all of history. What happened afterwards in 1942-1945 cannot change how decisively the battle was won for the Germans. KevinNinja (talk) 03:47, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
 * This is beside the point, we aren't the RS, the RS are ;O). When, in 2016, I went through my sources, I assumed that a few other people would too and we'd cancel out duplicate sources but no-one did, only impute dishonesty in my survey. Since I cited the sources I had, anyone could have checked and still can. Opinion varies but I'm not the only one to choose July-September 1941 as the point when Germany lost the ability to win the war by military means; it's easy with hindsight. Bearing in mind that a scholarly endorsement from me is about as welcome as waking up with a horse's head in your bed, I urge everyone interested in this subject to read Tooze on the effect of the German victory in France. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 10:28, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
 * The only RS you have mention how the defeat of France was bad for Germany in the long run (which everyone agrees is true...). Thing is, we don't care about that at all. The result parameter should describe how the battle played out (it was a decisive victory for Germany), not how the battle impacted the long term position of Germany or her economic mobility for the rest of the war. Let me repeat (because you sometimes have a hard time understanding opposing opinions); nothing except for the battle matters for the result criterion in the article Battle of France. KevinNinja (talk) 14:29, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
 * No, I listed something like 20 historians; I noticed that the ones who used decisive did so in quite a casual manner. Tooze (and Edgerton) shows how once Britain didn't fold, the separate peace made by the French only alleviated the constraints on the German war economy for a short time, it was a big victory but far from decisive. The US boss class decided to back Britain and accelerated its rearmament; the Soviets looked on aghast and did the same and Germany could look forward only to ever greater dependence on energy and food exports from the USSR. The navy had almost been annihilated in the Norway campaign, the Luftwaffe was defeated by the RAF and the Mediterranean option was a non-starter for economic reasons. The victory in France did not alter the economic arithmetic which had constrained Germany since the respectable fascists murdered the Weimar Republic in 1930 and repudiated the Treaty of Versailles in 1932. The decisive victory of the Big Two occurred around Smolensk from July to September 1941.Keith-264 (talk) 14:44, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I wonder if you even read what I type? Or just plainly ignore it? My comment addresses multiple points you make... People are tired of arguing with you when you won't listen to their perspective and simply ignore evidence that is contrary to your opinion (please read WP:IDHT). To address what you said, I can rephrase it: the economic factors don't matter, the rearmament factors don't matter, the 2 fronts don't matter, Britian doesn't matter, all that matters is the military operation of the BATTLE OF FRANCE which was an overwhelming and decisive victory for German forces. KevinNinja (talk) 16:05, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I haven't argued with anyone; since you're getting personal again, allow me to reply: I don't think you are very clever, I don't think you are very educated and I don't think you are well read on the subject. I think that you are emotionally attached to decisive, which is why you always return to subjective personal criticism of me, rather than engaging with the RS. Keith-264 (talk) 16:41, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
 * In view of you insulting my intelligence, threats, personal abuse, intimidation, and failure to WP:AGF I decline to engage further with you. KevinNinja (talk) 17:10, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
 * See what I mean? I owned every word of my descriptive opinion of you and you didn't extend the same courtesy to me. Keith-264 (talk) 18:34, 4 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Decisive in what scope? Many here are detailing their own reasoning here to show this battle was decisive.  Besides being SYNTH or some sort of personal POV, any such reasoning is based on a preferred scope of what "decisive" entails.  But there is zero agreement among editors on different articles on what scope "decisive" encompasses.  Do we have any agreement on using that same scope on other articles?  Is Pearl Harbor simply judged as a decisive Japanese victory?  Can Borodino be clearly called a decisive French victory?  Is Barbarossa an obvious German decisive victory?  If the results of their "decisive victory" lead them directly to war-ending military disaster, many would judge this these a decisive victory for the opponent.  How do we, across multiple articles, judge what "decisive" covers?  Is it based on time, casualties, odds, importance, lasting effects, or what?  If we have no consistent on idea how apply this, how are the readers (remember them?) supposed to automatically understand the scope of this lone word?  Even sources that use the word "decisive" do not use only that word; how can we do so in an infobox?  The persistent trend has become to avoid these sad, repeated, pointless, disruptive discussions over a single word in multiple individual articles that won't help the reader either way.  Let's admit that there is only one possible way to end all these discussions for good: simply drop the word and move on to useful work.  --A&#8239;D&#8239;Monroe&#8239;III(talk)  17:17, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

The RS is clear: Decisive victory
Listed below is a plurality of sources supporting the notion that the BoF was a decisive victory for German forces. If we really need to cite this under "Decisive German Victory", then that's what we have to do. But, it would be foolish to suggest that the RS don't support BoF as a decisive victory. As Keith said, it's all about RS. So here they are... (I can list more if anyone wants)

A decision to remove "decisive" would not only be against the longstanding consensuses reverted by one fervent and ill informed POV-pusher, but against the RS in its entirety.

1. "...what was left of France was reduced to a rump satellite state of the greater German Reich, and the victors and many neutrals expected Britain to sue for a humiliating peace. So unexpectedly decisive was the Allied defeat that many commentators blamed British and French defeatism - a consequence of memories of the slaughter of World War I, and in the case of France, interwar political turmoil."

2. "The fall of France - a shorthand for the political and military crisis for the Allies of May-June 1940 - was the first real upset of the Second World War...it sent the world reeling. Contemporaries struggled to conceive that the collapse was possible, even as it gathered pace around them. They were reluctant to believe the unbelievable, loath to mention the unmentionable - to utter the words' evacuation', 'defeat', 'armistice', 'surrender'."

3. "...Although the Battle of France had been decisively lost..."

4. "...one of the most decisive victories in military history. The shocking collapse of France captured the attention of most of the world's military leaders. That such a powerful nation could be so swiftly defeated seemed almost beyond comprehension, and a flurry of explanations soon generated a curtain of myths that obscured the reality of what had happened in May 1940."

5. "...[Britain] committed just enough ground forces to the continent to get the French to fight. Who could imagine a change in land warfare so decisive as to allow the conquest of France? Hence, in May 1940, Britain fought a land battle that her grand strategy had for years sought to avoid."

6. "...In the heavily forested and hilly Ardennes region of Luxembourg and eastern Belgium came a surprise thrust by German tanks in 1940 that decisively won the battle against France during World War II..."

7. "...The much vaunted French army had been destroyed in a campaign lasting barely six weeks. The British, who sent a token force..."

8. "The colossal and tragic defeat of 1940 cannot be explained by some generic concept of decadence, as many have argued..."

9. "(Referring to a picture) In the wake of the decisive victory, German non commissioned officers play "dress up" with captured French uniform items. Scenes such as these were relativity common early in the war for the German armed forces personnel, when victory seemed certain."

10. "The German art of war in 1940 sought a decisive battle of annihilation with an emphasis on shock and surprise and which intended a fast battle tempo as in Poland in 1939."

11. "...less than four years later Hitler's armies could march into France and defeat decisively a combined even larger French and British force."

12. "...Hit by an imaginary seven German divisions, four of them motorized plus two tank brigades, debouching from the Ardennes, the French 'defense' in these maneuvers was battered beyond possibility of re-establishing itself. The results were so decisive that at least one senior [English] commander begged that they never be published, lest they 'upset the troops'."

13. "...The shadows of resentment were being dispelled by the fierce glare of a conflict that promised to take its place as one of the decisive battles of history..."

14. "Many battles were decisive victories (Battle of France, 1940), while some had a "winner" only in name (Verdun, 1916)."

15. "The truly valuable lessons that Daughty draws from the Wehrmacht's decisive victory affirm the critical importance of surprise, deception and, above all else, small-unit preparation and tactical acumen."

16. "After World War I, the notion of executing decisive battles capable of ending a conflict was dismissed by many because the available ground forces were thought to be insufficient for such an ambitious role. The German invasion of France in 1940, [proved this notion wrong]..."

17. "A classic example of surprise [in warfare] is the Germans' penetration of the Ardennes in May 1940. The German plan in 1940 was to win a quick, decisive victory against the French and their Allies by achieving strategic surprise."

18. "Although the Battle of France had been decisively lost, there was one last action. Britain - with its Empire - now stood alone. Sea power was all important and the British government decided that it could not risk..."

19. "Chapter 10: The Second Battle of Sedan and the fall of France, 1940"

I rest my case.

KevinNinja (talk) 20:26, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Much better but were are the RS I surveyed in 2016, apart from Horne and Doughty? Keith-264 (talk) 20:41, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Please find me RS stating specifically that BoF was not a decisive victory, then we can talk. Be careful not to include any sources that do not speak of the actual result of the battle. If you again bring up sources speaking of economic mobility, rearmament factors, alliances, or otherwise long term impacts of the battle (i.e., factors speaking not of the result), then you will have forfeit your right to this conversation. KevinNinja (talk) 20:50, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Where are they? Keith-264 (talk) 21:30, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I think you ought to read what I said one more time. KevinNinja (talk) 22:44, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Your list only contains two of my sources, why don't you paste my survey of 2016 in? Keith-264 (talk) 09:51, 7 February 2018 (UTC)


 * These are from Google Books, so no page numbers, but anyone can search and verify for themselves:
 * "In fact, as one now sees it in the perspective of time, Hitler's astonishing triumph over France was to be the direct source of his greatest disaster" (Horne, To Lose a Battle: France 1940);
 * "The rapidity of the German victory had created a dangerous hubris among the German military, and on the part of Hitler himself a fatal conviction that he was a military genius who could never be wrong. This was to prove his ultimate undoing" (Jackson, The Fall of France: The Nazi Invasion of 1940);
 * "For the Wehrmacht, the campaign in the west was at once triumph and tragedy because the glitter of victory misled Hitler and his generals into a fatal case of hubris" (Frieser, The Blitzkrieg Legend);
 * "By stopping the Panzers before Dunkirk, he allowed himself to be trapped in a mistake that, in the end, undid the desired strategic success" (Frieser);
 * "But even if France was likely to lose engagements in May-June 1940, it was not doomed to lose the entire war, and certainly not in a matter of weeks. (Again, my choice of words implies a disputable interpretation. Many people prefer de Gaulle's phrase 'the Battle of France' as signifying that the actions of May 1940 were merely an episode in a war that France eventually won. I think it is more accurate to say that France lost a war in 1940, then later took part in another war that ended differently.)" (May, Strange Victory: Hitler's Conquest of France) The author is talking in the first sentence about whether a German victory was certain before the battle, not supporting de Gaulle's POV, as becomes clear in his last sentence. The important point here is that the significance of the battle is subject to a disputed POV;
 * "For all the success of the brilliant German victory in the French campaign, it fostered Hitler's delusion of the invincibility of the Wehrmacht and the infallibility of his decision making, which would have disastrous consequences in subsequent campaigns" (Olive & Edwards, Blitzkrieg France 1940).
 * These indicate that RS go beyond the immediate military operation in terms of scope, and suggest that the outcome was a little more ambiguous than describing it as "decisive" in the infobox would imply. Any number of adjectives for the immediate operational result are appropriate in the main narrative, and I'm sure they justify a place in the lead text too. But the infobox can't handle nuance, and a basic "German victory" properly describes the result and ensures that we steer clear of any WP:NPOV issues. Factotem (talk) 13:44, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm very happy you've posted these sources Keith Factotem. Do you know why? Because they solidify the notion of a decisive victory. Mentioned among the sources you posted is the "hubris" generated by the victory in France. Do you know what is the only thing that could have caused such a hubris, an excessive self-confidence among Hitler and his generals to victoriously wage war? An overwhelming, enormous, and decisive victory in France. Well done, Keith Factotem. You played yourself. You can now go ahead and add those sources to my original list whenever you have the time. KevinNinja (talk) 15:23, 7 February 2018 (UTC)


 * 'Twas me wot wrote that, and please do not alter my posts. Since when have contemporary German perceptions been reliable secondary sources? Factotem (talk) 16:45, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
 * 'Twas fixed. But either way, thanks for proving my point. KevinNinja (talk) 18:05, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Are there any source that uses the words "decisive victory" alone, with no further explanation, as proposed that we do in the infobox? Do all sources use that wording exclusively? If not, then we can't use it without some additional info. Go ahead and have a whole sections describing how and why is was so decisive, and according to whom. But it's impossible to have "decisive" capture all this in the infobox. Tens of thousands of words have been dumped to this discussion about adding the single word "decisive" to this infobox. The same has happened across dozens to hundreds of other articles. How is that in any way useful effort on our part? This is why the guideline now directs us to use just "victory". There is literally no reason for us to do otherwise. --A&#8239;D&#8239;Monroe&#8239;III(talk) 21:45, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Are there any sources that specifically state there was no decisive victory? Even one (vs 19 for decisive victory)? KevinNinja (talk) 05:41, 8 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Some more:
 * "In a small but important way Darlan the Anglophobe and future collaborator helped to stop the Nazi war machine from achieving total victory in 1940." (Christofferson, T. France during World War II: From Defeat to Liberation p. 32. Discussing Darlan's denial of the French Navy and Atlantic ports to the Germans in June, before the armistice).
 * Section titled "Shadows: the Flaws of Victory" in Horne's book, which refers to a "fault of high strategy" in failing to plan for the invasion of a "tottering Britain" and a "tactical fault" in allowing the BEF to escape from Dunkirk.
 * "However, to Guderian, the successful evacuation of Allied troops was a great German failure brought on by indecision and confusion. He always regretted that this opportunity for a decisive victory had been lost." (Spiller, R. Combined Arms in Battle Since 1939. U.S. Army Command and General Staff College p. 73)
 * "On this day (the 24th) the Supreme Command intervened in the operations in progress, with results which were to have a most disastrous influence on the whole future course of the war" (Guderian, Panzer Leader, p. 206, referring to the halt order that allowed the BEF to escape from Dunkirk) Factotem (talk) 21:44, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

RS say nah
[Copied from Archive 5, pasted from Archive 4. To avoid misunderstandings about the sources I was able to check, I paste them in wholesale so that the readership can follow them up.]

The War in France and Flanders (Ellis 1953) Ch XXIII, pp. 315–328: Conduct and Consequences of the Campaign

The loss to the Allied cause implied by the conquest of France, Belgium and Holland cannot be measured exactly.... For them the immediate effect of the campaign was to...consolidate the foundations on which were built the forces of final victory. Ellis, pp. 327 & 328

To Lose a Battle (Horne 1969) Ch 21, pp. 646–666: Aftermath

Soon Hitler's astounding achievements in France would turn to dust.... Britain would remain at war, inviolate. And as long as Britain was there, it was inevitable that sooner or later the immense power of the United States would be brought in to. Horne, pp. 653 & 654

on the other hand

Before the decisive battle opened.... Luftwaffe... constituted a decisive factor at this stage of the Second World War. Horne, pp. 656 & 658

The Blitzkrieg Legend (Frieser 2005) Ch 11, pp. 347–353: Summary and Epilogue

....This is where [Sedan] the Germans in 1870 and 1940 had been able to win two of their most significant victories....In contrast to World War I, swift, operational, battles of decision now again seemed possible [but] the generals forgot who really won the Second Punic War. Cannae was only a passing operational success.... Frieser, pp, 349 & 350

Clearly room for discussion even in these three examples from a crowded field of candidates. What do the other RS say about the concept of decisive victory and its applicability?

I invite interested editors to contribute from their sources and abide by NPOV. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 07:17, 15 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Survey cont.
 * ...Germany won the campaign.... ...fall of France.... ...unexpected collapse.... p. XV ...collapse.... p. XVI ...swiftly defeated.... p. 350

Doughty Breaking Point (2014)


 * Few defeats have been as unexpected or as sudden as France's collapse. Few have altered so fundamentally the status or standing of a nation within the community of nations. p. IX ...the resulting debacle.... p. X

Doughty Seeds (2014)


 * In a matter of weeks the French army surrendered and the British army slipped across the Channel. p. 306 In May 1940 Gamelin had also thrown the dice in an all-or-nothing gamble – and lost. p. 332 Germany's defeat of France was a triumph, but Hitler realized its significance would shrink the longer the war went on. Time remained a real player. p. 342

Maiolo Cry Havoc (2010)


 * Germany's victory over France gave it a remarkable position of power over the Continent of Europe. p. 393 In the weeks following the French collapse, Hitler clearly did hope that Britain would react to the loss of its major continental ally by accepting Germany's offer of an Imperial partnership. pp. 393–394 Despite the Wehrmacht's triumph in France, British recalcitrance exposed the fundamental problem of German strategy. Hitler had unleashed a war with Britain without a coherent plan as to how to defeat that country. p. 395 Defeat of France in a few short weeks.... p. 661

Tooze Wages (2006)Keith-264 (talk) 23:19, 15 September 2016 (UTC)


 * The defection of France meant the ruin of the strategy so laboriously planned in the previous year. p. 209

Butler Grand Strategy (1957)


 * The Germans' unease over the "Miracle of Dunkirk" was limited, however; the rapidity of their victory over France served as sufficient consolation. p. 85

Megargee High Command (2000) Keith-264 (talk) 23:47, 15 September 2016 (UTC)


 * The result in May 1940 of these technological, tactical, doctrinal, and organizational developments was a bold operational approach that produced one of the most crushing military victories of the twentieth century.... pp. 374–375 In short the advances in land warfare that defeated France and pushed the British off the continent....p. 375

Murray & Millett Innovation...Interwar (2006)Keith-264 (talk) 09:20, 16 September 2016 (UTC)


 * The Army of the Third Reich was a failure....it conquered Poland in twenty-seven days....France in thirty-nine....The first transient victories.... pp. VII–VIII In June they took Paris, defeated France, and turned their attention on Great Britain. The impression made on contemporary minds by these fast and devastating victories was immense.... p. 113 But it was to the south that the decisive stroke was mounted....The campaign in the west had lasted just forty-six days and had been decided, effectively, within ten...a decisive attack in which manoeuvre and organisation counted for far more than men and weapons. The speed and decisiveness of the German victors.... pp. 217–218

Cooper German Army (1978)Keith-264 (talk) 17:27, 7 February 2018 (UTC)


 * I made myself clear earlier. All but none of these sources speak of the result: KevinNinja (talk) 18:09, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Please find me RS stating specifically that BoF was not a decisive victory, then we can talk. Be careful not to include any sources that do not speak of the actual result of the battle. If you again bring up sources speaking of economic mobility, rearmament factors, alliances, or otherwise long term impacts of the battle (i.e., factors speaking not of the result), then you will have forfeit your right to this conversation. KevinNinja (talk) 20:50, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
 * You can't dictate other peoples's posts and it isn't scholarly to try to demand that someone else disprove a negative. Keith-264 (talk) 18:39, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Either way, the RS you posted fall under Factotem's agenda. They only further prove that, because of such an overwhelming, unexpected, and decisive victory in France, German military leaders had become so excessively confident in their ability to wage war victoriously, that they underestimated the will of enemy in the following campaigns. KevinNinja (talk) 18:50, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Non sequitur Keith-264 (talk) 20:43, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Not an argument, but a fact. KevinNinja (talk) 23:22, 7 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Let me offer this: WP:MOS needs to be looked at, or rather one of it's sub pages.  A good argument will likely point to WP:MOS as part of a justification as it is the primary guideline that covers these kinds of things.  I've never been in a protracted debate over infoboxes, so I will admit I'm totally clueless as to what the correct answer is here.  The closing admin WILL look at WP:MOS, however, and those arguments will have the greatest weight, as they are based in policy.  It may already have the answer.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 01:34, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
 * You think I haven't looked?
 * Manual_of_Style/Infoboxes is more a guide to implementing infoboxes themselves rather than their contents. It does state, in the section "Purpose of an infobox", that "The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves [its] purpose...", but it looks to me like that refers to the amount of information which is presented in the infobox as a whole, not the amount of information presented in one infobox paramater such as "result".
 * More relevant to this argument is the definition of the infobox's purpose as "to summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article...". I've referenced that purpose in my !vote, though that was based on a different section of the MOS, specifically WP:LEAD, of which the infobox is a part. It's the basis of my position that, without a narrative in the main article directly discussing the nature of the victory, there is nothing to support prefixing the victory with "decisive" in the infobox. Now if that's accepted, it's only a temporary resolution, because it should be easy enough to add that narrative (but I suspect that will be a whole 'nuther edit war).
 * I looked at MOS:CITELEAD, which says "Leads are usually written at a greater level of generality than the body...", which may be applicable here, but "usually" is vague and there's no guidance on how unusual something has to be to qualify as an exception.
 * MOS:CITELEAD does not proscribe simply citing something in the infobox, but I don't think that's valid here because "decisive", in my view, depends on a very narrow scope and ignores the longer term significance of the battle as covered in some sources, per my previous post. As I see it, that's a violation of WP:NPOV.
 * I also looked at relative emphasis in the lead. There do appear to be a lot of sources that describe the battle as decisive, but how much weight do we give to them? What if they only use the word uncritically, as a simple adjective, or how authorative is the source for this subject? For example:
 * Do we give as much weight to Olive & Edwards's image caption that reads "In the wake of the decisive victory, German non commissioned officers play dress up..." as we do to Frieser's discussion of the battle's significance which begins "For the Wehrmacht, the campaign in the west was at once triumph and tragedy because the glitter of victory misled Hitler and his generals into a fatal case of hubris"?
 * Do we give as much weight to "German tanks in 1940 that decisively won the battle against France" when it appears in Folly's The A to Z of U.S. Diplomacy from World War I through World War II, the focus of which is U.S. history, as we do to "In fact, as one now sees it in the perspective of time, Hitler's astonishing triumph over France was to be the direct source of his greatest disaster" when it appears in Horne's To Lose a Battle: France 1940, the focus of which is the Battle of France?
 * Is whatever weight we give to "Although the Battle of France had been decisively lost,..." balanced by the rest of the sentence, which reads "...there was one last action", begging as it does the question, just how decisive was it if there was still a bit of a rumble going on?
 * Like I say. Nuance. The damn infobox can't handle it. Factotem (talk) 23:09, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I think you put that rather well. I think that the infobox works best for short battles in short wars a long time ago, rather than long battles in wars of exhaustion. I also think that when it comes to adjectives and adverbs, the fewer the better. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 01:10, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

The Battle of France was hardly a battle of exhaustion... idiocy KevinNinja (talk) 18:43, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
 * WP:CivilKeith-264 (talk) 19:03, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Spare me my sanity, Keith. And why would 'short battles in short wars a long time ago' change anything? Are recent battles not allowed to use common result descriptions? KevinNinja (talk) 19:13, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Responding to Factotem:


 * Manual_of_Style/Infoboxes is more a guide to implementing infoboxes themselves rather than their contents. It does state, in the section "Purpose of an infobox", that "The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves [its] purpose...", but it looks to me like that refers to the amount of information which is presented in the infobox as a whole, not the amount of information presented in one infobox paramater such as "result".
 * Correct. You might have noticed that the bullet points have been removed without objection. I believe that this has improved the infobox. Dumbbing down the result parameter, however, serves no purpose.
 *  More relevant to this argument is the definition of the infobox's purpose as "to summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article...". I've referenced that purpose in my !vote, though that was based on a different section of the MOS, specifically WP:LEAD, of which the infobox is a part. It's the basis of my position that, without a narrative in the main article directly discussing the nature of the victory, there is nothing to support prefixing the victory with "decisive" in the infobox. Now if that's accepted, it's only a temporary resolution, because it should be easy enough to add that narrative (but I suspect that will be a whole 'nuther edit war).
 * Even Keith agreed we should add a Significance section to the article. This could address the enormous impacts of a decisive victory in France.
 * I looked at MOS:CITELEAD, which says "Leads are usually written at a greater level of generality than the body...", which may be applicable here, but "usually" is vague and there's no guidance on how unusual something has to be to qualify as an exception.
 * Not sure how's this is applicable.
 * MOS:CITELEAD does not proscribe simply citing something in the infobox, but I don't think that's valid here because "decisive", in my view, depends on a very narrow scope and ignores the longer term significance of the battle as covered in some sources, per my previous post. As I see it, that's a violation of WP:NPOV.
 * Absurd argument. The longer term significance doesn't have any influence on the result criterion. The result, only the result, and nothing but the result of the battle matter for the result criterion. The battle was so devastatingly decisive that leaders of the time thought Britain would soon fall and the whole of Europe would be under Nazi rule.
 * ''I also looked at relative emphasis in the lead. There do appear to be a lot of sources that describe the battle as decisive, but how much weight do we give to them? What if they only use the word uncritically, as a simple adjective, or how authorative is the source for this subject? For example:
 * Do we give as much weight to Olive & Edwards's image caption that reads "In the wake of the decisive victory, German non commissioned officers play dress up..." as we do to Frieser's discussion of the battle's significance which begins "For the Wehrmacht, the campaign in the west was at once triumph and tragedy because the glitter of victory misled Hitler and his generals into a fatal case of hubris"?
 * Do we give as much weight to "German tanks in 1940 that decisively won the battle against France" when it appears in Folly's The A to Z of U.S. Diplomacy from World War I through World War II, the focus of which is U.S. history, as we do to "In fact, as one now sees it in the perspective of time, Hitler's astonishing triumph over France was to be the direct source of his greatest disaster" when it appears in Horne's To Lose a Battle: France 1940, the focus of which is the Battle of France?
 * Is whatever weight we give to "Although the Battle of France had been decisively lost,..." balanced by the rest of the sentence, which reads "...there was one last action", begging as it does the question, just how decisive was it if there was still a bit of a rumble going on?''
 * Holy shit. Why the hell would the fact that Britain was the only country in Western Europe not to be conquered by Germany affect how decisive the battle was won? Britain fought on because France was lost in a matter of weeks. The battle was so decisively won that German leaders began to overestimate their wartime zeal, so decisive that the whole of mainland Europe was now in German hands, and so decisive that we now have moronic arguments made by editors on Wikipedia who attempt to change the narrative of history so that their little Britain doesn't appear to be offended, because as we all know, Britain fought on... KevinNinja (talk) 02:04, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
 * By Kevin copied from above "Even Keith agreed we should add a Significance section to the article. This could address the enormous impacts of a decisive victory in France." I think I pointed out that "significance" is a synonym of Analysis in the Aftermath section. A history of the history sub-section might not be a bad idea, as long as it reflected the RS.Keith-264 (talk) 18:55, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
 * The original idea for a Significance section envisioned it separate from Aftermath  and Analysis, though I believe they could be integrated. The idea of a Significance section is that, currently, we aren't detailing enough the long-term impacts of the conflict. As I mentioned earlier in this discussion, key topics could include:
 * A surprise attack in the Ardennes, and how French military doctrine did not account for this
 * Proof that quick combined-arms combat WORKED -- German military doctrine inspires even today's war strategy and changed how war was fought ("inferiority of numbers, inferiority of equipment, inferiority of methods") -- we could even go into detail about how it differed from Schlieffen
 * Allies pushed off the continent, only a naval invasion in 1944 an option
 * Hitler avoided a 2-front war in the first years of the Eastern Front, invasion of Russia only possible because of victory in France
 * Beginning of the Blitz, Churchill's speech -- their finest hour
 * German wartime leaders became too confident in their wartime abilities, impairing them in future operations
 * These are all very important topics and they highlight just how crucial a victory in France was for the war. It would also MASSIVELY improve the quality of the article. This makes me really excited! KevinNinja (talk) 21:41, 12 February 2018 (UTC)


 * A surprise attack in the Ardennes, and how French military doctrine did not account for this
 * Proof that quick combined-arms combat WORKED -- German military doctrine inspires even today's war strategy and changed how war was fought ("inferiority of numbers, inferiority of equipment, inferiority of methods") -- we could even go into detail about how it differed from Schlieffen


 * Myth, Army Group A wasn't supposed to race off after crossing the Meuse, higher commanders lost control of the front line commanders.
 * Allies pushed off the continent, only a naval invasion in 1944 an option


 * Incomplete i.e. a victory but far from decisive, German options narrowed after the Armistice, leaving a premature invasion of the USSR as the only way out.
 * Hitler avoided a 2-front war in the first years of the Eastern Front, invasion of Russia only possible because of victory in France


 * Invasion of USSR a hobson's choice after Britain didn't fold and the US accelerated rearmament and underwrote the British war effort.
 * Beginning of the Blitz, Churchill's speech -- their finest hour


 * The navy and Luftwaffe failed in 1940
 * German wartime leaders became too confident in their wartime abilities, impairing them in future operations


 * No doubt that some were hubristic but Barbarossa was the only Blitzkrieg the Germans fought and it failed.Keith-264 (talk) 23:51, 12 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Myth, Army Group A wasn't supposed to race off after crossing the Meuse, higher commanders lost control of the front line commanders.
 * Does this matter though? An armored concentration in the Ardennes instead of a frontal assault demonstrates how doctrine changed rapidly since the Great War (among certain commanders of course, Manstein recognizing this). Doctrine was rewritten, based off certain elements of success in the Great War, including assault platoons that managed breakthroughs in 1914-1918. French doctrine was far more centralized around part-and-parcel deployment of tanks, rather than large spear-heading concentrations.
 * This is not an either/or situation, is it? Both the devastating effect of racing off and the fact that it was not done under orders can be covered, surely? Factotem (talk) 15:37, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree. But my larger point is that we have a duty to mention how drastically the mechanics of warfare changed from the Great War. The BoF in many ways demonstrated that fast-moving armored concentrations could cut off entire armies; that sheer number of troops were no longer the deciding factor of war, rather tactics which had been developed during the German rearmament are what proved lethal (no matter Guderian's decisions). Just think about it--WW1 saw men in trenches fighting over mere kilometers of land in France. This was now a very different type of war. The greatest surprise was that the German army was able to, in 46 days, achieve what they could not in 4 years. French armies could no longer simply throw men into the battle and expect German troops to halt and dig into their trenches; rather it was simply enough for German tanks to out-maneuver the Maginot Line and have their Combat Engineers blow it out from behind. As I have discussed ad nauseam, I think we ought to mention Guderian's decisions at the Meuse, but they are only part of the larger picture when it comes to the revolution of warfare displayed by German troops against the French. KevinNinja (talk) 03:58, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Incomplete i.e. a victory but far from decisive, German options narrowed after the Armistice, leaving a premature invasion of the USSR as the only way out.
 * Just because the decisive victory in France lessened German options doesn't mean the battle was not won decisively. Though you are partly correct that an invasion of the USSR seemed the only option, especially with the ongoing rearmament.
 * Regardless of how this RfC concludes, some statement about the British position as a result of the battle and how that affected Hitler's plans is, I think, warranted. This might mention the Attack on Mers-el-Kébir, which came less than two weeks after the armistice and which began to reverse defeatist perceptions at home and abroad. I also think a sentence on the plight of the French POWs would illuminate contemporary perceptions about the result. As I understand it, they were, according to the terms of the armistice, to be kept in captivity until the war's end in the belief that that would be imminent, and remained in captivity for the next five years when in turned out not to be. Factotem (talk) 15:37, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I wholeheartedly agree. KevinNinja (talk) 22:37, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
 *  Invasion of USSR a hobson's choice after Britain didn't fold and the US accelerated rearmament and underwrote the British war effort.
 * See above.
 * The navy and Luftwaffe failed in 1940
 * So? You're trying to discredit me in every possible way (for no apparent reason). I only suggested we talk about the Blitz because it began immediately after BoF (it's a good segway). Churchill's speeches also offer a great insight into the events of the time.
 * No doubt that some were hubristic but Barbarossa was the only Blitzkrieg the Germans fought and it failed.Keith-264 (talk) 23:51, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Correct. Further, I think it would be good to mention Hitler's obsession with wartime economics. KevinNinja (talk) 01:32, 13 February 2018 (UTC)


 * You're getting personal again. Keith-264 (talk) 09:46, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I said nothing personal against you in the above edit. It is clear that you are overly sensitive (perhaps as a way of deflecting the points I'm making...why have good counter-points or even address what I said when you can just claim "abuse" over and over). KevinNinja (talk) 19:57, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
 * "You're trying to discredit me in every possible way (for no apparent reason)." Perhaps you overlooked this? Keith-264 (talk) 20:09, 13 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Just a friendly aside regarding Talk protocol: KevinNinja, rather than removing what you wrote, once someone has responded to it already, the talk page conventions call for using strikeout type to renounce something previously added; otherwise it can lead to confusion or worse for someone reading a response to something that is no longer there. In this case, it makes it appear that Keith is complaining about something you never said.  So, the best approach here,is to revert your redaction, and just strike out the text you wish to remove. HTH, Mathglot (talk) 01:30, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Fixed. I believe Keith should respond to my points as I have laid them out. KevinNinja (talk) 22:34, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Simples, the lesson of the campaign in France was that an army organised for low-tempo operations was vulnerable to an army that could achieve a higher tempo; old-fashioned Bewegungskrieg had returned to the European battlefield. You can see that in Frieser and in Tooze, you can see how the failure to end the war in June, left the Germans with nothing but dilemmas. I'm a little unsure of what this discussion is supposed to achieve, it seems that Kev has different sources and is still trying to advocate for decisive by other means [I thought we were musing about the Analysis section].. The effect of the coup in France was short-lived, because it failed to gain Germany access to extra-European commodities, without which, the German economy was being strangled. The trade deal with the USSR was a dead end, making Germany dependent on Russian goodwill in the short-term and inferior in the longer term. This is an indecisive result. Keith-264 (talk) 09:15, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
 * My recent edits and overall goal in this discussion were outside the scope of the RFC. I agree that we can discuss Bewegungskrieg, though I ask you please elaborate on why the economic estrangement of Germany, as you pointed out an effect of the battle, makes the actual military result indecisive, when it was clearly not. Otherwise, I believe both me and Factotem have been careful recently not to lead this discussion down the path of the RFC, because a new Significance section with stuff we all laid out would benefit the article immensely. I therefore encourage you to work to come to agreement on what would be the most important topics to include, as you have previously agreed we should explore our options here. KevinNinja (talk) 04:05, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
 * The victory in France had only a temporary effect on the chronic shortage of energy and commodities constraining the war economy; the incomplete indecisive result determined German strategy, which is why planning for Barbarossa began on 22 June 1940. This is an aspect of the RS which you haven't addressed and if you have tried not to advert to the RFC then perhaps you need to try harder; I also suggest that Factotem can speak for himself. Adding a significance section will only duplicate the analysis section since significance is covered by the term analysis. Yet again, I suggest that you will gain a lot if you look at Tooze. I'd recommend DRZW too but the cost of the books is extortionate. If you must have a header "Significance" is should be a sub-header under "Analysis". I had another read of the Analysis yesterday and gave it a cheeky little ce; it is clearly incomplete so perhaps we could agree to paste it into a sandbox, finish it there and offer it to the rest of the page watchers for their opinion? Most of it is derived from May and is thematic so the other RS need to be included. Keith-264 (talk) 09:38, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

I still don't understand why you would ever consider anything except for the military result of the battle. No one is denying the later economic impacts as a negative for the German war economy, but why would this impact the result? I don't think there is any way you can deny the military result as decisive, because that's all we should be considering for the result criteria. You can go ahead and make an article detailing the economic impacts of the battle, making sure you say its indecisive... KevinNinja (talk) 15:21, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
 * The current "Analysis" section appears to be focussed on pre-battle issues such as political desire for war, intelligence and planning, rather than post-battle analysis of its significance. Given the level of debate over the years, I think a separate "Significance" section is entirely warranted. Not sure it matters whether this is placed as a sub-section of the "Analysis" section or higher up as a sub-section of the "Aftermath" section. Whatever the location, as a narrative it will, unlike the infobox, have room to accommodate all sides of the argument as they appear in the RS, and will not force us into any either/or corners. Factotem (talk) 11:00, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Factotem, I profusely agree. KevinNinja (talk) 14:59, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
 * "Profusely"? :) -- Director  ( talk )  20:14, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

*One Week Later...*

What a four-ring circus... Lemme just briefly express my profound disgust at how much effort on the part of productive editors has been expended to counter blatant nonsense originating with one user :(. Over one word. -- Director  ( talk )  11:40, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Recent edits
It's just occurred that I haven't thanked everyone who participated in the recent debate about the infobox; thanks. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 12:37, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I mean hey, it only took you like five tries, but you finally won. Voting till we get the correct answer worked out! Congrats... KevinNinja (talk) 14:04, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Why does Wikipedia contradict itself?
On this page it says its just "german victory" but on decisive victory page Decisive_victory "battle of france" is included as an example??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SavoyenCRO (talk • contribs) 14:06, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
 * There has been an exhaustive discussion about the use of "decisive" and not every article has caught up. Keith-264 (talk) 14:23, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Fixed. See also Contradicts other. Mathglot (talk) 19:20, 16 March 2018 (UTC)


 * First edit was to ask this question? Decisive is a type of victory.  There is no contradiction.  The infobox isn't designed to be prose or full of adjectives. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 23:37, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

1938 Coup
"May wrote that, when Hitler demanded a plan to invade France in September 1939, the German officer corps thought that it was foolhardy and discussed a coup d'état, only backing down when doubtful of the loyalty of the soldiers to them."

The actor and raconteur Peter Ustinov has an interesting story about this coup plot here: (starting at 14:46)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.55.111 (talk) 16:43, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

GA
Seeing how the article has significantly improved in quality over the past few months, I personally think it's about time BoF gets another look as a GA nominee. What do you guys think? KevinNinja (talk) 21:36, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
 * No, some sections are far too detailed and others too sparse.Keith-264 (talk) 22:34, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Could you please elaborate? KevinNinja (talk) 17:57, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately it would almost certainly fail criterion 5.  —SerialNumber  Paranoia/ cheap shit room 07:21, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I wonder if the conclusion of the RFC would nullify a failure of criterion 5? KevinNinja (talk) 17:55, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
 * As discussed before, the battle sections are far too big; most of the detail should be in the battle articles and only a paragraph or two left here.Keith-264 (talk) 20:33, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Very well. Which sections are too short? As far as I can tell, the Background section needs some more detail... KevinNinja (talk) 04:15, 26 March 2018 (UTC)