Talk:Battle of Mont Sorrel

Dates of the battle
I think we've got the dates wrong. the 12 days listed don't match the dates that I actually found on the memorial itself when I was there in July (I have the pictures to prove it, although I haven't uploaded them to my gallery). I'll double-check this, but I'm pretty sure that the battle ended August 2nd.

--Cam (complain and discuss here) 06:38, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh yeah, and this article will be undergoing a serious revamp over the next little while.

The monument intends to commemorate not only St. Eloi and Mount Sorrel but it’s entire period in the Salient during the spring and summer on 1916. All of the sources I have read, including battalion diaries, indicate the battle starting with the German attack on June 2 and ending either the June 13 or 14. Labattblueboy (talk) 19:33, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Re-write
I recently completed a re-write and full citation of the article. I am looking for a couple set of eyes to look over the work and offer constructive criticism before moving it on to GAN.--Labattblueboy (talk) 13:05, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Additions
Added a casualties section using data from the OH which gives a different figure for German losses to Godefroy, not sure why. Keith-264 (talk) 11:25, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Altered dates according to James A Record... 1924 [1990] but happy to defer to the COH if it's different. Keith-264 (talk) 16:11, 3 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Nicholson (p. 147) has the dates as 2-13, that's fine. As to my preferred version of the text, Nicholson (p. 148) also has "At the least such an advance might, as the Germans themselves stated, "fetter as strong a force as possible to the Ypres Salient", and thus reduce the number available for a British offensive elsewhere." As such, my reasons aren't OR :). Going from "trying to reduce the number available for a British offensive" to "an effort to pull British resources from the observed build-up on the Somme" wouldn't be OR either, more of a paraphrase to avoid copying the source. Also, "pull" has a more forceful tone than simply "divert", which makes the former more stylistically pleasing and which better conveys the violence of the whole thing (this is modern war, after all). In the end, it's just a matter of style but I prefer what was already in the article. Also, there is no criteria anywhere for being "concise" - I think the furthest WP policy goes is to say that we should avoid being verbose, which wasn't the case so both versions are fine. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 16:55, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Sophistry.Keith-264 (talk) 18:25, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Why? Paraphrasing the source is ok and even required - nothing fallacious there. Neither of the versions is verbose, so that's fine as well. As to "pull" being more violent than "divert", as I said, that is merely a stylistic change and if you disagree with my reasons (and whatever were the reasons of the one who wrote the disputed text fragment in the first place), you can state why and not just discard it with a one-liner. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 18:54, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Come off it, you're splitting hairs about meaning; do you have a source, preferably German that describes the purpose of the German attack? The orders of the XIII Corps commander Fr Oskar von Watter were "to wrest from the enemy his last dominating observation posts over considerable areas immediately behind the chief fighting ground". OH 1916 I, p. 243 (1932 [1993]). I had a look through Foley, R. T. (2007) [2005]. German Strategy and the Path to Verdun: Erich von Falkenhayn and the Development of Attrition, 1870–1916 but found nothing about the attack. Sheldon 2017 devotes considerable space to Falkenhayn's "complacency" about the 2nd Army on the Somme and his interest in maintaining the strength of the 6th Army. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 19:27, 3 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Seems quite pedantic to debate "pull" vs. "divert" but I have to agree with Keith-264. I've seen no quality indication of their being any belief the battle would pull resources from the Somme build-up. 198.84.253.202 if you'd like to research this further, I don't remember Sheldon making any mention in German Army on the Somme, 1914-1916 but I could be mistaken. Likewise, Nicholson is citing Die 27. Infanterie-Division im Weltkrieg 1914-18 (The 27th Infantry Division in the World War 1914-18)[1925], page 39 and maybe you'd find something further there. Without however additional sourcing I believe divert is perfectly fine.--Labattblueboy (talk) 03:15, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

I've had a look at my sources and the German minor operations at the start of the year are ascribed to the offensive at Verdun as a means to camouflage the site of the main offensive. OH 1916 I has quite a section on Mont Sorrel but restricts itself to local reasons for attacking and the dispute between the corps commander the divisional commander over whether the captured ground would be tenable, a question that the Canadians solved for them. Foley refers to the local efforts up to the beginning of the Verdun offensive but is silent thereafter. Keith-264 (talk) 09:24, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

More detail
Added a prelude with the German preparations and moved the Canadian preparations into it. The commemoration section has only one cite though. Keith-264 (talk) 10:52, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Tinkered with headers, not really sure though. Keith-264 (talk) 13:53, 30 July 2023 (UTC)