Talk:Battle of Verrières Ridge

Editing
I'm sorry if this page isn't up to snuff. I'm currently doing major editing on it, and this often requires a lot of time, much of which I don't have at the moment. Check later that day if it isn't fully edited, I should have managed to correct it by then.

Climie.ca 16:09, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Assessment
Needs more citations! :-) Kirill Lokshin 16:28, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

pictures
Some of you may be wondering why there are no images on this article. To put it simply, it is unlikely that any photographers went into the Battle of Verrierres Ridge, since the casualties were so high. Therefore, I have been unable to find any real images associated with the battle. I'm thinking of creating my own map on google-earth to illustrate the attack plan. I'm also checking The Military Museums archives within the next few days. If anyone manages to find any relevant images associated with this battle, that would be great.!!

Cam 18:58, 5 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Cam (and others) some stuff to check for info:


 * 1) This book.
 * 2) This book.
 * 3) This NFB film.
 * 4) This thesis.
 * 5) Part 3 of this video series.
 * 6) And there's a pretty good map here.
 * Don't know if any of that helps. I'll look around for some pics. (Oh, and "Verrières is apparently spelled with only a single "r" at the end.) Esseh 20:33, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to add stuff to this page. Thanks a million. I'm going to be gone for the next five days, so you should probably add it yourself. Cam 22:04, 6 May 2007 (UTC)


 * THERE we go. I've added some pics of equipment and people, such as Simonds and the "Moaning Minni" Rocket Gun.  That MIGHT help, I don't know.

Cam 03:15, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

More editing, and a caution...
Climie and all. Carom has moved this to a correctly-spelled page (accent and all!) I have just gone through it and corrected the spelling of "Verrières", and de-capitalised "Ridge", where necessary. Also, I have added "citation needed" tags where I thought appropriate.

Re: the latter, I would caution Cam (and us all) aginst using a CBC/History television source as the main ref. We really risk falling into the (stereo)-typical Canadian flaw of demonising those who should be the biggest heroes (Guy Simmonds springs to mind). Remember always that Arthur Currie, arguably the most effective Allied commander of WW I (along with John Monash), was demonised in Canada in the years following that war. Balance is needed. Why did Simmonds persist? Did he really see the ULTRA messages, or were they just delivered to his HQ? There's lots of this stuff that really needs primary documents to figure out - some of which are available on-line. Was Simmonds really that callous, or was this just one of the unfortunate results of the fog of war? Just my thoughts. Esseh 06:16, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks for the advise. I've begun adding citations.  The biggest problem for me is that I read so much that I often forget where EXACTLY I got the info from.  Tomorrow (after I've slept until noon) I'll reread a bunch of stuff, and then begin adding more citations. Also, a huge reason that the Black Watch was massacred on July 25 was just due to a total and absolute breakdown of any communication (the blackwatch radio was knocked out very VERY early in the battle).  I'll change that quickly (as I mentioned, not right away, since I'm exhausted right now).  Thanks again for the advise.  Oh, and thanks to Carom for changing the link.  I've just seen it spelled both ways before.

Cam 04:12, 12 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi Cam, and welcome back. No rush on the refs, and I know what you mean about reading stuff and forgetting where you saw it. Would a photo of Simonds with Monty just before the battle help? I ran across one. I'll upload it, and post it here. Other than that, I've had no luck finding photos of the battle itself, although there obviously were combat photographers in the area at the time. Makes you wonder... Esseh 23:57, 12 May 2007 (UTC)


 * OK, found it.It was the date that struck me. Just how much pressure was Simonds under? Anyway, use it if you like, or not. Esseh 00:20, 13 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks! As you may have noticed, I'm not great at wikimarkup.  If possible, could you allign that to the right side and add the "info" underneath?

Thanks Cam 05:08, 13 May 2007 (UTC)


 * No prob. I'll do it now. Esseh 16:40, 13 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Ok, I'm gradually getting rid of the unsourced statements (by citing them). I'll continue to do so for the next few days.

Cam 15:27, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

GA
to whomever eventually reviews this for GA, I'm HOPING that this is good enough for the rating of GA. If it isn't, please leave notes on what needs to be done, and I'll immediately do so. Then, re-review it and determine if the necessary changes have been made. Cam 17:46, 10 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Re the GA nom on the GAC page, I'm not really a GA reviewer so this is more a sort of peer review, but I've skimmed through the article and fixed a few minor niggles (mainly refs, which should come after the end of a sentence immediately following the full stop, the order of the See also/References/Links sections and the section heading levels).
 * I have also added citation needed templates to a few statements that should really be backed up (eg "It is unknown if he ever personally received the transcripts.", "The 25th of July marked the costliest single day for a single Canadian battalion since the Dieppe Raid of 1942.") The last paragraph ("It is widely believed, by many members of the history community, that Simonds was overly-careless with the lives of his soldiers. However, given the amount of pressure that all allied commanders, especially Bradley and Simonds, were under to break out from Normandy, it is likely that Simonds had little choice in the decision he made.") would definitely benefit from a bit of rewording; as it stands it is quoting unreferenced opinions. Could I suggest something like:
 * Some military historians, such as X and Y, have taken the view that Simonds was overly-careless with the lives of his soldiers. However Z argues that, given the amount of pressure that all allied commanders, especially Bradley and Simonds, were under to break out from Normandy, it is likely that Simonds had little choice in the decision he made.
 * Hope this helps. EyeSereneTALK 09:08, 20 June 2007 (UTC)


 * (addendum to the above): I have wikified the references as far as possible using the template guidelines on Citing sources. I was unable to provide all the info for the templates, but I think there's enough there to keep it encyclopedic ;)
 * For the Bercuson book, I got the info off Amazon for a later edition; it looks like the one originally referenced is no longer in print.-That's wierd, I've got the 1995 version, I wasn't aware that it had been republished. Thanks for letting me knowCam 21:55, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not entirely happy with the suitablility of the "Maple Leaf Up" source (the web page is an ex-soldier's personal account complete with opinion and commentary rather than eg an unbiased account from a respected historian) - I don't know if this can be sourced elsewhere?
 * Re "The Valour and the Horror": the only reference I could find to this on IMDB was a CBC (not National Film Board of Canada) production - I assume this should be the one referred to as a reference. I've gone ahead and substituted it; I hope this is OK. As for the film itself, according to comments on the IMBD site describing it as poorly researched and rather POV, it might be a bit iffy as a source (to be honest I'd be wary of films/TV documentaries as a source anyway)
 * One additional point I didn't notice first time around: in the infobox it has Verrier Ridge as 8 miles south of Caen, but in the intro paragraph it has 8 kilometres...?
 * Regards, EyeSereneTALK 10:34, 20 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Ok, I'll get to work on those changes. By the way, the "maple leaf up" source isn't used for any information other than a casualty statistic.  I decided NOT to use it for anything else BECAUSE it was biased.  It did, however, have casualty figures for both the South Sasks and Essex Scottish.  As for History Television, I've tried to be careful about how I worded the stuff I took from there, I'll look it over again later.

Thanks for the advice Cam 18:04, 20 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Fair enough, although the MLU source might be more useful as a secondary confirmation of casualty figures given somewhere more authoritative. If you do decide to use the History Television source, the citation template I used provides for specifying the time into the programme that the points you are citing were mentioned (in HOURS:MINUTES:SECONDS). Going this far is entirely your choice of course - GA status is less rigourous than A-class or FA, so I'm guessing a GA reviewer would not object to this too much ;) You've done well with this interesting article so far; I find that Normandy tends to attract a lot of effort, and the post-Falaise operations can be overlooked slightly. Keep up the good work! EyeSereneTALK 19:41, 20 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for all your help. I've almost got this sucker up to GA Class status.  Once I'm done the BCAD Drive, I'll do a bit more rigurous editing, reformat the references and footnotes, and then it should be ready.

Failed GA
I have failed this article as GA on a few points, although since I have tried to be complete in my criticism of the article you may get the impression that it is further off GA status than it actually is. Inf act, with a little more work I think it will probably be successful if you address a number of features and renominate it after the allowed time. The grounds I failed its nomination on are insufficient use of images, and failures on the grounds of breadth of coverage and citations. I will explain each of these in detail below:
 * The use of images is not sufficient, in my opinion - there is no either map of or photograph of the ridge, which seems to be essential in such an article, surely, and many of the images used are really only consequential or marginal to the article - eg the photo of German rocket launcher is no more relevant to this article than to any article on the battle pf normandy. Photos of more relevance here would surely be of the ridge, of any associated war graves, a portrait of the Simonds, or all of the above. I've managed to find a variety of images and diagrams within the original documents that I used for a variety of my citations, particularly the Roman Jarymowycz one. I will continue to work on this over the next little while
 * I always think you can't go too obvious in an article intro - you never know who is reading or how familiar they are with the topic. I would therefore change the intro sentence to "The Battle of Verrières Ridge was a series of engagements fought as pasrt of the Battle for Normandy during the Second World War. The main combatants were the 2nd Canadian Infantry Division and elements of the German 12th and 9th SS Panzer Divisions from July 19 - July 25, 1944" Done
 * Your citations and footnotes are interspersed, you should consider alternative notation that allows you to so separate footnote/commentary from citations of texts. I think at this moment this would only enhance my next point though... Or....I could simply cut the footnotes altogether and include the information from them in the actual article
 * Insufficient citations - the article is missing cites for several critical statements and the density of citations is low Has undergone serious revamping
 * Poor citation format - no page numbers for many of the cites provided from published works.
 * I think the "Impact/Effect" section needs completely reworking - there is an over-emphasis on a modern-day documentary and too little on contemporary reaction to the loss. Was it reported widely at the time, did it have impact on Canadian morale, did it set back their efforts to break out of Caen etc? ie, more analysis as well as just straightforward reporting of the facts. A modern documentary on the battle can be used as a source of information but is not part of the story itself.

Good luck with taking the article forward and with eventual renomination. Many thanks - PocklingtonDan (talk) 12:48, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

GA on hold
I have now reviewed this article under the six Good article criteria, and have commented in detail on each criterion below:

1 Well written  FAIL PASS

The prose is generally good, and the article gives a clear description of both the action and its consequences. As a general observation the article would benefit from a light copyedit to improve flow in some places, where consecutive sentences are disjointed and transitions are rather abrupt.

Specific issues are:
 * Lead: While this does broadly cover the substance of the article (per WP:LEAD), I think it could be expanded to give a little more detail. ✅
 * Inline citations: these need to follow end-of-sentence punctuation with no spacing (I spotted a couple of problematic cites, which I fixed, but another check through wouldn't hurt!) ✅
 * I also reformatted the websites to fit the Cite Web Template, and I'm in the process of doing another check on the entire article (I'm on Verrieres & Spring at the moment). On that subject, by "end of sentence punctuation", do you mean that the cites can't go after commas within the sentence?  If that's the case, I'm slightly concerned, as I've got several sentences with upwards of 3 or 4 cites within the sentence, spread out between the comma and the period.  I was under the impression that it was "any punctuation such as commas, semi-colans, or periods" Cheers! Cam (Chat) 21:24, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Apologies again - I should have been more specific. Mid-sentence cites are OK, though to be discouraged if possible for readability reasons. I don't have any issue with yours though - it's great to see such a well-cited article ;) EyeSerene talk 22:00, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Layout: the standard format is to have the last four sections in the order: See also; Notes; References; External links (see WP:LAYOUT). ✅
 * "See also": normally, if another article is wikilinked from within the text (eg Operation Spring), it should not be repeated in the "See also" section. Because the article is fairly well-wikilinked and comprehensive, this may mean that the "See also" section ends up with no content and becomes redundant, but this is not a problem - articles don't necessarily need to have this section. ✅
 * Headings: these should not normally contain wikilinks ("July 25 and the Black Watch") per WP:MOS. Instead, link to the first occurrence of the phrase in the article text. ✅
 * Quotations: while quotation looks quite nice and is permitted by WP:MOSQUOTE, because of the number of images in the article these are cluttering the appearance of the page. It may be best for the look of the article to work them into the prose of their respective sections, but I'll leave this up to you. It's not a GA-blocker ;) ✅
 * References: We recommend using the templates on WP:CITET to format references. Some are formatted this way, but some aren't. Note that, like my previous comment, this is only a recommendation, and won't affect this GA assessment.
 * Dates: these should never use ordinal suffixes (4th, 1st etc), and should not contain commas between month and year (see WP:MOSDATE). Full dates should be formatted as on MOS:SYL, which will allow them to be displayed according to how a user has set their preferences - one example of acceptable formatting would be May 15 2005 . ✅
 * Images: it's great to see such a well-illustrated article (although there may have been some misperception in your previous GA review; images are not in fact required at GA, though they generally are at FA). However, related to my previous comment, the layout of the images is affecting the readability of the text in places. The Nebewerfer image is only marginally relevant - why have that, for example, and not a Tiger tank or '88' or any of the other weapons mentioned? I think perhaps cutting this image, and spreading the rest out over the article, might improve the page layout (and solve the quotes issue above if you decide to keep them as they are). However, before acting on this, see my comments under #6 below. ✅

2 Factual accuracy PASS

The article is very well cited and researched, and from a good variety of sources. Nice job on this criterion!
 * Thank-you! I figure overkill on the citation was better than failing the category again. Cheers! Cam (Chat) 21:24, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

3 Coverage PASS

Coverage is broad (if not completely comprehensive), in line with this criterion. No issues here.
 * Thanks! I've got a few formatting & expansion things I plan to do after this process so that it's ready for an A-Class nomination (such as expanding the background, and discussing the actual casualties in more detail). Cheers! Cam (Chat) 21:24, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

4 Neutrality PASS

The article is written neutrally and contains no evidence of bias or advocacy.
 * That's good news, since I heard otherwise from the guy who failed it last time. Cheers! Cam (Chat) 21:24, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

5 Stability PASS

There is no evidence of current large-scale editing or recent edit-warring.

6 Images  FAIL PASS

I have some serious concerns about the copyright status of some of the images used in the article:
 * Maps: these appear to have been scanned from books, and scanning an image does not transfer the copyright ownership to the scanner. I strongly suspect the map scans are, in fact, still copyrighted to their authors - there is not enough information on their pages to prove they have been released by the original copyright holders into the public domain (see WP:IUP). We cannot justifiably claim "fair use" on a map, because unlike a photo for example, they are easy enough to re-create (see WP:NFC). I would strongly suggest creating your own versions of the maps in an image-editing package such as Photoshop (or GIMP if you want a free alternative). We must still avoid a direct copy (because this is a "derivative work" under copyright law, and comes under the same restrictions as the original), and the source image will need to be cited. I may be able to help out here if you're not happy about creating your own maps. Alternatively, you can leave a request at WikiProject Maps (though it may not be answered quickly!). ✅ (With the proviso that the second map image will be replaced with a self-made one very shortly!) EyeSerene talk 19:14, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The photographs "Verrieres-under-fire.jpg" and "Nebelwerfer-attacking.jpg" lack adequate licensing information. I suspect "Verrieres-under-fire.jpg" may suffer from the same issues as the maps, though it should be possible to find an alternative for this (and if we remove "Nebelwerfer-attacking.jpg" per my earlier comments, that solves this problem too). ✅

As a result of the above concerns I have placed the article on hold. This gives editors up to a week to address the issues raised (although if constructive work is still underway, the hold period may be extended). I will regularly check back here to mark off those issues that have been satisfactorily resolved and to address any questions and comments you may have.

Please feel free to contact me directly if you have any feedback or believe the article is ready for a re-review. All the best, EyeSerene talk 15:01, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

In Rebuttal
1: On the subject of "well-written"
 * I have already scrapped the "see also" section
 * I have had three different people tell me three different layouts for the "see also, refs, notes" bit, and this has been changed by several people. Although if you want me to change it back to "notes, refs", I can easily do so.
 * Ah, the joys of Wikipedia! If you don't mind changing them per my comment, that would be great. There is only one recommended format for these (see WP:LAY) - if you check other MilHist GAs, you'll find most of them follow this format. However, other than the strong preference for external links to be last, like many other things it is only a guideline. If you have good reasons for ordering them differently, I won't argue ;) EyeSerene talk 10:18, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I have already shifted them back to the format you suggested. Cheers! Cam (Chat) 21:24, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I have also already fixed the wikilinks bit.
 * I've noticed that the major quotation in the July 25th section tends to cause too much clumping. I have already removed it.
 * The cite format that you used to wikify the refs during your peer-review I find only works if you aren't citing page numbers. I was told, during the failed GA, that I needed to include page numbers, and I found that the template didn't allow me to do so in an efficient manner.
 * Apologies - I should have been clearer. I was referring to the references in the "References" section, not the inline cites. As you've changed to using Harvard-style referencing (which I agree is better), your inline cites could be formatted using harvnb (surrounded by ref tags per usual). As I said above though, the article is well referenced, and this is just a 'nice to have', not a GA stumbling block. It won't fail if this isn't addressed ;) One thing I did notice though was the presence of a couple of web-cites in your Footnotes. These really should use citeweb, or at least have the retrieval dates in there somewhere.  EyeSerene talk 10:18, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm in the process of expanding the lead, so I'll address that as quickly as possible.

2: On the subject of "maps":
 * The Verrieres under fire, although originally scanned from the Roman Jarymowycz "counterattacks", I found another version of it on the Canadian Archives Site. Would it work if I simply changed the information to reflect the newer "version" of it that I found in the archives?
 * As long as it's the same photo, that should be fine. If the version in the archives is better quality, it may even be a good idea to upload that instead. EyeSerene talk 10:18, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


 * As you said, images aren't mandatory. However, I find that it helps to have them, as that misconception, I've found, is common among some of the newer GA reviewers.  I will have to check the copyright on the Roman Jarymowycz article (the counterattacks one) in order to assess whether I should keep them or scrap them entirely.  If I have the time, I'll try to recreate a version of the map on my laptop, then re-upload them.
 * However, if I don't have the time to do so, and I discover that the copyright doesn't allow me to use it, would it hurt the GA nomination if I got rid of the maps altogether? If I feel the need to keep a recreated version, but lack the time to do so, I'll let you know. (if you could help with that that'd be great!)
 * Don't worry too much about time - as long as there's constructive work in progress, I won't fail the article. I think one has to apply common sense with GA holds, and as you mentioned we are working across an 8-hour time difference! If you feel under pressure, getting rid of the maps would be one solution, although it would be a shame as they do add a lot to the article. Doing that won't affect this assessment though. And yes, just drop me a note if you need a hand. EyeSerene talk 10:18, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your review. I'm glad to see that the issues needing to be addressed are relatively easy to solve (at least it's nothing major like Criterion 2, 3, or 4, as it was last time).  Cheers! Cam (Chat) 22:53, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Ok, I just checked the copyright for Canadian Archival Images. All Images in the National Archives of Canada (including Verrieres Under Fire & the Nebelwerfer) taken before 1949 are considered to be Public Domain.  There's that one taken care of, and now I just need to determine the maps and I should be fine. Cheers! Cam (Chat) 23:37, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * That's great! EyeSerene talk 10:18, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Further reviewer comments
You're doing a great job on this so far! To help out, I've swept the article for MoS issues, and conducted a light copyedit as I was going. There's now a few redlinks - that's fine for GA, and hopefully they'll eventually turn blue as the articles are created. If you want to remove them though, no problem ;)

I've also left a few comments in the markup on various things (eg there's an incomplete sentence in Verrières and Operation Spring). I moved a few cites where I felt they interfered with the readability of the text - as we discussed above, mid-sentence cites are not prohibited, but they can have this effect sometimes. It's accepted that the order of end-of-sentence cites (where there's more than one) reflect the order of the assertions made in that sentence, so this is pretty standard practice.

A couple of points for you to check: All the best, and keep up the good work! EyeSerene talk 10:52, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure whether or not you use "armor" or "armour" in Canada. Both styles were present, so I changed these to "armour" for consistency. The article deals with a largely Canadian subject though, so should follow Canadian spelling. You may need to change them back?
 * You might like to check the spelling of "Verrières" in the article to make sure it's consistent (spelt as in my quotes). I caught some, but there may be more.


 * Damn, that's a GOOD copyedit. Thanks for that.  I think the prose of the entire article significantly benefited from your improvements (it almost seems like you do this GA & Copyedit thing lots.  Oh, wait, that's because you do ;).

Issues on the images shall be resolved after Monday, as I have virtually nothing happening for the rest of the week after then, so I'll have time to recreate at least one of the maps on Tuesday & Wednesday. Cheers! Cam (Chat) 01:54, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Anyways, I've been going back through the article, and I've found a few more naming conventions of Verrières that I missed, which is odd, because I did a lot of the naming convention copyediting before you reviewed this. Still, there's a few that are always missed.
 * I'm now in the process of changing the cite template to match the ones that are formatted using the correct template.


 * You're very kind, but I really didn't do that much! I think the maps are the last remaining major issue, so once that's sorted (pending a final check-through), we'll be there. All the best, EyeSerene talk 11:41, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Photos
Ok, I managed to use that awesome GIMP photo-converter & editor that you recommended to modify, tweak, & redo the Geography of Verrieres. I know. It won't be on the Featured Picture List. But still, better than nothing. I shall have the Operation Spring one by tomorrow at 10:00PM (North American Mountain Time, mind you). Cheers! Cam (Chat) 04:00, 16 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Looks pretty good - nice to see a splash of colour! I should also have mentioned Inkscape (another open-source package), which is actually better for doing some map-type graphics like icons and labels (and can save files in svg format, which GIMP can't). We're making progress!  EyeSerene talk 14:27, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I've gotten a bit busy with some other wikipedia projects (Notably Operation Totalize & Second Battle of Passchendale. I've also decided that my map-editing skills are abysmal.  If you have any time (which I understand if you don't) could you take a crack at the other one?  I appreciate all of your help in this GA Review Process. Cheers! Cam (Chat) 06:06, 17 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, that's fine. I'll have a fair amount of spare time coming up next week, though restricted internet access, so it'll give me something to do ;) EyeSerene talk 07:47, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks. I think we should be good after that.  In the meantime, I'm going to continue to expand the lead a bit. Cheers! Cam (Chat) 22:52, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

GA pass
Following my earlier review, and with all issues now addressed (save the final map which will be uploaded shortly!), I am satisfied that this article meets the good article criteria and have passed it as a good article. It has been listed as such at WP:GA, and the various templates above have been updated to reflect this pass.

Congratulations, and well done! EyeSerene talk 19:18, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank-you!! You have no idea how happy I am that this is finally GA.  This is almost 13 months in the making.  Thanks for all your help with the assessments! Cheers! Cam (Chat) 06:08, 30 April 2008 (UTC)


 * You're welcome, and I'm glad your hard work has paid off! FA next...? ;) EyeSerene talk 21:20, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm going for A-Class first, then heading for the Big-FA. I might try and recruit a few of you guys from "The Team" once I've got it up to A for a few final assistances. Cheers! Cam (Chat) 05:45, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Casualties
I'm sure it's just stupid oversight on my part, but this suggests ~300 casualties, yet we say 2600...that's a hell of a discrepency, what am I missing? Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead) 22:49, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah. Here's where the discrepancy comes from (and you're right, that is a big discrepancy).  Firstly, those are the "killed" statistics for Operation Atlantic, whereas the total casualty rate for that operation was 1100-1350, keeping in mind that a majority of the casualties were those who were wounded.  If we add the frequently used figure of 1,500 casualties (500 killed, 1000 wounded or captured) for Operation Spring, then that adds up to somewhere between 2,600 and 2,900.  I've got plans to add a section on casualties after the GA review is done, so as to clear up that confusion.  Don't worry, it's not a stupid oversight, it's a legit concern. Cheers! Cam (Chat) 22:55, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * When it comes to casualty statistics, everyone's gonna say something different. I just find that you have to read the wording quite carefully in the source, and simply go with whichever number is more frequently used.  I'm running into difficulty with that for the Operation Atlantic Statistics.  Some of my sources say 1100 casualties, others say 1,349 casualties, so I'm trying to find a few more sources that say one or the other. Cheers! Cam (Chat) 23:21, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Aha, that was a big part of the problem, we should definitely separate "fatalities" from "wounded" in the statistics if we're able to find the separate numbers :) Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead) 03:22, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, I've got approximations (it comes out to about 800 dead, anywhere from 1800-2000 wounded and/or captured), which I can add in once the GA Process is done. It will be almost impossible to find any real number for the Spring Casualties.  I have yet to find a source where they didn't round it to 500 killed, 1,000 wounded or captured.  As mentioned, I'm planning to add in a big section in Aftermath Discussing that after the GA is finished. Cheers! Cam (Chat) 05:17, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Just to clear it up for anyone else who looks at it, you may want to state "2600+ killed, wounded or captured". Just an observation.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:47, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a good idea. i'll do that right away. Cheers! Cam (Chat) 02:06, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Survey
WP:Good article usage is a survey of the language and style of Wikipedia editors in articles being reviewed for Good article nomination. It will help make the experience of writing Good Articles as non-threatening and satisfying as possible if all the participating editors would take a moment to answer a few questions for us, in this section please. The survey will end on April 30.

Personally, I've been fortunate enough to be working with a GA reviewer with whom i've worked with previously. I find that if the article receives a "quick fail", then you really don't get a lot of feedback from the reviewer. However, if the GA is placed "On hold", then the editor is sort of required to give you a second opinion, so as to justify the "On Hold". as you can probably see if you scroll through the "on hold", Eyeserene & I have been conversing back and forth almost continuously, resolving issues & bandying ideas & questions back and forth. I find it all depends upon the reviewer. During the first GA Review this article went under, I would have loved more feedback. During this one, I think we sort of "overkilled" on feedback. If you get an editor who REALLY knows MoS, it's all good.Cheers! Cam (Chat) 04:54, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Would you like any additional feedback on the writing style in this article?

Outside of Wikipedia, I do a lot of essay & letter writing (as in the highly opinionated letters you see appearing in your newspaper at the back of Section A). I've been published (as of March 5) 14 times (12 letters, 2 essays).Cheers! Cam (Chat) 04:54, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * If you write a lot outside of Wikipedia, what kind of writing do you do?

My writing style outside of Wikipedia isn't influenced by wikipedia. Within Wikipedia, I base my writing style off of that of the editors from the Military History Project. I find that we tend to come up with some damn good articles (speaking from a slightly biased viewpoint). When I have to write stuff for academics (school and such), I base me stuff off of the layout & style of the Military History Wikiproject Articles.Cheers! Cam (Chat) 04:54, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Is your writing style influenced by any particular WikiProject or other group on Wikipedia?

At any point during this review, let us know if we recommend any edits, including markup, punctuation and language, that you feel don't fit with your writing style. Thanks for your time. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 03:52, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Pre-FAC copy-edit

 * Updating page numbers for footnotes

I haven't done this yet but here are links to the original articles, showing the original page references:
 * Jarymowycz (1993) pp 75-89
 * Copp (1992) pp 45–63
 * Simonds (1992) pp. 65–68

It should just be a matter of adding the existing page numbers to the actual magazine page numbers, ie Jarymowycz (1993), p. 4. becomes Jarymowycz (1993), p. 78 and Copp (1992), p. 3. becomes Copp (1992) p. 47 etc. -- R OGER D AVIES  talk 13:48, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks for all of your help. I'll get to work on that stuff ASAP. Cheers! Cam (Chat) 18:07, 17 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I've done then now (and Simonds). -- R OGER D AVIES  talk 08:21, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Referance
Number 26: BBC: People's War

Is this citation this article: http://www.bbc.co.uk/ww2peopleswar/stories/99/a2805699.shtml

--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:53, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Intro question
and took place from July 19 – July 25, 1944, being part of both Operation Atlantic (July 18 – 21) and Operation Spring (July 25 – 27).

To me this doesnt make sence. Was taking this ridgeline a key objective of both operations or was it just part of Atlantic and overran?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:42, 11 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Cam can probably answer this better than I, but it was both (in a sense). Originally part of Atlantic, it was only marginally successful, so a second attempt was planned as part of Spring. It's all there in the article ;) EyeSerene talk 18:51, 11 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I should have probably read the article - i just glanced the intro when getting the spelling of the ridge for another article earlier.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 19:02, 11 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Yeah, Eyeserene's right. Incidentally, I'll assume that would be Goodwood that you copied it for....we're actually making some headway in citing that article. Cheers! Cam (Chat) 22:12, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Question on one sentence
I am not sure what guns means in this sentence : Taking advantage of this respite, I SS Panzer Corps reinforced the ridge with an additional four battalions, 480 tanks, and 500 guns. Does it mean artillery, mortar, machine guns, rifles ? Thanks in advance. Poppy (talk) 11:17, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Generally in a military context, 'gun' is taken to mean a large-calibre weapon, so in this case it refers to artillery and anti-tank guns rather than machine guns and rifles (although just to confuse things further, sometimes machine guns are given this label too). Mortars operate differently, so they would never be classified as guns, and neither would, for example, rocket artillery, which the Germans also had plenty of. It's a sometimes confusing convention to those unfamiliar with military terminology (a bit like when does one call a 'boat' a 'ship', and vice versa). Hope this helps ;) EyeSerene talk 11:31, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It does :). Thanks. Poppy (talk) 11:59, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not entirely sure whether rocket-artillery was counted among this, although I will definitely check the sources. Cam (Chat) 01:22, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Good point - I think we had this conversation somewhere before :P EyeSerene talk 07:39, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Tactics
"Strict German adherence to defensive doctrine, as well as strong and effective counterattacks by Panzer formations, resulted in heavy Allied casualties for little strategic gain."

Shouldn't this read 'tactical' rather than 'strategic'? Keith-264 (talk) 09:49, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * No, because there was absolutely no tactical gain. The objectives of the attacks were strategic, with the hope of breaking through German defenses.  The adherence to defensive doctrine prevented these breakthroughs.  The tactical gain was irrelevant. Cam (Chat) 07:12, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I fear a somewhat one-eyed amswer Climie. What were the costs of the operation to the participants? Intentions are important but so are results. Is it not the case that containing Allied attacks forced the Germans into engagements which could have only one consequence - defeat by attrition? 'Defensive doctrine' needs to be compared with Allied 'offensive doctrine' ('Doctrine' = 'theory for slow learners'. [;-). Who hoped to force a breakthrough? Did Monty endorse it or did he tolerate it as part of his strategy? What was the cost to the Germans of the concentration of their most powerful units against the Anglo-Canadians, which such attacks forced on the Germans? This is not to say that the attack was all that well organised or conducted but to dismiss its effect because of a small capture of ground instead of a breakthrough needs context. How many German attacks did better in Normandy? Since military operations are an agglomeration of tactical encounters which have tactical, operational and strategic effects I would suggest that Verrieres was a modest and somewhat disappointing contribution to the attrition of the best of the German army in the West that had already gone a long way towards crippling it. Keith-264 (talk) 09:10, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Hope you don't mind me butting in, but it's an interesting point of debate. I think Montgomery hopelessly muddied the waters with his habit of redefining the objectives of his offensives when they didn't meet their initially-stated objectives, and telling different things to different people. I'm not convinced that his apparent strategy (of drawing the bulk of the German forces onto the British and Canadians to wear them down) was deliberately planned, or if that was just the way things worked out. It obviously did work, hence Bradley's eventual 'walk' out, but I think for Monty to claim after the campaign that he never intended to do more than that was disingenuous. If he could have broken out, he would, and all his offensives were sold to Churchill on that basis. EyeSerene talk 13:40, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Its not just Monty who plays this line however, am reading 8 Corps official history released just after the war and they also state such a thing. Even Bradley in his own memoirs stated this was the official poilcy undertaken, the Canadian campaign official history also states this position.  Ellis, the British Campaign historian, notes that Monty intended that Dempsey's army was to advance south of Caen and then achieve this however that failed and it would appear they then just went along with the general concept just in a different place.


 * "I think Montgomery hopelessly muddied the waters with his habit of redefining the objectives of his offensives when they didn't meet their initially-stated objectives"
 * Well this would make sence, there is no reason to keep trodding on to the same plan if its all gone tits up. First attempt to take Caen aimed at a pincer with an airborne element, later had the airborne element withdrawn and then the plan was again changed so one pincer arm would halt due to stiff resistance but the other would carry on attacking until it do bogged down and the op called off.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:57, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't mind at all Serene. I did wonder if this point would end up dividing along pro- and anti- Monty lines. I've been having another look at D'Este who dwells quite a lot on Monty giving priority to Cherbourg and trying to get Caen as well, which he calls 'bold'. He also points out that the doubts of the COSSAC planners about the Monty amendments were all about the prospect of a quick capture of Caen being sacrificed by reinforcing the west end of the invasion front.

There's no doubt that Monty was unscrupulous in rebuffing people from his sphere of authority and in my mind no doubt that he played his hand vis-a-vis Churchill, Tedder, Morgan et al ruthlessly. There's no doubt that Eisenhower backed him as well. Considering that they were more diplomatic than him I tend to the view that much of their criticism of him was sour grapes and the typical need of bureaucrats to duck responsibility, particularly Tedder, back biting bounder that he was. Although still keeping an open mind I'm tending to the view that Monty fought an ermattungskrieg in the east end and to an extent concealed it from the more pusillanimous higher commanders as a pragmatic way of (for example) getting the Bomber Barons off their backsides by making them think that they would get their airfields.

What was Caen for? It's a nodal point, it's the gateway to western Normandy and also towards the Pas de Calais and Paris but does anyone still think that the main breakout from Normandy was intended in the East?! The Anglo-Canadian armies were wasting assets and one division (59th) was disbanded before the Normandy campaign ended. Does anyone think that the declining one of the two main forces was intended for the lead role?? I don't. I also think that the campaign would have gone as predicted if Germany had the resources that the Allies thought they did. The local commanders wanted to call it a day in Normandy after Epsom, which I think may have been one of Monty's finest hours. The slog after this gig was a sign of failure not success of the Germans. Keith-264 (talk) 16:57, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * You're right, EnigmaMcmxc, sticking to a battle-plan that's not working would have made no sense. Monty's problem was that after closing down an offensive, he would tell everyone who would listen that what actually happened was what he intended all along, regardless of what he'd said to them before the offensive. His interpretation was taken up by the press, and was largely recorded in the official histories of the time. I think he probably had a case for selling an action to his junior commanders and troops as the 'big push', if only to motivate them, but if he really only intended, say, a holding action, he should have at least privately informed Eisenhower and Churchill. However, as Keith-264 says, he had little patience for anyone he didn't regard as a professional soldier, so he kept them out of the loop... a mistake when they're your superiors! He didn't play politics well, and it was this more than anything else that made him enemies in the Allied high command, to the point where eventually even Brooke couldn't keep an increasingly sceptical Churchill - who was never a Monty supporter - on-side. Eisenhower did support him, publicly at least, though privately I think there was little love lost. On the other hand, Monty was under severe pressure not to incur heavy British casualties, as there would be no more replacements, so perhaps he didn't drive his offensives as hard as he could have done - and given the quality of the German units (and armour!) in Normandy, and the poor performance of some of the Allied ones, maybe an early breakout was never possible. EyeSerene talk 17:10, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I think that the personal animus of Eisenhower came much later, not that it matters a damn to the Normandy gig. Soldiers and politicians are supposed to rise above Junior School prejudice. Considering that some of Monty's worst enemies admitted the clarity of his exposition of military operations it is hard to credit his flannelling of the various interferers as accidental. A tactical mistake in the management of his management perhaps but compared to his responsibility to his men a bagatelle. I don't think he intended 'holding actions' or that his talk was only for Allied consumption, I'm inclining to the view that he did what he intended - to fight an attrition campaign in the east (albeit closer to the coast than anticipated) which lasted longer than it should because of German weakness in numbers, mobility, fuel and air support. Where except in Normandy could the Germans make a stand? Where they did - on the German and Dutch-Belgian borders. To get there though they were routed and lost huge amounts of equipment, probably just as they would had they tried to withdraw voluntarily. Moscow and Stalingrad rolled into one.Keith-264 (talk) 17:40, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I think there's truth in that view. It's quite possible that Monty deliberately intended to deceive his superiors, but as I said above, if any of his offensives had met their objectives, he would have taken it as 'played for and got'. The broad pre-Overlord plan (especially in the American sector) was pretty much adhered to, but, as you say, he expected the British and Canadians to be fighting their battle of attrition around Falaise, not Caen. I don't believe for a second that he was satisfied with the limited space between Caen and the beaches that gave no space for airfield construction and caused such supply build-up problems in the weeks after D-Day. His offensives were serious attempts to expand his bridgehead, if not break out altogether, but he lost credibility every time they failed, and trying to rewrite them did him no favours. When I'm reading about this campaign, I often wonder how someone like Slim, who could do politics, would have done in Monty's place. I don't really believe he would have fared any better militarily, but he would probably have kept the confidence of SHAEF. EyeSerene talk 18:19, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Confidence in SHAEF, hmmm, bearing in mind that the British army's earlier leaders had frequently gone off half-cocked in deference to political pressure, you'd have thought that the politicals'd have learned to shut their gobs by 1944. Airfield construction, hmmm, how parochial of the flyboys. How Monty must have despised them. Again, I question the term 'fail'. If as I suspect, Monty expected it to turn out like that then capture of ground is of secondary importance. Clearly this is a wider issue than Verrieres but it does seem to be a microcosm. I think your views are plausible as far as what is known but I also wonder if the debate about Normandy is a version of the 'mud, blood and poetry' debate about WWI?Keith-264 (talk) 19:45, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * bearing in mind that the British army's earlier leaders had frequently gone off half-cocked in deference to political pressure... and still do, Goose Green being one of the more recent egregious examples that springs to mind! You're right though, we're leaving Verrieres far behind here. I think Monty did as well as anyone could have done, given that no serious attempt was made on Caen on D-Day and after that it was probably too late. Arrogance and self-confidence is, in a talented battlefield commander, normally a good thing ;) EyeSerene talk 20:44, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * A serious attempt was made to take Caen on D-Day. The 3rd Division was, after a bit of a slow start, held up only a few miles away by the vanguard of the 21st Panzer.  The Cannuks as well were suppose to advance even further and capture the airfield (the one that starts with a 'C', i forget its name) next door.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:54, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 'Carpiquet'? ;) I think it depends what you mean by 'serious' - there was certainly an intention to get into Caen on D-Day, but to say the assault was by the 3rd Div makes it sound more powerful than it actually was. In the event, only one regiment (the KoSLI) actually made the attempt, and it had to advance on foot as its armoured support (the Staffords) were first delayed getting off the beach, and then got diverted into fighting for German positions on the flanks of the advance which took time to reduce and were able to inflict casualties on the KoSLIs as they passed. And then, as you say, the KoSLIs ran into 21 Pz, and had to consolidate in Bieville village. In reality the advance on Caen ended up being little more than a reconnaissance-in-force. EyeSerene talk 10:23, 5 September 2008 (UTC)


 * To note, it was a battalion of the Shropshire Light Infantry not the entire Rgt.
 * Without having any sources at hand i would imagine the idea would have been to push an entire brigade (3 battalions) up to take the city and like wise the Cannuk 3rd to push a brigade to take Carpiquet while the other brigades of both divisions expanded the flanks and secured the base etc
 * Intresting point however, if it was only one battalion which managed to push that far forward what would have happened if the 21st Pnz was delayed - the battalion ordered to withdrew during the night or reinforced? Although thats probably a question for a forum elsewhere :p--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 11:09, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I do remember


 * Yup, I believe you're right, it was 2KSLI that advanced on Caen, and the 1st Norfolks and 2nd Warwicks that were supposed to follow up. You raise a good question though - personally, I think that a single brigade, with limited tank and artillery support, never really had much chance of both subduing Morris and Hillman and getting into Caen. If 21 Pz had been delayed, it's quite possible the already-depleted KSLI may have found themselves cut off in the outskirts of Caen the following day, so maybe just as well... I'm really going to have to template myself. EyeSerene talk 17:42, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

EyeSerene talk 17:43, 5 September 2008 (UTC)


 * OK, sorry. Won't happen again. EyeSerene talk 17:44, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Question on one sentence
Hello,

The Black Watch had to be reformed after Verrières Ridge—the casualties they had sustained were the highest in any Canadian infantry battalion for the remainder of the war.[37] Although the Essex Scottish Regiment would suffer heavier losses over the course of the entire war, many of these were taken in the Dieppe Raid of 1942, in which Black Watch participation was minimal.

I am not totally clear on this part. What is the remainder of the war ? (Is it Dieppe 1942-end of war, Dieppe 1942-Battle of VR, Battle of VR-End of war). I am also a bit confused by the use of the second sentence which I see as loosely tight to the first one. I think I would rewrite : However, the Canadian regiment suffering the heavier losses over the course of the war is the ESR, many ...

Poppy (talk) 11:33, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Following my exp with other copyedits i would suggest putting such detail in a footnote with a citation:


 * The Black Watch had to be reformed after Verrières Ridge—the casualties they had sustained were the highest in any Canadian infantry battalion for the remainder of the war.[37][38]


 * 38 would read something like: Author, page number. The Essex Scottish Regiment would suffer heavier losses over the entire course of the war.


 * As for the "The Black Watch had to be reformed", surely this should be one of the regiments battalions had to be reformed and not the entire regiment? If so i think it should highly recommend that the battalion number should be shown.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 13:16, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * EnigmaMcmxc, I was never happy with those sentences - I've tweaked them in line with your suggestion, but feel free to further improve ;)
 * Poppy, the section is intended to say that from D-Day to the end of the war, the Black Watch had the highest losses of any Canadian unit... although if we include all of WWII, the Essex Scottish losses were higher overall. EyeSerene talk 19:04, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Poppy (talk) 21:49, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

casualities
I have a problem with this fact (or sentence) : A division, 12,000 men, ~ 10+ battalions, ~30+ companies cannot be claimed to be "reduced to 300 men". If these values are right (and I think they should be checked), it would have been disbanded long before. 300 men cannot take in charge the operational functions of a division. On the field, if a division would be reduced to a company size unit, the front would collapse completely... Ceedjee (talk) 07:34, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
 * "1st SS Panzer Division had been reduced by 23 August to 300 men and ten tanks.[45]"
 * That would be because the division suffered immense losses in the Falaise Pocket. 300 men sounds a bit on the extreme side, but keep in mind also that the 1st SS Panzer Division was comprised primarily of armoured regiments, rather than infantry battalions.  It would have less than the 12,000 infantry, and the armoured losses throughout the Normandy Campaign (particularly in Operation Luttich and Operation Tractable) would have been staggering. Cam (Chat) 17:19, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Absolutely. Losses on that scale were not unusual. By August 1944, Seventh Army and 5th Pz Army between them had lost 250,000 men and 2,200 of their 2,300 tanks. Model reported to Hitler that he could maybe create 11 battlegroups from the remnants of his 11 Pz divisions... if he received rapid replacements of men and equipment. On average, they had only five or six tanks remaining per division. They were still divisions in name though, as Hitler was temperamentally averse to disbanding depleted units. EyeSerene talk 19:18, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Just to chime in here, such losses aren't without precedent. During Operation Varsity, the 84th Infantry Division which opposed the Alied airborne landings could barely scrape together 4,000 men to attempt a defense, and many of these were apparently 'nose and ear' candidates, as it were. Skinny87 (talk) 19:34, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Exactly, as another example, in the final Russian offensive against Berlin, Hitler thought he had enough forces, as he had an ample number of divisions to fight Soviet forces. However, most of these divisions were either just names, or had taken 85%-90% casualty rates.  these rates weren't that uncommon in the later parts of the war. Cam (Chat) 20:43, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you.
 * That is interesting and important information. I didn't expect officeers in chief could "play" with units at 10-15% of their normal effectives. A division of 1500 men or with 6 tanks is just nosense. Ceedjee (talk) 18:16, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, well...Hitler's 10% strength divisions and DINOs didn't do him a lot of good during the Battle of Berlin anyways. Cam (Chat) 03:55, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

casualties section
now its "However, on 6 June, the effective strength of the 12th SS Panzer Division was 20,540 men and 150 tanks.[42] By 23 August, it was reduced to "weak infantry elements, no tanks, no artillery".[41] The similarly-sized 1st SS Panzer Division had been reduced by 23 August to 300 men and ten tanks."

i ask whats the sense of this quote? the quote is about 2 months this battle lasted only for 6 days ( 1/10 of the time . i cant understand the logic . should we got to all battle where we dont know casualties and write some other figures ?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.192.127.100 (talk) 23:06, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

forces involed
i think there is a problem. i think the 12 SS only parcipated in atlantic a bit because at the same time its mentioned as full division in goodwood. so we have a division which took part in different operation at the same time ( logic improvement would be to mention that only elements took part, but iam sure u dont want this) after goodwood the 12 SS was reserve for I SS panzercorps. so i guess there were no battles in spring. history of the unit supports this. hohenstauffen i guess took not part in atlantic... ( not sure ). is there a evidence that the essex faced 12 SS in atlantic? and not 1 SS for example? same problem with 1 SS .... . —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.192.121.123 (talk) 21:28, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

lol again. the infobox shows 3 german panzerdivision and infatry. that means even little elements taking part in atlantic are mentioned as complete division. but when u go through the article u find the first british corps which participated in this battle. hm is it mentioned in the infobox? NO0, why? i dont know. i will add. german divsion fighting in different operation at the same time are mentioned as complete divisions... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.192.121.123 (talk) 21:42, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

misplaced and wrong statement about 12 SS casualties
here from the article about 12 SS a quote of zetterlings book: "In many publications it has been said that the (division) only had a few hundred men after the end of the Falaise battle on 22 August. This is completely wrong. According to the very thorough research in the records of casualties suffered by the division presented by Meyer, it is clear that the division lost about 8,000 officers and men, killed, wounded and missing ... (and) ... it is clear it had around 12,000 men on 22 August 1944. Even though most of its infantry were casualties, the division was far from destroyed." so the statement of the book from !!1960!! should not be mentioned here. the statement was misplaced anyway.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.176.157.0 (talk) 05:02, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I think it is a little disingenuous of Zet to claim that a division which had lost most of its fighting troops was 'far from destroyed' when its fighting capacity was close to nil.Keith-264 (talk) 10:04, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


 * ok. the statement in the casualties section was useless, because "weak infantry" should imply very high casualties. and 8.000 out of 20.000 are not "very high". nevertheless what is the sense of this sentence? the division suffered 8.000 casualties over more than two months. and this little battle mentions the casualties of the 12 SS for the complete campaign because u have no numbers? when u have no figures than write unknown. the statement seems to be at least very incorrect and is misplaced anyway, so out of the article... . —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.176.149.195 (talk) 22:27, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

You already brought this up last month and not added anything to your previous criticism; we also know that you troll these talkpages so lets try and keep this civil this time.

At any rate your above statements in themselves are “useless”, you show no grasp of the “divisional slice”, the “tail-to-teeth ratio” or otherwise known as the “bayonet strength”; what elements of a division actually do the fighting. 20,000 men within a division are not 20,000 combat soldiers they include medical, logistical, administration, REME staff and other non-combat personal. The figure you provide proves nothing without context, what does Zetterling actually say; what book and what page number do you derive this information from?

If we look at his own website he states “the division probably did not muster more than about 17 000 men when it arrived in Normandy” so your position is already invalid in regards to numbers. Zetterling also states the replacement battalion did not arrive in Normandy but took part in the actions during the retreat across France and helped to rebuild the division. Zetterling’s figure of around 8,000 men lost leaves the division with roughly 9,000 men on paper. On his website he doesn’t state anything about how many of these men formed the remaining bayonet strength. So without that information Stacey could very well be right when he states that the division contained only weak infantry elements by this point in the campaign. He also notes that the division had just under 200 tanks – that includes ones it started off with and ones sent as replacements; by 9 July he notes half of this figure had been wrote off and by 21 August only 10 tanks were combat ready; it would seem the division was rendered combat ineffective.

However with that all said and done, the wiki is a project in which all can participate. If you believe the figures to not be helpful, as they don’t completely deal with this one battle, why not gather your sources and correctly apply them to the article instead? --EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:27, 25 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I believe (though you'd really have to ask Cam) that the figure was included as an indication of the gradual degradation of German forces in even tactically unsuccessful Allied battles. In the absence of specific figures for the battle, the reader is left to draw their own conclusions. If anyone can provide specific, sourced figures, I'm sure they would be very welcome.
 * Anonymous, you need to stop removing reliably-sourced material simply because you object to it; replacing it with better reliably-sourced material would be preferable. Also, you need to be more careful; you were removing the cite for the previous sentence too. I've left you a warning about this. If you don't mind some advice, if you want to be taken seriously on Wikipedia you need to start discussing things in a polite, rational, neutral manner. To date the style of your posts, in semi-coherent, often ranting text-speak, gives no confidence that you have the level of maturity required to contribute. Their thrust gives the impression that you're here to push a pro-German POV. If you continue in this manner you have to realise that, even if you have some valid points to make, they'll get lost in all the static and eventually you'll be labelled as a troll and simply ignored and blocked. EyeSerene talk 17:54, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

whats your point enigma? i pretty sure that my knowledge about german units is far bigger then yours so no lessons in difference between manpower and grabenstärke needed.

i found the statement on the article listet below : "12th S.S. Panzer Division—300 men, 10 tanks, no artillery." page299. soo now we have the number of 300 men, but the 8000 casualties contradiced with this. where are the other 10.000 men ? magic? no, the rest of the unit was sended back to germany. the quote is only the tagesmeldung of the remaining combat group. one combargroup remained in france. but the author of the article doesnt say that the rest of the division were casualties. the editor of this article makes the little trick and brings the word "reduced". so everybody will think the divisions was reduced to this by combat. i dont even mention that 10 tanks are more than NO tanks. so the editor took a text passage and modified it a bit...

i dont want to start talking about the complete irrelevance of this quote in this article.

a very interesting question is: why the editor took this vague statement instead of using the exact casualties numbers? he want to bring the reader some idea of the casualties but didnt take the casualties? very interesting editing behaviour. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.192.121.123 (talk) 23:58, 25 November 2009 (UTC)


 * eye:"Anonymous, you need to stop removing reliably-sourced material simply because you object to it", i dont dispute that the statement was sourced but it was modified anyway and it must be relevant... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.192.121.123 (talk) 01:15, 26 November 2009 (UTC)


 * regarding your POV issue, the problem is "allied" pov. look this statement look all articles edited by enigma for example, if there are different opnions in scholarship he always uses british authors. for numbers always british authors... . some many old books which were written in time of cold war. so much books which are completly unimportant . for strenght sections always counting divisions which is no comparasion of strenghts. only the "allied" articles do this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.192.121.123 (talk) 01:56, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

lets do some POV analyse: the text now says : the editor claims the statement come from: what says the article of colonel stacey? stacey says that the rest of the divisions were casualties? no! the 12 SS suffered 8.000 casualties... and the rest was pulled out of the line. the remaining 300 men are a battle group lend to another division. from the 12 SS article : The units in the Division that were not fit for combat were ordered to pull back to Germany on 8 September, leaving behind a small Kampfgruppe attached to the 2nd SS Panzer Division Das Reich. ( with citiation )
 * However, on 6 June, the effective strength of the 12th SS Panzer Division was 20,540 men and 150 tanks.[42] By 23 August, it was reduced to "weak infantry elements, no tanks, no artillery
 * Stacey, Colonel Charles Perry; Bond, Major C.C.J.. "Official History of the Canadian Army in the Second World War: Volume III. The Victory Campaign: The operations in North-West Europe 1944-1945
 * " On 22 and 23 August Army Group "B" reported3 the state of its eight armoured divisions as follows: 12th S.S. Panzer Division—300 men, 10 tanks, no artillery.
 * so what makes the editor here? he takes a statement then he poved it a bit with the word "reduced", than he claims no tanks. knowing it is wrong...
 * by the way the reported strenghts were grabenstärke...
 * the sense of this statement was to bring the reader some idea about german casualties on this battle. by the way the 12 SS not even participated the full battle^^

eye, thats what u call "reliably-sourced material"

maybe the editor should be banned for a short while? he faked a quote to support his POV :-)

please tll me eye, is this POV ? which encyclopedia would come to the moronic idea of using this statement when it his has no overall figures? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.192.121.123 (talk) 02:51, 26 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Anon am not going to get into another slanging match with you so I would kindly remind you to stick to the issues at hand; instead of posting personal attacks that have nothing to do with the article.


 * As for the matter at hand, after looking at the source in mention you are right to point out the editors have made a mistake and have misquoted Stacey. The 12th SS had 10 tanks at this stage according to Stacey; this is easily changed and people make mistakes. Am glad to see that you finally agree that the figure of 300 most likely represented the bayonet strength of the division. However the article, Stacey or anyone here, other than yourself, has claimed the rest of the division were casualties; stating it had been reduced to 300 men is therefore accurate, supported, and not underhanded.


 * However instead of the song and dance, you could have simply asked: Why are the 12th SS losses for the entire campaign here, while they provide an example of the degrading infantry strength of the German Army, this battle was not at the end of the campaign thus they appear somewhat irrelevant. All in all, I agree with you; although I wouldn’t call the idea moronic it has merit but I believe in one of the latter articles perhaps.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 10:44, 26 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I edit-conflicted with Enigma while posting something very similar. Anon, I was very tempted to block you for "maybe the editor should be banned for a short while? he faked a quote to support his POV :-)", but I think a last chance is worth extending. Re-read your above post and notice where you're actually saying something useful, and where you're just attacking other editors. Your pointing out the inconsistency in the article is helpful and relevant, as is the information that the remnants of 12SS Pz had been mostly withdrawn, but as Enigma says, going on to accuse the article author (who happens to be an established long-time editor with a good reputation) of "faking" material to support a POV is totally unacceptable and detracts from both your contribution and your credibility. You still aren't communicating politely and assuming good faith; you don't do us the simple courtesy of signing your posts despite a number of reminders, and aren't showing any signs of having read and understood our core policies. Because your IP address changes I'm leaving this here where I know you'll see it: any further attacks by you on other editors will result in you being reverted, blocked, and ignored, including on talk-pages, per WP:RBI. Stick to the useful stuff and we'll be happy to work with you. EyeSerene talk 11:28, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

and again this statement should help the editor to estimate german casualties. but the statement is about the remaining grabenstärke of an kampfgruppe which was left behind in france. the reader will always think that all people missing are casualties because this statement implies this. iam very sure that u know this, take it out of the article... . this statement simply cant help a normal reader because its includes the difference between grabenstärkee and overall manpower and forget to mention that the biggest part was withdrawn. u have the overall casualties of the 12 SS USE IT or write unknown... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.192.121.123 (talk) 16:49, 26 November 2009 (UTC)


 * enigma wrote :

here look what i wrote first: nobody responded.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.192.121.123 (talk) 16:55, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * you could have simply asked: Why are the 12th SS losses for the entire campaign here
 * i ask whats the sense of this quote? the quote is about 2 months this battle lasted only for 6 days ( 1/10 of the time . i cant understand the logic . should we got to all battle where we dont know casualties and write some other figures ?


 * I've added some information from Zetterling. However, we can't remove Stacey's information; the two claims (as others have pointed out from your quote at the top of this thread) are not mutually exclusive. "Weak infantry elements" simply means most of these 8500 casualties were among the infantry - which is what you'd expect. The support services of the division (the engineers, signallers, drivers, AA-gunners and other rear-echelon "cooks and bottle-washers") were, according to Zetterling elsewhere in his book, largely untouched... but of course they had little combat value so why would Stacey mention them? The fighting power of 12SS Pz had been destroyed. Perhaps Stacey should have said "weak infantry elements, 10 tanks, no artillery, but lots of support troops", but he didn't. We can only work with what we can source. I also agree that specific casualties for the battle would be better, but by all accounts the Germans didn't record it as a specific event, making good figures hard to come by. EyeSerene talk 19:10, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

yes we only can use the statement like it was written OR we let it out because it has no value. u sound like; everything what is cited must come to the article. thats a matter of relevance. ask yourself the question if u would include this statement in the article if u have to write it new. no u would not. its a vague statement which is useless for reader without knowledge about difference between strenght and grabenstärke. this statement dont says that many of the divisions was pulled out of the line. so the statement is inappropriate. please admit this and delete it. this statement not even deals with the casualties of the german casualties at these battles. maybe we should write we dont know german casualties but in the complete war they lost 5.000.000 men dead. when german casualties are unknown than they are unknown. where is your problem ? its obvious that we dont have german casualties but u very are persistent with trying to imply something to the reader. and yes u !imply! something because nobody knows the german casualties. it is high likly that german casualties were far less than canadian so less than 3.000 but iam very sure no one of u will bring this to the article. this statement would be the only one which brings the reader an idea of the casualties. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.176.143.20 (talk) 19:26, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

again: i dont dispute that the combat value of the division was destroyed. BUT THIS IS NOT THE POINT. this statement is in the casualties section. u need statement dealing with the CASUALTIES and not what happend to the combat value. a combat value can be reduced by so much factors.

maybe it is my bad english that u dont understand the point. i become desperate seeing how many people support such nonsense.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.176.143.20 (talk) 19:33, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Give it a rest babe.Keith-264 (talk) 19:36, 26 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Tut, don't push their buttons, Keith.
 * Anon, I understand your point, but we'd also need a source that states that casualties are unknown. I agree that German casualties were probably much lighter than the Canadians, but again we'd need a source for that before we could state it in the article. I think the current content, even though less than satisfactory, is probably better than nothing. EyeSerene talk 20:09, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Don't be a prick Eye.Keith-264 (talk) 22:54, 26 November 2009 (UTC)


 * yeah ok, i have no source. i think the current content is not better than nothing because it misleads the reader with an improper statement that brings up "the destruction of the whole division" ... . so again we play the game "u have no source so we let the stuff in the article". i explained my concers... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.176.143.20 (talk) 20:32, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

eye:" don't push their buttons, Keith." iam participating at this discusion so stop talking indirect about me —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.176.143.20 (talk) 20:36, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Ive done some digging around in my sources and it has not been that promising. D'Este (American), Copp (Canadian), Meyer (German) and a bunch of other sources (British, German, and an Aussie) dont appear to cover this battle or even Spring in enough detail and there appears to be no German casualty information. I couldnt personally see anything in Hubert Meyer's (another German) that covered the battle in detail or provided loss info.

The most promising information comes from Michael Reynolds (British) whoes work on the I SS Panzer Corps states it seems that data for the various battles and actual losses is extremely hard to come by however he does state the following:

The 1st SS lost 1,092 men killed, wounded or captured between 16th July and 1st August. Additionally the division lost 11 MK IV and 10 StuGs during the fighting in and around Tilly and Verrierers. For the 12th SS he states the division lost 134 men between 19 July and 4 August then goes on to say “the chances for accurate casualty reporting were minimal.” He dismisses overall higher losses during this period as an attempt by OB West to gain more reinforcements. (p.198) His work on II SS Panzer Corps covers the fighting but fails to mention losses for the heer infantry division or the 9th SS.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:59, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

hohenstauffen and 272 are missing... . but at least we can see that the participation of the 12 SS was "minor", so the casualtiessection now looks even more "unlucky". good work enigma —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.176.158.28 (talk) 22:32, 26 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Your source for the 272 missing men of the 9th SS?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:47, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

have none —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.176.158.28 (talk) 22:54, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

no wait: with 272 i mean ID or 274? no casualtiesfigure. i wanted to say: figures for 9SS hohenstauffen and 274 ID are missing... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.176.158.28 (talk) 23:13, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Applogies, i thought you meant 272 men missing not the infantry division.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 11:07, 27 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Good stuff Enigma, I think that's much closer to what we're looking for :) I've rewritten that section - please feel free to tweak as needed, and if you don't mind... Reynolds needs going in the References section (I've put cites in place though per your above).  EyeSerene talk 09:22, 27 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I'll add that info today, pleasure to help.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 11:07, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

satisfied... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.176.151.24 (talk) 21:17, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

the old problem
sentence out of the text:


 * "Two powerful formations—the 12th SS Panzer Division and ..."

text out of the charnwood article:

"The 12th SS Panzer Division—by the end of the battle reduced to a battalion-sized infantry unit[75]"

the old problem, when it comes to the casualties geran units suffered so heavy but some days later they are in the infobox listed as full panzerdivisions. And the reader shall think the forces were equal. Nothing else than manipulation... Sorry but thats it... Blablaaa (talk) 00:38, 24 June 2010 (UTC) The infobox cant list "battalion-sized infantry units" as Panzerdivision. The infobox gives wrong informations to the reader. Blablaaa (talk) 02:08, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

24-year-old Major Phil Griffin (Black Watch)
I was watching today a documentary on Verrières Ridge battle made by David O'Keefe, on History channel. Comparing to the article in Wikipedia I see few mistakes. On the grave of Major Phil Griffin is written he was 26 years old, also they say in the documentary that Major Phil Griffin was actually 5th in the rank when operation "Spring" started. Please verify those:) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.95.114.155 (talk) 21:46, 10 November 2010 (UTC)


 * If you follow the article refs you'll see the information about Phil Griffin is sourced to Terry Copp (Copp, Terry (1999b). "The Toll of Verrières Ridge", Legion Magazine (May/June 1999). Ottawa: Canvet Publications). The article is online here, in which Copp claims Griffin was 24 and that command fell to him after his two seniors had been killed. It's perfectly possible that either Copp or O'Keefe or both have made mistakes, but certainly if you know of a picture of the grave that would be useful in verifying Griffin's actual age. EyeSerene talk 08:39, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Page 76 of 'The Brigade, the fifth Canadian Infantry Brigade in WWII' by Copp (1992) also gives 24.Keith-264 (talk) 12:51, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Controversy
I'm a bit puzzled at the notion of an article in which it is stated a battle is the most controversial and critically analyzed battle in Canadian military history, and then not find mention or a link to the article on The Valour and the Horror.

I've therefore added two mentions in the "historiography" para at the end


 * C.P. Stacey wrestled with how to describe the battle in the official history - he talks about this in his autobiography, and in fact as I recall, Simonds, who was CIGS at the time, required him to make some minor changes to his wording in the draft(s) he presented. I don't believe too much can be concluded from that, but it is nonetheless significant. Deserves a mention, and so I did, with the appropriate source indicated
 * The Valour and the Horror is the reason this battle is the "most controversial" in history. If not for the TV show introducing this to the public, it would not be part of that conversation. In short, few would have heard of it, or care, outside of academia. The controversy is mostly scholars and military types explaining and apologizing to casual observers. These deserves to be mentioned in the article also, otherwise, the battle itself is far less controversial than Hong Kong or Dieppe by dint of the casualty count alone. Hong Kong's casualty rate was 100%. 198.161.2.241 (talk) 15:47, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

CE
Tidied page, resized a couple of maps and headers.Keith-264 (talk) 12:35, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Shuffled citations to the ends of sentences for flow.Keith-264 (talk) 15:50, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Tidied references, checked url's separated media sources alphabetically.Keith-264 (talk) 13:45, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Incorrect unit abbreviations on maps
The Canadian units had "official" or standard short form unit designations: Should the map not be amended to show this common usage? Most reputable military histories use the official naming conventions.174.0.48.147 (talk) 00:25, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
 * The Black Watch (Royal Highland Regiment) of Canada used the short form RHC (for Royal Highlanders of Canada)
 * The Calgary Highlanders used the short form Calg Highrs

invested
This edit, yesterday, changed "invested" to "occupied". Thoughts? - Dank (push to talk) 17:40, 19 July 2018 (UTC)


 * In the military sense, "invest" tends to be used to mean "besiege". It read oddly when I saw it on the Main Page meaning something else. But I was able to infer the intended meaning from the context.


 * Also one does not surround a ridge in order to prevent the enemy occupying it. One occupies a ridge in order to prevent the enemy occupying it. It doesn't matter whether one occupies a ridge by having troops at the foot of it (a sometime Boer tactic) or by having troops on its reverse slope (a later tactic), one is occupying it, not surrounding it.


 * "Invest" also implies something rather more than "occupied" in another aspect; the tone is something of "heavily fortified", "present in strength" or "well dug in", as opposed to merely "present on foreign soil and in control of it". MPS1992 (talk) 19:17, 19 July 2018 (UTC)


 * I’d go farther than “tends”; as a military term of art, “invest” means “besiege”, which in turn means surrounding in force. Other usage tends to be by the kind of writer that likes sprinkling jargon they don’t actually understand, because it sounds “authentic” to them. Qwirkle (talk) 19:39, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
 * "Infested"?

"invest (v.)

late 14c., "to clothe in the official robes of an office," from Latin investire "to clothe in, cover, surround," from in "in, into" (from PIE root *en "in") + vestire "to dress, clothe," from PIE *wes- (2) "to clothe," extended form of root *eu- "to dress."

The meaning "use money to produce profit" first attested 1610s in connection with the East Indies trade, and is probably a borrowing of a special use of Italian investire (13c.) from the same Latin root, via the notion of giving one's capital a new form. Figurative sense of "to clothe (with attributes)" is from c. 1600. The military meaning "to besiege, surround with hostile intent" also is from c. 1600. Related: Invested; investing." Keith-264 (talk) 19:55, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks much ... I changed "invested" to "occupied" in today's Main Page blurb. - Dank (push to talk) 20:04, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Impressions
I was surprised to see that I've been here before and perhaps it shows how much I've learned since, that I think that the editors of the article have used sources that contain an outmoded and untenable view of events. Operation Atlantic was a failure? Operation Totalize part of the general Allied advance? I don't doubt their good faith, given the age of the piece but it does look one-sided now, more a brief for the prosecution than a NPOV article. Keith-264 (talk) 08:53, 4 December 2022 (UTC)