Talk:Battle of Vimy Ridge

Dominion of Canada?
I understand theirs alot of national pride flying about here, but shouldn't Canada be listed as a Dominion of the British Empire? The "Canadian" soldiers who served in this battle were part of the British army. So I don't see the logic in listing Canada as an independent nation. Surely by this logic, Scotland could be listed as an independent belligerent, in other British battles, lol. Wikipedia is getting too nationalistic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.153.200.156 (talk) 01:13, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Canada was technically a Dominion long after this (Statute of Westminster notwithstanding), in fact right up until the 1982 constitution introduced by Trudeau and signed by the Queen. Yet no one argues that Canada should be listed as a dominion in WWII battles. This is because there was an overall gradual trend towards independence from the time of Confederation in 1867 until the aforementioned constitutional reform in 1982. This is not true of Scotland. 72.0.72.98 (talk) 02:29, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

so the short answer is, no, it shouldn't. cheers 72.0.72.98 (talk) 02:30, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Coming at this three years later but, just to avoid any confusion on what is now an FA: Canada's constitutional status in WW1 was entirely unlike that of Scotland, the example given above. Canada had a defacto constitution (the BNA Act), a federal system of government that operated without interference from the Westminster Parliament, its own Senate, House of Commons, Prime Minister, etc. etc. The Dominion was semi-autonomous – really only denied the right to conduct an independent foreign policy and even that wasn't entirely agreed upon. It's not about Wikipedia getting nationalistic: it's the universal consensus in the historiography. It was called the Canadian Corps, the people in it were referred to as "Canadians" and many of them of thought of themselves as such.129.100.50.116 (talk) 13:35, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

OH 1917 I
Used informantion from this to expand on German losses from German records quoted therein.Keith-264 (talk) 09:20, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Moved the content to a note as the data expands beyond the battle and into estimates of the entire Battle of Arras. Nonetheless, good info to have.--Labattblueboy (talk) 01:09, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I wondered if you'd turn up ;O) Thanks for the amendments to my citations, I still haven't got a clue about the short form. If I might quibble though, I don't see the point of putting 'between' in front of 1—11 since it seems to me that it's represented by the dash.

As usual we lack the German perspective except for the fragments in the OH but I hope to get hold of Sheldon's book on Vimy Ridge this year.Keith-264 (talk) 08:14, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Edit completed. A significant number of the references are from Sheldon and those details are drawn not from the OH but Sheldon's normal variety of German sources. The problem with Sheldon's book is it drew on a lot of individual/personal details, not necessarily unit or formation level activities. Anyway, there is always room from improvement.--Labattblueboy (talk) 15:52, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * OK. In his later books he has put a little bit more commentary in from higher commanders but unless someone publishes translations kept at places like Sandhurst, we'll have to wait for Humphries and Maker http://www.amazon.co.uk/Germanys-Western-Front-Translations-Official/dp/155458373X/ref=wl_it_dp_o_npd?ie=UTF8&coliid=IHD6GQ9AL567O&colid=3M9QSB4H2OMKD to get to 1916 & 1917Keith-264 (talk) 16:47, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Correction it's his book on the Spring Offensives of 1917 that is forthcoming, not Vimy Ridge.Keith-264 (talk) 13:51, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Vimy Ridge Day mention
I suggest that the mention of Vimy Ridge Day go as a one-liner in the Influence on Canada section. Thoughts?--Labattblueboy (talk) 17:05, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Today's Featured Article on April 9th
This article has been chosen to be featured on the main page tomorrow. I recommend giving the article a look over before it runs. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 14:05, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Allied victory
This is wrong. Its putting WW2 thinking onto WW1. In WW2 the British side was the allies. In WW1 however it was the Germans who were the allies (tripple alliance) whilst the Brits were on the entente side (tripple entente). Best would be the say Canadian and British or some variation thereof. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.174.58.161 (talk) 00:07, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I see no issue with using either Canadian/British or Entente. An astute observation that employing "allied" would be incorrect.--Labattblueboy (talk) 01:08, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
 * When you reverted my edit, you mentioned the British 5th Infantry Division. My thinking had been that the 5th Division was attached to the Canadian Corps, hence a Canadian victory. However, I was neglecting to remember that British artillery and the 51st Highland Division also contributed to the victory. You are right, it is important to remember that it was a combined effort. I'm fine with "Canadian/British." Sunray (talk) 06:16, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Allied was a term used in the Great War - the Entente powers, Britain, France and Russia were allied with Belgium, Serbia, Italy, Rumania, Portugal and associated with the USA. Allied isn't anachronistic though I suggest that "Canadian" is. Vimy ridge was a success of the British First Army with contributions from the British Canadian Corps, part of 5th division and XIII [XVII] Corps (southern operation) with I Corps and 4th Canadian division (northern operation). [PS tongue firmly in cheek]Keith-264 (talk) 08:12, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh, oh! (some honourable members). Sunray (talk) 16:46, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I knew you'd be pleased.;O)Keith-264 (talk) 18:03, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

City, town, village, hamlet.
Is it common for North American English speakers to treat terms like these as synonyms? I ask because Thelus seems to be a village rather than a town. It seems to crop up on other pages too.Keith-264 (talk) 07:56, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Useful structural analysis
The operational role of British corps command on the Western Front, 1914-18 by Simpson, Andrew (free as the original PhD http://ethos.bl.uk/SearchResults.do ) has some interesting material culled from primary sources on Arras, pp. 84-113, some of which is here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tactical_development_on_the_Western_Front_in_1917 Keith-264 (talk) 08:23, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Arthur Currie
I see no reason why Arthur Currie is not included in the Commanders section of the infobox.[User:Junedragon|Junedragon]] (talk) 18:01, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * He wasn't the commander during this battle, hence why he is omitted from the list here.--Labattblueboy (talk) 19:52, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I do. Currie was a key commander in the battle. Wallie (talk)

Edwin Alderson and Julian Byng
I have amended the incorrect reference to date that command of Canadian Corps changed from Alderson to Byng, from January 1917 to 28 May 1916, and moved it to the start of the paragraph on Strategic Planning for chronology. I believed I had changed this a few months ago but either the change was not successfully saved or it may have been wrongly reverted. The 'old' date would have given Alderson a longer period of command of Canadians that outlasted Sam Hughes' tenure, and given Byng a reduced timeframe for preparations!Cloptonson (talk) 19:24, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * No idea when that changed happened, but good catch. I'm not sure how 5 Jan (date staff sent to the Neville conference) ended up there but the correction is appreciated.--Labattblueboy (talk) 20:01, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Richard Jack painting
There is obviously a conflict between the name for the Ricard Jack painting listed in the lede. The images as it was uploaded to the commons contains Library and Archives Canada citation for the title "The Battle of Vimy Ridge" however the Canadian War Museum website lists a different title. I will check the Canadian War Memorial Fund records (the commissioner of the work) to see what the title is listed there. It could be that there are two titles for the work, which is not uncommon for paintings. In the mean time the long established title should remain.--Labattblueboy (talk) 20:54, 2 March 2013 (UTC) The title does not have two names. Just like any improperly cited work or story, the name of the battle has become the defacto name of the painting, which does not make it correct. I quick check on Google brings up many credible sources on the name of the painting. Canadian LegionThe Loyal Edmonton Regiment Military MuseumCanadian War Museum Resource Guide (pdf)Vimy Ridge: A Canadian Reassessment By Michael Bechthold

Frank Logan — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.7.229.169 (talk) 21:05, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
 * 71.7.229.169 or Frank. Please discuss on this page.  Until this issue is resolved, please refrain from changing the article page.  Hamish59 (talk) 21:15, 2 March 2013 (UTC)


 * There are sources that employ both. The search term "battle of vimy ridge" richard jack results in 187000 hits, in google books its 322 hits. There is obviously a discrepancy but the matter of the fact is the current title is cited, it is also long established. Your issues is with the name as it appears in the Wikipedia Commons as its the source and frankly what appears here is just being mirrored. The official list of Canadian War Memorials Fund works held in archives (either national or at the war museum) should likely serve as the name source and am happy to go with whatever is written there. that is going to take a couple days so please leave the title as is until I can get an answer.--Labattblueboy (talk) 21:18, 2 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I cited sources including the War Museum, did you even look at the links? Sounds like a case of the wiki editor knows more... or at least in wiki-land has the power to say so.. classic wiki. Frank Logan  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.7.229.169 (talk) 21:27, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Would you be satisfied if we went with whatever the official list of Canadian War Memorials Fund works states?--Labattblueboy (talk) 21:36, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Since we may have several titles for this painting and that there is no rule saying that we have to use the title as legend, any value of just changing the legend to something non specific like "A painting of the Battle by Richard Jack". An other article using the same painting as illustration says "Canadian troops at the Battle of Vimy Ridge" which seems perfectly fine too.--McSly (talk) 21:59, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Enemy
Can we not refer to the 'enemy' in Wikipedia articles? I realise the Germans were the enemy from the Canadian point of view, but Wikipedia is not Canadian. The French article has the same problem. Cathfolant (talk) 20:21, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
 * its not encourages when its used to communicate a one sided point of view. I had a look through and there are four mentions of enemy. The first describes the German defensive strategy and enemy is used as a generality, not to refer to any specific party. The second for British offensive doctrine changes and once again speaks in generalities, not referring to any specific party. The third and fourth is in reference to trench raiding and how it was employed by all sides against their respective enemy(s). None of the cases in this article employ the term enemy as a replacement for German, so I'm not seeing an issue.--Labattblueboy (talk) 04:53, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Right you are. Seems fine then. Cath  folant  23:50, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

POV
All the photos illustrating this Featured Article appear to be from the Allied side — another aspect of what seems to be a somewhat POV focus. Sca (talk) 16:18, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
 * If you can provide a source for German images relating to the battle it would be greatly appreciated. However, the sad truth is German documentation for the battle is not something that's easy to come by.--Labattblueboy (talk) 17:25, 9 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I Googled "Die Schlacht bei Vimy Ridge" and found a photostream on Flickr that contains a few German images:


 * http://www.flickr.com/photos/88780554@N07/


 * Under "profile," one reads that these photos are part of an effort to provide "free resources for teaching new perspectives on World War I" at Oxford, plus a link to the project site:


 * http://ww1centenary.oucs.ox.ac.uk/


 * However, this project seems to be in only its early stages.


 * Meanwhile, German Wiki offers no separate article on Vimy Ridge (Vimy Höhe), which apparently is considered part of the Battle of Arras in 1917. The German entry on the Schlacht von Arras (1917) is relatively short and contains no German photos.


 * Sca (talk) 21:57, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Oob
James Battles and Engagements (1924) has I Corps: 24th Division and the Canadian Corps: 5th and 1st–4th Canadian divisions. What happened to the 24th Division? Keith-264 (talk) 16:15, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * All the sources I've seen point to 24th Division playing a supporting role and they are listed in the article as such. Sources ssem to limit the order to battle to only those troops directly attached to the Canadian Corps and traditionally only 5th Division is listed in this respoect.--Labattblueboy (talk) 11:45, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
 * OKKeith-264 (talk) 13:36, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Edit warring over the role of Canadians
You've violated WP:3RR. Stop and discuss or you'll be blocked. Chris Troutman ( talk ) 01:08, 27 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I will put my hand up here and say that I think I have accidentally also violated 3RR. I believed it didn't apply because I was reverting edits I think are vandalism, but I've just re-read the policy and noted that it says obvious vandalism only, like page blanking or profanity, which this isn't. That's completely on me and I apologise. I'm going to back off from this page and leave other editors to it. Marianna251TALK 01:16, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 09:13, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Bavaria flag under German Empire
The topic of whether Bavaria, etc were subsidiarity entities to the German Empire or included within it is not a discussion for this article. It should be formalized are agreed to centrally. the British Empire was resolutely concluded at at: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history/Archive_123 but far as I know no consensus is established for Germany. Either way a solution should be centralized and not tested on an FA article.--Labattblueboy (talk) 22:25, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Commanders listed in the infobox
99.224.153.192 recently amended the infobox to include the complete the list of Canadian infantry division commanders, with the exception of British 5th Division commander Major-General R.B. Stephen. I'm not at all opposed to including divisional commanders but the complete list would need to exist for both sides. So I undid that edit so that we could first discuss a list that would be complete for both sides. If desirable, this is the list I would propose: Any thought on this idea?--Labattblueboy (talk) 07:14, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Entente: Sir Julian Byng, Arthur Currie,  Henry Edward Burstall,  Louis Lipsett, David Watson and (5th Division commander) R.B. Stephen.
 * Germany: Karl Ritter von Fasbender, Georg Karl Wichura, Friedrich Freiherr von Pechmann and Arnold Ritter von Mohl. Ludwig von Falkenhausen could then be removed as von Fasbender was really the principle defending commander.


 * Template:Infobox military conflict

'''commander1/commander2/commander3 – optional – the commanders of the military forces involved. For battles, this should include military commanders (and other officers as necessary). For wars, only prominent or notable leaders should be listed, with an upper limit of about seven per combatant column recommended. Ranks and position titles should be omitted. The and  templates may be included immediately after the names of commanders who were killed in action or surrendered and were taken prisoner, respectively. The commander3 field can only be used if the combatant3 field is set.'''

I suggest that the army and corps/gruppe commanders are sufficient.Keith-264 (talk) 08:11, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I also agree, I think the Corps/gruppe commanders would would sufficient but I'm not set in stone in that approach. If we took that appraoch would it not be better to list Fasbender and Wichura on the German side rather than Falkenhausen?--Labattblueboy (talk) 16:29, 23 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Neither am I but when we descend the rank pyramid, the number of people rises exponentially. I think the army commanders are important because it was an offensive and because of F's role in using the relief (Ablosungs) division concept, which managed to leave the front divisions without reserves in the day. Corps/Gruppen commanders obviously since they controlled the formations fighting the battle so not necessarily an equal number, CC commander (No other corps commanders were involved were they?) and the main Gruppen commanders opposite? Keith-264 (talk) 17:01, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Agreeable. So for the Germans I've listed Falkenhausen, Fasbender and Wichura. For the Canadian side, just left Byng. The intent being that Corps and Gruppe commanders are listed but not divisional commanders.--Labattblueboy (talk) 09:27, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Perhaps Horne to go with Falkenhausen? I'll leave it to you though. Keith-264 (talk) 10:25, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Recent edits
Do we really need flags against each name in the infobox when they're already shown in "belligerents"? Regards Keith-264 (talk) 10:15, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
 * MOS:FLAG is clear. Flags only as necessary and I don't see it as necessary. I could see there being a purpose if the lack of flag is necessary for clarity but that's not the case here.--Labattblueboy (talk) 18:50, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Brackets
Manual_of_Style does not deprecate brackets, far from it.Keith-264 (talk) 16:32, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Style manuals almost all emphasize limitation of parenthesis except in well noted circumstances including emphasized breaks and citation. More importantly the text approved at FA didn't employ them. Just because MOS doesn't mention a limitation doesn't mean it's not standard style practice to do so. Happy to defer to MOS talk for a conclusion on the matter.--Labattblueboy (talk) 00:37, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh come on, that's blatant cherry-picking and gamesmanship. "Returning to state at FA" is disingenuous; if you think edits are retrograde you need to apply for a review, not treat it as un-editable.

PS are these style manuals US? Keith-264 (talk) 07:51, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Reference format
I've switched the reference formatting to sfn. It's saved almost 10K in size and meant some linking errors were caught. Do feel free to improve on this.--Labattblueboy (talk) 02:08, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Followed up by changing isbn 10 to 13s, rm dupe wikilinks, tried to homogenise measurements but couldn't tell if the article is metric-imperial or vice versa so stopped to check here; let me know and I'll sort them out. Blammed a few typos, pasted the new Schleswig-Holstein article title in. Added First Army in lead since the article mentions attachment of metropolitan units. Rv as desired.Keith-264 (talk) 10:21, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Reserve units secure hill 145
It was specifically the 85 work battalion who secured hill 145. The battalion is now called the Cape Breton Highlanders. I believe they should receive recognition. ArizonaRanger21 (talk) 01:28, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Recent edits
Coordinates – optional – the location of the structure, given as a coordinate pair by using °N, °W with display=inline,title. Used to display the geographic location of the conflict and the location on a map added with the map_type parameter. Keith-264 (talk) 21:45, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

British Empire victory
British and Canadian participants an empire doesn't make. I suggest Canadian victory.Keith-264 (talk) 12:38, 3 March 2020 (UTC)


 * This was Entente victory previously, not sure what happened to that. Canadian victory doesn't work as a significant portion of the dedication forces were British formations.--Labattblueboy (talk) 20:21, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I remember that too; can't think of anything descriptive and short. regards Keith-264 (talk) 09:09, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
 * The British were on the side of the "Allied powers", so I believe it would be accurate to call it an "Allied" victory. I also support "Entente victory". AdmiralEek  Thar she edits! 19:54, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Will you change the Battle of Verdun and all the rest of the Western Front battles from French/British/German victory to Allied/Central Powers victory? The Battle of Vimy Ridge was a British empire battle, the principal participants being Canadian and British versus the Germans (Prussians/Bavarians). Regards Keith-264 (talk) 20:02, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Honestly, not a bad idea, but that wasn't my intent. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. I was simply trying to propose a compromise wording that is still accurate yet not controversial. AdmiralEek  Thar she edits! 20:12, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Good idea but I fear that a compromise will only look wrong to a considerable number of readers. Good luck; liked your Gallic Wars article by the way. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 20:23, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Vimy Ridge is universally regarded as a Canadian victory which, furthermore, established the Canadian Corps as an autonomous fighting force. Nothing could be simpler than that. Now, the British Empire still existed and the Canadian Corps was a component of those forces, taking general orders from the British high command. However, the execution of those orders and the tactics and strategies employed by the Canadian Corps were independently constructed, first by Byng with advice from Currie, and shortly after Vimy by Currie himself. The very name Canadian Corps established a distinctly Canadian army in the field. The tactics employed at Vimy were entirely of Currie's design. Only supporting artillery and engineering work were provided by the British forces, the British forces did not participate in the battle on the field. Therefore, the designation of the victory should be Canadian Corps.Tennisedu (talk) 03:23, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
 * You need to cite WP:Reliable sources to support your claim of "universally regarded as a Canadian victory". If these are accepted, they could then be cited in the infobox to support the "result" field - Arjayay (talk) 08:47, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
 * The attackers were the Canadians Corps period. The supporting British artillery and engineering units were attached to Canadian Corps for the purposes of this battle. Result should be "Canadian Corps victory".Tennisedu (talk) 04:44, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Recent edits
Does a newspaper report of 1917 by Philip Gibbs, produced under censorship, constitute a reliable source? I have a doubt. Keith-264 (talk) 11:21, 18 January 2022 (UTC) Just had a look in * ond OH 1917 I for German casualties, nothing there. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 22:45, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

"quickly to counter-attack"
I don't know what happened, but somehow I made that last edit without an edit summary; had it written out but must have blanked it by accident. At any event, I do not think it is appropriate for an editor to dismiss another's edit on the basis that "you're not the audience". I'm an editor, and a reader. I am part of the audience. As an editor, we make style assessments all the time, to make the article as readable and as interesting as possible. Deal with proposed style changes on the merits, not by dismissing the status of other editors. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 13:20, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
 * It's a simple matter of English grammar, to is conjugated with the verb; if you enter a conflict of interest you shouldn't complain about it being pointed out. As for missing the edit summary, I did it on an edit yesterday too; I wouldn't worry, you've made your point here rather well. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 14:58, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
 * @Keith-264, why is "too far back to counter-attack quickly" ungrammatical? It's perfectly legit to move the adverb to the end. Indefatigable (talk) 15:17, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
 * First keep in mind that English is not my first language, so I may not be the most qualified person to give an opinion here. That said, the sentence, as written now makes no sense to me. I read it a few times and I have no idea what the quickly refers to. Moving the word at the end of the sentence makes way more sense, at least to me. --McSly (talk) 15:25, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for asking here, counter-attack is the verb so "to" conjugates with it. To me "too far back to counter-attack quickly" invites confusion between quick and slow counter-attacks rather than the sense of "promptly" to counter-attack. Regards. Keith-264 (talk) 15:21, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that what you're saying is that we can't split an infinitive. That's not considered a principle of English grammar any longer.  See:  MLA Style Center:  Is it OK to split an infinitive?;  The Guardian:  To boldly go for it: why the split infinitive is no longer a mistake.  "To" is used to conjugate, but it's acceptable to put adverbs between the "to" and the main word of the infinitive.  The question now is one of style;  what wording best achieves the goal of clarity in the sentence?  The wording "to quickly counter-attack" seems to me to be the clearest meaning, and better than "quickly to counter-attack", which doesn't seem to me to be as clear or as easy to read.  Others may differ, of course, so it's a question of consensus rather than a grammatical rule. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 17:49, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
 * How about this for a compromise: "too far back to counter-attack promptly". That makes it clear that the adverb is about reaction time and not attack speed. It also is normal readable English. "Too far back quickly to counter-attack" is simply not easily understood or something an English speaker would naturally write unless they had been trained to be hyperaware of the (false) rule against split infinitives. Indefatigable (talk) 16:02, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
 * The MLA is about American usage and that's a lost cause, especially in a Canadian article. The Guardian can't parse a sentence for toffee, it is no authority on anything but inanity. I suggest that "any longer" is tendentious. Your definition of clarity is subjective and based on appeals to authority that are dubious in the extreme. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 06:09, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Hello again, "too far back to counter-attack promptly" substitutes the word promptly for quickly, to me it should be promptly to counter-attack. How about something like "too distant to counter-attack before the Canadians could consolidate"? Regards Keith-264 (talk) 16:42, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
 * That wording sounds great to me. Indefatigable (talk) 17:11, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Glad you like it, I've put it in subject to other editors agreeing. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 17:15, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Recent edits
Dear Spyglasses, please stop adding wikilinks that are already linked. There's a way to avoid this if you're interested. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 16:08, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Result
To be consistent with other WWI articles in which various Corps are designated as victors of certain battles, the result here should be stated as "Canadian Corps victory" inasmuch as all the units involved were either Canadian Corps or were attached to Canadian Corps. Unless there any objections I will restate this result as "Canadian Corps victory". Tennisedu (talk) 04:42, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
 * You are welcome to your opinion but the article is susceptible to Reliable Sources only. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 07:46, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I am not aware of any sources indicating that any other forces than Canadian Corps were involved in this battle on the Allied side. The British units here were attached to Canadian Corps for this battle, as indicated in the current text of this article. There are other articles infoboxes stating, for example, that "Australian army victory" was the result of certain WWI battles. We should try to be consistent.

Here is the source for the fact that Canadian Corps was the sole unit for the Allies in this battle, this should be sufficient for the purposes of this discussion.

Nicholson, G. W. L. (1962), Canadian Expeditionary Force 1914–1919 (PDF), Official History of the Canadian Army in the First World War, Ottawa: Queen's Printer and Controller of Stationery, OCLC 59609928. P. 229.Tennisedu (talk) 16:17, 12 April 2023 (UTC)




 * Battle of Vimy, 1917, 9th–14th April. First Army, I Corps: 24th Division; Canadian Corps: 5th Division, 1st Canadian, 2nd Canadian, 3rd Canadian and 4th Canadian Divisions. Page 17. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 18:00, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
 * You need to seek consensus, not try to dictate your terms. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 18:18, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
 * The point is that all of the forces you mention above were a part of Canadian Corps for this battle, as clearly indicated in the official Canadian history. Where do you have a problem with the official history, which certainly is more authoritative than the references you provide above.? A consensus is certainly more than just you and me, the official history has a role to play.Tennisedu (talk) 20:00, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

It isn't a matter of opinion, it's a matter of the RS; the First Army wasn't Canadian, I Corps wasn't Canadian and the 5th Division and many artillery units weren't Canadian, hence the difficulty in labelling the result. If you look back through the talk page you will see that it has been exhaustively debated. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 20:19, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, no, that is factually incorrect. For this battle those other units WERE a part of Canadian Corps, they took their orders not from their own generals but from the command structure of Canadian Corps. That is what it means to be "attached" or "seconded" to another unit for a battle or a campaign. Those supporting British artillery and engineering units were essentially "loaned" to Canadian Corps for the Battle of Vimy Ridge and followed the orders given by Canadian Corps. Nothing which you cited above claims to challenge that reality, whereas the official histories make it clear that those units were "attached" to Canadian Corps. This is not an "opinion" as you hopefully suggest, it is a clear matter of fact. There is no Wikipedia consensus which can change the clear facts of a military command structure prevailing in a historic battle.

Here is the relevant paragraph as it currently stands in this article, this explains the situation and of how the "nominal strength of CANADIAN CORPS" was bolstered by the attached units.

"The nature and size of the attack needed more resources than the Canadian Corps possessed; the British 5th Division, artillery, engineer and labour units were attached to the corps, bringing the nominal strength of the Canadian Corps to about 170,000 men, of whom 97,184 were Canadian."Tennisedu (talk) 01:24, 13 April 2023 (UTC)


 * If you want to be like that, Wikipedia is not a reliable source. This isn't a matter of opinion, whatever sophistries you mobilise, the RS are what matter. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 06:50, 13 April 2023 (UTC)


 * I'm in completed agreement with Keith-264 on this one. No one is seeking to minimize the Canadian's central role within the battle but as previous discussions have already noted, the forces were multi-national in composition. The reliable sources are quite consistent in this respect. There are Canadian, British, Indian and nominally Australian (via the Australian Electrical and Mechanical Mining and Boring Company) units involved. There will be some sources that refer to this as a Canadian Corps victory but I haven't seen any indication that the plurality of sources state this was a "Canadian" victory . While I don't wish to be pedantic, some of your observations of command structure are incorrect. Most army-level units were not essentially "loaned" to Canadian Corps; they did not necessarily take orders directly from the Canadian Corps. There were army-level units like No. 16 Squadron which the Canadian Corps was given exclusive control of but to state all supporting army-level (or most) units and formations were loaned to the Canadian Corps is simply not supported by reliable sources. These comments are however largely irrelevant as the body of literature does not support referring to this battle as a Canadian victory. --Labattblueboy (talk) 14:35, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Again, the sources used for this article are clear that all supporting units were attached or "seconded" to Canadian Corps, thus under the command of Canadian Corps command structure. As I pointed out above, this very article acknowledges this arrangement by stating that Canadian Corps personnel numbered 170,000, a total which included all seconded supporting units. There is no alternative source indicating otherwise, and you have not attempted to cite anything which would contradict these clear facts of history. The very idea that a Wikipedia "consensus" can commandeer and alter historical facts is not remotely within Wikipedia guidelines on historical articles. Wikipedia guidelines require articles to be consistent with reliable sources. The idea that Wikipedia is not a reliable source does not nullify the Wikipedia guidelines for reliable sourcing. I do not know how anyone could seriously suggest this idea.Again, none of this is my personal opinion but is clear in the reliable sources. I would suggest that editors on this article take a serious look at the requirement for sourcing of the issues involved, and refrain from inserting personal ideas into the discussion. Personal feelings have no place here.Tennisedu (talk) 19:15, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
 * It's your responsibility to lay out the sourcing for your argument. You've not done so. Labattblueboy (talk) 20:23, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I should note that if you believe there are areas for improvement in the article and you are prepared to contribute in areas that extend beyond the "result" then by all means do so. There is certainly more contemporary sources that are not yet incorporated. Labattblueboy (talk) 20:35, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Again, the article itself already makes the clear point that all the forces in this battle on the Allied side were a part of Canadian Corps, which I cited for you already. There is no need for me to add anything to this, which is based on the official Canadian history of WWI. Can you not read this material? Tennisedu (talk) 01:56, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
 * If you took the time to read the article history and it's promotions you would see I wrote a great deal of the material and have read just about every one of the cited works. If you won't lay out an argument I think we are done here, but always happy to reconsider. Labattblueboy (talk) 22:55, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I gave you the sources above which is the official Canadian history of WWI, and also the relevant paragraph in this very article. Those are unimpeachable sources, which are definitive. I do not know how you managed to avoid reading this material which I supplied you with above. You have not given any source for your own personal ideas, which causes me to doubt that any such sources exist. Tennisedu (talk) 01:54, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
 * The Nicholson source is not on its own sufficient. We are speaking of the volume of work not simply one source. Nicholson also has some problems, in the same way as the British Official histories do, they are imperfect. Still great value but best paired with more contemporary sources. That said, what pages and passages are you using in support of your argument? I would assume its portions of Chapter 8 but you'll need to be more specific.
 * Maybe you would find the Gary Sheffield essay “Vimy Ridge and the Battle of Arras" in Vimy: A Canadian Reassessment of some interest. His principal argument is the battle must be understood within the context of the Battle of Arras. Vimy Ridge wasn't a standalone battle and Sheffield argues that the Canadian Corps' context within the overall battle is exaggerated. Labattblueboy (talk) 23:35, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Sheffield's work has been denounced as a biased attempt to rescue Haig's reputation. Read the Wikipedia article on Gary Sheffield (historian). I cannot believe that you are serious about that reference. Read Nigel Jones. "The Chief: Douglas Haig and the British Army by Gary Sheffield: Review". The Daily Telegraph, 11 August 2011. The support for the view that 170,000 is the number for Canadian Corps at Vimy Ridge is already available in the current Wikipedia article we are discussing, no one has challenged that number. It is referenced at P. 229 in Nicholson. There is no debate or controversy here. There already exists a Wikipedia article on the Battle of Arras. That is a separate article from the Battle of Vimy Ridge. The Battle of Arras was just a smaller component of the Nivelle Offensive, so you could claim that the Battle of Arras never really existed, it was just part of the Nivelle Offensive. You are suggesting something very radical here, which is surely original work.Tennisedu (talk) 17:26, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Surely, you cannot be serious. Sheffield's book has been denounced as a biased attempt to rescue the reputation of Haig. Read the following review, by Nigel Jones. "The Chief: Douglas Haig and the British Army by Gary Sheffield: Review". The Daily Telegraph, 11 August 2011. Sheffield's work is not reputable historical research because he begins with a premise and then interprets the evidence to support his own ideas. The reality was that Haig's lack of success was rescued largely by Currie's innovative tactics, exemplified first at Vimy Ridge. Sheffield offers the rationale that Haig was not aware of the new military technology, but how long did it take Haig to adapt? At least Haig allowed Currie the scope to implement new offensive tactics. But this has nothing to do with our discussion here. The entire Allied force at Vimy Ridge was Canadian Corps and is already acknowledged in the infobox by using the total of 170,000 Allied soldiers in the battle, which is the strength of Canadian Corps. That should be noted in the infobox more explicitly, not hidden by omission.Tennisedu (talk) 17:15, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Sheffield is an excellent source. Simply because one book reviewer in a populist newspaper didn't like it doesn't mean it doesn't hold value. Others certainly seem to think so, that book is quite heavily cited in other works inclusive of Tim Cook's Vimy: The Battle and the Legend. Sheffield's piece from Vimy: A Canadian Reassessment is not cited in this article but the central argument of his essay still holds true. It is necessary to assess this battle within the structure of the Battle of Arras.
 * I don't have a hardcopy of Nicholson at hand, only the electronic version, so there will be differences in page numbers. I assume it's the following passage that you are mentioning (because you haven't actually said so. "The attachment of the British 5th Division (in corps reserve) and British artillery, engineer and labour units, had brought the Canadian Corps to a strength of approximately 170,000 all ranks, of whom 97,184 were Canadians". This is a footnote statement. I would say it's perfectly fine for the purposes of establishing an estimated number of combatants but it's a stretch to say this is an analysis of command and control structure. Once again, The Nicholson source is not on its own sufficient. We are speaking of a conclusion reached via the volume of work not simply one source.--Labattblueboy (talk) 23:41, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Even I Corps? Keith-264 (talk) 19:21, 13 April 2023 (UTC)


 * No, if you look in the infobox at the total strength of the Allied combatant forces at Vimy Ridge it is given as 170,000, which is the total number of men in Canadian Corps including attached and seconded units. So, no, I Corps was not deemed to be part of the battle in the estimation of the belligerent strength in the infobox. Note also the following statement from the article,
 * "[Byng] was supported to the north by the 24th Division, I Corps, which advanced north of the Souchez river and by the XVII Corps to the south."
 * These adjacent battlefields were not deemed to be part of the Battle of Vimy Ridge, although they were coordinated in time. The artillery components of I Corps, whose efforts were part of the overall artillery plans, were also not deemed to be combatants at Vimy Ridge. British 5th Division, artillery, engineer and labour units were seconded to Canadian Corps, bringing the numbers of Canadian Corps engaged at Vimy Ridge to about 170,000 men, of whom 97,184 were Canadian. This total accounts for all Allied forces deemed to be combatant in the Battle of Vimy Ridge.Tennisedu (talk) 02:13, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
 * We have already acknowledged in the infobox that the total Allied participation at Vimy Ridge was 170,000, that is the strength of Canadian Corps at Vimy Ridge, so that should be explicitly pointed out in the "result" section as well. No other Allied units were involved at Vimy Ridge.Tennisedu (talk) 17:15, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Hair splitting and OR isn't good enough. James clearly puts I Corps in the battle for Vimy Ridge and treating all. I'd let it lie. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 17:29, 16 April 2023 (UTC)


 * This is not "hair-splitting", this is an article about the assault on Vimy Ridge, NOT the Battle of Arras, which you seem to think this is. There already exists an article on the Battle of Arras, this article is about Vimy Ridge only. By your own logic, we should eliminate the Battle of Arras and look at the Neville Offensive, of which Arras was merely one part. Who is "James", he is not in the bibliography here? I Corps is not included in the infobox for this article anywhere, the total number of men we list is ONLY Canadian Corps, and rightly so. Your proposed approach would mean removing any national attribution from the other WWI battles and assigning them to general offensives. That is a very revisionist position to take and conflicts with the Wikipedia approach to these WWI battles. That would be original work. Tennisedu (talk) 17:37, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Now you're conflating the First Army and the Third Army. You haven't achieved consensus and you can't have your edit. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 18:02, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
 * What are you referring to? I was merely pointing out the absurdity of ignoring individual battles, which appears to be the approach you are taking here, and is surely original work. Should we now redefine all other WWI battles and use only offensives? And by the way, just WHO is "James", there is no mention of him in this article. And please, you do not determine Wikipedia policy, my friend.Tennisedu (talk) 18:14, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
 * James? See above and stop wasting your time. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 19:08, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
 * James, E. A. (1990) [1924]. A Record of the Battles and Engagements of the British Armies in France and Flanders 1914–1918 (London Stamp Exchange ed.). Aldershot: Gale & Polden. ISBN 978-0-948130-18-2. James is not even listed in the article bibliography. If the I Corps were contingent at the Battle of Vimy Ridge, the numbers in this article would reflect that. But they do not, clearly indicating that I Corps was not combatant at Vimy.Tennisedu (talk) 00:02, 17 April 2023 (UTC)(talk) 19:26, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
 * FYSA, I Corps was awarded both The Battles of Arras, 1917 and The Battle of Vimy battle honours.--Labattblueboy (talk) 01:26, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

I Corps was nowhere to be seen at the Battle of Vimy Ridge, they were engaged in another battlefield. Thus I Corps is not listed in this article as a combatant unit at Vimy Ridge, and the numbers of Alled combatants is listed as 170,000, which is the number for Canadian Corps only.Tennisedu (talk) 15:09, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I think it's more plausible that we need to see what sources might help us clarify how non-Canadian Corps units/formations contributed rather than declaring the Battlefield Nomenclature Committee as incorrect (which seems doubtful). Would happily accept some help if you might be interested in contributing this way.--Labattblueboy (talk) 16:59, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I think it is very clear that I Corps was not involved at Vimy Ridge. No one claims otherwise, and the gift of "battle honours" to I Corps for Vimy looks like a hangers-on award. Awards are often confused and mistaken, especially the unit battle honours. The only contribution claimed for I Corps is the overall artillery barrage for the Battle of Arras, which was not specific to Vimy. There were zero I Corps personnel at Vimy, they were engaged in their own battle in another area. As far as "non-Canadian" is concerned, Canadian Corps included non-Canadian components at Vimy, which brought the total for Canadian Corps personnel to 170,000, of which 97,000 were Canadian. The current article makes these numbers clear already, but the infobox "result" does not reflect the numbers in the infobox.Tennisedu (talk) 18:35, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Although we may not have many (if any) secondary sources to comment on the matter, I was curious what some primary sources might say. I looked at some of the war diaries for I Corps last night. Some batteries were clearly transferred from I Corps to the Canadian Corps (ex: 6th Canadian Siege Battery, one section each from 49th Siege Battery and 41st Siege Battery on 31 March 1917- per WO 95/619/3). However, it's made very clear that I Corps Royal Artillery and Heavily Artillery were active participants in the Battle of Arras/Vimy operation within the I Corps zone, overlapping with Canadian Corps artillery barrages and cooperation upon Candian Corps request. I Corps RA Order #1 - I Corps Instructions for Co-operation with Canadian Corps Capture of Vimy Ridge (List of attachments in WO 95/619/3) is quite comprehensive in this respect, and was approved by First Army RA. So it's quite clear I Corps field artillery provided support to the Battle of Vimy Ridge without being attached, seconded or transferred to the Canadian Corps. The war diaries for I Corps Headquarters Heavy Artillery are equally clear about I Corps commanded heavy artillery supporting counter-battery missions and general bombardment in the Canadian Corps zones, notably at La Chauderie, Vimy, Petit Vimy and Givenchy (WO 95/620/2). The above is entirely original research and inappropriate for the article but nevertheless serves to make the point. At this point I need to agree with Keith-264, I don't see any path whereby we come to a consensus.--Labattblueboy (talk) 23:01, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
 * No, your inferences are incorrect. The artillery contribution of those units not attached to Canadian Corps were not specific to the Battle of Vimy Ridge but were part of the Battle of Arras. The Vimy Ridge battlefield artillery barrages coordinated with the infantry assault of the Canadian Corps at Vimy Ridge were all part of or attached to Canadian Corps, a special "creeping barrage" design first demonstrated in a major battle at Vimy only. This was under direct command of Canadian Corps alone, whose exact coordination with the advancing infantry had been carefully rehearsed by Currie. The long range barrages ("counter-battery and general bombardment") were not specific to the Vimy Ridge battle, but were in support of the Arras general attack. Again, these arrangements are indicated in the numbers in this infobox, showing ONLY the 170,000 men of Canadian Corps as participating in the Battle of Vimy Ridge. That should also be reflected in the "result" description as a Canadian Corps success. The principal effective artillery on the battlefield at Vimy Ridge was the Canadian precision gunnery masterminded by the Canadian officer Andrew McNaughton, here is the description in the Wikipedia article on McNaughton. "Particularly after being promoted to Corps Counter Battery Staff Officer, McNaughton used his expertise in engineering to help make advances in the science of artillery particularly in pinpointing artillery targets, both stationary and moving. His acumen and expertise is often pointed to as a key to the Canadian success in the Battle of Vimy Ridge where McNaughton's innovations in the detection of German artillery positions with flash-spotting and sound-ranging led to the Canadians accurately mapping the vast majority of German gun positions before the infantry were sent into battle. A technique McNaughton had developed to measure the wear on cannon barrels and make adjustments to their aiming proved to be vital on April 9, 1917, when the Canadian corps assaulted Vimy Ridge. As the battle commenced, the combination of accurately plotted German gun positions and deadly accurate Canadian artillery fire led to precise strikes that eliminated over 80% of enemy artillery and machine guns, significantly blunting their defences. As the infantry attacked, precise artillery fire allowed the effective implementation of the creeping barrage which proved vital to the success of the infantry advance. At Vimy, the counter-battery team under McNaughton's command knocked out 83% of the 212 German artillery guns on Vimy Ridge in the first two hours, making it possible for the infantry of the Canadian Corps to advance up the heights of Vimy ridge and take the ridge."Tennisedu (talk) 15:18, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Tennisedu I suggest you put your energies into articles. I think Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass applies. Keith-264 (talk) 20:08, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I am simply pointing out what is already in the articles on Vimy Ridge. We do not need far out revisionism here, such as Sheffield.Tennisedu (talk) 21:14, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass Keith-264 (talk) 20:03, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Commemoration
Edit summaries are not the place for tirades of hysterical abuse. Why don't you take a breath and discuss it here? Regards Keith-264 (talk) 21:43, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

tirades of hysterical abuse ... you have got to be sh*tting me, pal! try reasoned arguments and knowledge of canadian history. and you, you can stick it in your ... ear. merci beaucoup, thank you. come again.
 * Judging by the strictures on your talk page, you're in enough trouble already so perhaps we should look at the passage line by line.

"The Canadian National Vimy Memorial is the nation's largest overseas war memorial." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.198.189.135 (talk • contribs)

There is more than one Canadian nation. The First Nations in Canada concept rather labours the point. Making a myth of nationhood and Vimy Ridge is not historical. It didn't take long to turn this up. It may be notable but it isn't everything. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 09:14, 13 April 2024 (UTC)


 * it doesn't labour the point, it is the point. and it is wrong, canada is one nation, it only makes sense. but ... as charles taylor (from the bouchard taylor commission, you may recall, among other things) has argued, people can have many identities/nationalities at once which coexist, like civic, ethnic and linguistic. none of them are really incompatible with the others, but can be very distinct (and at times exclusionary, xenophobic and racist.) Canada, the nation of canada, erected the vimy memorial, and it was done so for all canadians, be they indigenous, quebecios or new. but ... if you take umbrage with the now fairly wide spread interpretations of the reason and meaning of the vimy memorial, and there is much revisionism, well, i have an idea pal ... why don't you compose a review and post it in the article under a new topic heading? how about that? just make sure to research your thesis and cite evidence clearly, here, there and everywhere.


 * I did it, posted the following much needed corrective to the popular bunk about the richard riots, which even the museum of civilization had wrong in an exhibition ... see here, starting with "on the other hand":


 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Riot#Historical_interpretation


 * I added this in late 2012, exactly because people and tv were spewing this pap about the richard riots starting the quiet revolution ... my gawd! you know what, I could not help but notice that almost one one makes that point anymore, indeed, i recall that cbc blowhard ron mclean actually starting to change his tune not long after my posts (he is a jackass, but not stupid.) hey, maybe wikipedia really works! my edits made a difference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.198.189.135 (talk • contribs)
 * I've amended the text to remove the entire "nation" component as it's irrelevant. At least sourcing doesn't see it as relevant concerning the number of memorials overseas. If it were relevant I would be of the same view as Keith-264; there is no consensus that Canada is a single nation state.--Labattblueboy (talk) 07:18, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Morning Labatt, nice to see you're still around. I decided to wait for other editors to take a look at the Commemoration section as consensus seemed impossible with another editor. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 08:12, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

of course it is relevant ... it is a NATIONAL momument — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.198.189.135 (talk) 17:15, 14 April 2024 (UTC)


 * The change to include "nation" does not have consensus please stop inserting it. I honestly don't see this as a central matter to this article. However, if you wish to take advantage of resources like Requests for comment to receive additional views then by all means do so.--Labattblueboy (talk) 21:33, 14 April 2024 (UTC)