Talk:Battle of the Menin Road Ridge

Comments
Nice article. The Wikipedia can not be used as a reference. These should be fixed or removed. Please avoid the used of ibid as the Wiki is dynamic. Please See: WP:IBID

:- ) DCS 17:22, 27 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks, it's my first try. I've been removing ibids and Op. Cit.s all over the place now I know I should. I don't suppose you know how to link several footnotes to one reference do you? I found a guide on how to do it when the footnotes are the same but can't find instructions on how to link different footnotes to the same ref. I've tried copying some done by other people but it hasn't worked. :(Keith-264 (talk) 19:24, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Details
I have moved lots of detail to the separate page here

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tactical_development_on_the_Western_Front_in_1917

and parked the removals here for the moment

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Keith-264/sandbox

I would be grateful if people could review the changes to see if they are satisfactory.Thanks Keith-264 (talk) 07:42, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Ditto.Keith-264 (talk) 19:47, 25 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Removed overlaps and repetition, needs another pair of eyes.Keith-264 (talk) 11:24, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Recent edits
Reverted latest revert as it was done without explanation and offer this explanation for the previous edits. I had left the page alone wile working on Messines 1917 to get A-class status, then returned to the Passchendaele pages to put the weather data into tables so as to make them more visible, since the weather had so much influence on events. While at it I copyedited parts of this page and removed a few typos and tidied the prose, adding some detail in the process. I'm quite happy to discuss this but am rather disappointed that it was reverted unilaterally.Keith-264 (talk) 14:37, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Keith, my apologizes about that. Wasn't on purpose, a two year-old I was watching hit the revert button when playing with my iPad. Edits seemed just fine by me.--Labattblueboy (talk) 17:12, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I wondered why the typos had been restored!;O) Sorry for jumping to conclusions.... Hope you and the two year-old are well!!Keith-264 (talk) 18:17, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Battle of Menin Ridge Reply
In the interests of consensual editing, this is just to let you know I am planning even greater changes to the article, to include greater detail and a wider range of sources, etc., as well as correcting inaccuracies and misleading wording.

In the meantime, why did you choose the blunt instrument of wholesale reversion, including the deletion of at least one new reference? Grant &#124;  Talk  16:07, 2 June 2014 (UTC)


 * It was either that or a reversion of the nationality changes one-by-one. There has been a long argument about the status of Dominion formations and anachronistic labelling, which I fear will never be resolved. I would have left the other edits in if I could have done it in one go. I thought about contacting you to explain but wasn't sure if it was a drive-by edit by an ignoramus. I'd be grateful to know what you consider to be inaccurate, what sources you want to use and which wordings are misleading. RegardsKeith-264 (talk) 16:15, 2 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I've just noticed that the Analysis section is missing.Keith-264 (talk) 16:23, 2 June 2014 (UTC)


 * You could have done what I did, which was copy and paste to a word processor and then "find and replace"; it still has to be done step by step, though, as a "bulk replace" will wreck some proper names.


 * I don't see how "the status of Dominion formations and anachronistic labelling" applies here. (1) Clearly, by the time of WW1, the Dominions were independent (except in foreign policy). That "independence" included Dominion governments having ultimate control over their own military forces. (2) The entity, including the UK, was officially called the British Empire long before WW1, and while some people (even in the Dominions) during WW1 still referred to all British Empire subjects as "British", to many others that was already unacceptable (as, say, referring to the Australian cricket team as "British").


 * Besides,WP:MOS says in its introduction: "avoid ambiguity" and the "vague". Other alternatives are: "Allied", a term that was already in use by 1916, or; avoiding collective terms (where possible) and using precise national descriptions (if possible). Grant  &#124;  Talk  10:28, 4 June 2014 (UTC)


 * It's not a matter of opinion it's a matter of fact; Dominions were not sovereign states in 1914, Dominion subjects were British subjects and had British passports. The Canadian Supreme court ruled that Canada became sovereign in the 1920s and Australia did in 1948 (or in the 80s if you go by abolition of appeals to the Privy Council). If we were use "Allied" to refer to the coalition armies on the Western Front in particular rather than in general, we'll end up calling Verdun an Allied rather than French army victory. Notice that the French First Army to the north wasn't in the Menin Road battle either.

As I remarked, I thought about trying to revert the nomenclature and not the picture caption but when I've tried to use a word processor to edit like that I've made things worse. If your edit was a drive by, it would be pointless and if not we could sort it out later. As for the caption, if a picture paints a thousand words, why add a couple of dozen more when a few will do? I've had a look at the section on the Second Army and if for example you want an amendment like "British", "Australian" and "British and Australian" for X Corps, 1st Anzac Corps and the Second Army I won't object.

I suggest we move the discussion to the talk page Talk:Battle of the Menin Road Ridge if that's all right with you? RegardsKeith-264 (talk) 12:04, 4 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I would rather see the division of countries included, like most First World War battle articles. The previous discussion of the topic at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 123 certainly shows there is a division but I don't know of a GA, A of FA level article wherein the dominions are not seperated. The topic lead: Battle of Passchendaele emplyos a listed style as do the two GA level articles in this topic area (Battle of Messines (1917) and Second Battle of Passchendaele).--Labattblueboy (talk) 17:25, 4 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I'll agree to that if the same thing is done for the German side.Keith-264 (talk) 18:11, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't have any issue with that. I should make clear that I likely don't have sufficient knowledge as to the level of independence of the kingdoms within the empire to be an authority on the subject but on the face of it I see no issue.--Labattblueboy (talk) 20:23, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks; I forgot to mention that I had another look at the Second Army and 4th Army sections. I added "... and Australian" in several places.Keith-264 (talk) 20:29, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Are there really formations from Baden, Bavaria, Prussia, Saxony and Württemberg? I have 36th and 2nd Guards Reserve as Prussian, 32nd as Saxon, 121st and 9th as likely as Prussian but arguably Prussian/Saxon mix, Bavarian Ersatz Division and 16th Bavarian as Bavarian (obviously). Not sure about 207th, 236st and 234th. Can we actually confirm Baden or Württemberg?--02:51, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Using the US intelligence summary

Any help?Keith-264 (talk) 06:59, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
 * 2nd GR Westphalia and Hannover
 * 9th Silesia
 * 32nd Saxony
 * 36th East Prussia
 * 121st Lower Alsace, Posen, Westphalia
 * 207th, Brandenburg and Poland
 * 234th, Brandenburg and Saxony
 * 236th, Westphalia and Lorraine
 * it provides further detail but does not help in IDing those units that belong to Baden or Württemberg.-Labattblueboy (talk) 23:16, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I've removed Baden and Württemberg until such time that a citation can be provided that one of the formations fell under either the duchy or kingdom.If you have something that does that fill your boots and re-include.--Labattblueboy (talk) 02:54, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm happy with that, regards.Keith-264 (talk) 05:48, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Nomenclature Comment
Keith, I think we are on the verge of sorting out the main issues, thanks. I will make those changes.

However, I still don't understand your aversion to the time-honoured use of "British Empire" as an adjective (e.g. "British Empire soldiers")? There is an argument that, the UK was part of the Empire, albeit one with a superior political-legal status to Dominions, especially after the final Colonial Conference (1907). What about "British and Imperial" as an alternative?

I don't think the de facto ("matter of fact") independence, in all but a handful of issues, of the Dominion governments before WW1, has any direct bearing on this issue. It is a "fact", though, if you consider that the various Dominion governments could, and did, resist UK government pressure during the war to (citing a few examples): impose conscription, keep war-weary units on the Western Front and impose harsher forms of discipline on Dominion personnel. Having studied British Empire history and contributed to Wikipedia articles on it, I can say that Canadian Supreme Court rulings (etc) that you mention are far less relevant than the establishment of self-government and responsible government in the settler colonies from the 1840s, the British North America Act of 1867, the Federation of Australia (1901), the aforementioned 1907 Colonial/Imperial Conference and the 1910 Imperial Conference (which led to the formation of the Australian and Canadian navies, inter alia).

The issue here is really a subjective one: how the Dominions (except perhaps New Zealand) perceived themselves in 1916: there were already national identities and nationalist sentiments that saw the Dominions as separate from (if related to) Britain and the British, especially among e.g. non-British citizens of the Dominions, e.g. indigenous peoples, French Canadians, Afrikaners, Irish Australians, etc. Consider that Australia had "national" Olympic, cricket, and rugby teams before its six colonies were Federated (1901), which is when it achieved Dominion status.

Grant &#124;  Talk  05:22, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
 * That's an analysis of mentalites which isn't NPOV, legalistic criteria are. It also ignores the fact that all of the belligerents were empires - even plucky little Belgium. There were also local variations in the way peripheral groups were treated - Polish and Alsatian troops in the German federal army and non-Metropolitan troops in the French. I had another look at the page and added "and Australian" and "British and Australian" in several places. I'm much more interested in your sources which contradict the narrative of the article. Can we continue this on the Menin Road talk page please?Keith-264 (talk) 05:45, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

The problem with avoiding mentioning dominions by name is that this doesn't allow suitable analysis of the social impact of this battle on the various dominions. Consider that the Australian forces had about 5000 (about 20%) casualties in this battle. The high casualty rate in Australian troops in Western Front battles from Menin Road to Passchendaele -- and how this rate was perceived in Australia to differ from that of English units -- had a considerable political impact in Australia for decades after the war. For example, it's impossible to explain the appeal of the Communist Party of Australia without describing the use of Australian forces from Menin Road onwards. But people coming to this page see nothing of that. Gdt (talk) 01:30, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
 * This is an article about the battle not a hyperbolic sociology of post-war parochial exploitation of the war for partisan purposes, particularly colonial self-pity. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 16:27, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Battle of the Menin Road Ridge. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110719173700/http://www.ordersofbattle.darkscape.net/site/warpath/battles_ff/1917.htm to http://www.ordersofbattle.darkscape.net/site/warpath/battles_ff/1917.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 07:35, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

German federal army
Sheldon, J. (2017). Fighting the Somme: German Challenges, Dilemmas & Solutions. Barnsley: Pen & Sword Military. ISBN 978-1-47388-199-0 goes into a lot of detail about how the 2nd Army on the north side of the Somme in 1916 was rebuffed by Falkenhayn when convinced that it was going to face a big attack by the British. The XIV Reserve Corps, made up of troops of the Baden and Württemberg armies, went straight to the Württemberg government and secured more artillery independent of the Prussian chain of command. The internal workings of the federal army are often wafted away by the comment that doring wartine all the armies came under the Prussian war ministry but the state armies had more autonomy than Dominion formations in the British army. "Nevertheless, in times of war, all of these would pledge allegiance to the Kaiser and the German nation.[12] They did however remain organizationally distinct, being able to raise units of their own without assistance from the dominating Prussians. In one instance, Freiherr von Sonden (from Württemberg) was able to "quite legitimately send a request directly to the Ministry of War in Stuttgart for the raising of a new artillery regiment".[13]" Regards Keith-264 (talk) 10:16, 16 January 2022 (UTC)