Talk:Second Battle of Passchendaele

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleSecond Battle of Passchendaele has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
February 19, 2009Good article nomineeListed

Commons Images[edit]

I have uploaded a number of historical photographs from Library and Archives Canada a well as a number of paintings done by official war artists during the campaign. I thought this might improve the variety of quality historical images available to the article.Labattblueboy (talk) 09:28, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Improve to GA[edit]

I am in the midst of expanding the article and improving the quality of the cited sources in hopes of getting it to GA quality. Any help would be appreciated.Labattblueboy (talk) 23:19, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move[edit]

Order of Battle[edit]

6t5I have been having some difficulty finding and developing an order of battle for the entente. Most publications focus only on the Canadian participation. Here is what I have so far, am I missing anything? Does anyone know what the two french divisions were.

  • XVIII Corps
  • 63rd (Royal Naval) Division
  • 58th (2/1st London) Division
  • XIV Corps
  • 57th (2nd West Lancashire) Division
  • 50th (Northumbrian) Division
  • X Corps
  • 7th Divisions
  • 5th Divisions
  • II Corps
  • 1st Division
  • Canadian Corps
  • 1st Canadian Division
  • 2nd Canadian Division
  • 3rd Canadian Division
  • 4th Canadian Division
  • I Anzac
  • 1st Australian Division

Labattblueboy (talk) 20:56, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • 26th Oct:

Ger, 11th Bav opp CC, 238th Eingreif. OH p. 351. 238th relieved 11th Bav night 26/27th & 39th became Eingreif. OH p. 353 fn 2. First Army

  • 1st
  • 133rd divisions (p. 352 OH)
  • 2 Nov, II Corps replaced XVIII.
  • 6 Nov, II Corps arty only, I Anzac, IX and VIII Corps to simulate attacks. OH p. 355. II and I Anzac flank protection of CC. OH p. 356. Ger 11th Div took over from 39th Div 5/6 Nov opp CC, 44th Res as Eingreif. OH p. 357.Keith-264 (talk) 10:20, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • 10 Nov, 1st Division (II Corps)

Background of the battle[edit]

I've returned the background section to the previously stable version. Before we go about editing git, what are the current issues that require modification?--Labattblueboy (talk) 18:16, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The previous version was untrue! Pilckem and Langemarck weren't stalemates.Keith-264 (talk) 19:13, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have no issues supporting a change but the OH or diaries of those involved are too tainted a source in making that determination. I'll do some reading over the next couple of days and see if we can find a middle of the road determination. I am by no means set to the inflexible, they just need to be more reliable. --Labattblueboy (talk) 19:25, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Diaries are primary sources! The flaws in the OH seem to me to be ones of diverse hands, long delays, numerous drafts and hurried publication, rather than bad faith or ignorance. The dichotomy between Gough's 'breakthrough' attempts (which weren't) and Plumer's adaptations of Gough's methods are overstated and this can be seen in the book or in the references to the text and appendices that I have made. Have you seen Sheffield 'The Chief'? While a very good book which historicises Haig rather well it still makes the same mistake as Edmonds's fourth (published) draft. Sheldon's 2007 'The German Army....' has copious translations of contemporary German orders, diary entries, participants' letters and a commentary
It is a simple fact that almost always the defence had prevailed during August but it was paying a high price in casualties to stave off the Allied advance. As the month drew to a close, there was no feeling of exultation; just a type of grim satisfaction that the line was being held. (p. 138).

Almost always.... August didn't go to plan for either sideKeith-264 (talk) 20:06, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Primary sources should be used sparingly and any analysis of that primary source should be accompanied by a secondary source (WP:PRIMARY). The primary document text should only be used for descriptive statements, not analysis. Sections wherein Sheffield or Sheldon make analysis are a possible way forward.--Labattblueboy (talk) 20:24, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Many of the primary sources not from Sheldon are from Terraine plus his commentary (i.e. he did all this in 1977).Keith-264 (talk) 21:02, 16 October 2011 (UTC) A lot of the others are from the OH.Keith-264 (talk) 21:19, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alterations[edit]

Found a home for the preliminary operations excised from 1st Pass and synchronised section titles. Keith-264 (talk) 09:58, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fleshed out the flanking operations and threaded the narrative into existing material.Keith-264 (talk) 20:44, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Did sfn's to new material.Keith-264 (talk) 08:00, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Did sfn's to the rest, sfn footnoting complete for all the 3rd Ypres pages.Keith-264 (talk) 10:15, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Put pp in for page references and – instead of - as per peer review advice for Messines and the other Passchendaele pages.Keith-264 (talk) 14:57, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unlinked reference[edit]

  • Prior, Robin; Wilson, Trevor (1996). Passchendaele: The Untold Story. Cumberland: Yale University Press. ISBN 0-300-07227-9.
Cleaned up using http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ucucha/HarvErrors Keith-264 (talk) 12:46, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Detail[edit]

Added some detail and better sources for X Corps operations on 26 September, found references for the VC section and applied AutoEd, which might be taking out spaces put in by other editing tools.Keith-264 (talk) 01:11, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Have tabulated the weather data and removed the note. The table is in one chunk but I can split it up if desired.Keith-264 (talk) 12:48, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keith, a couple points regarding the recent edits. 1. The citation should be broken down by individual page when possible not a whole range, each covering a paragraph. 3. I am also not necessarily in favour of changing the sourcing from McCarthy to Atkinson; any particular reason for the change? 3. The material covering the 5th and 7th division should be paired and summarized more effectively, at current state there is more material covering their activities than the man attacking forces.--Labattblueboy (talk) 17:38, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have used individual page citations when the information comes from one page and a range when the summary comes from more than one. Where the item is possibly controversial rather than narrative, I add more citations but as far as I know the rule is a minimum of one citation per paragraph and more depending on the nature of the material. I have noticed that McCarthy's synopses sometimes seem confused (it occurs in the Somme book as well) so when I find a source which he's used, I follow that if it makes more sense. I quite agree that the X Corps section is bigger (although the 5th Div paragraph is still rather sparse) but I wanted them to get a bit more coverage rather than be also-rans. It's a pity that I haven't found a German source which mentions whether the opposition against the Canadians was weaker because of the flanking Corps attacks but keeping the front broad was an important consideration at the time so the subsidiary/diversionary operations need some detail, if possible on how they impinged on the main effort. That said I tend to put more in than you so I don't mind if you prune it, although being me, I'd expand the Canadian Corps narrative instead.... Are you happy with the tabulation? I could cut it into sections so the dates are contiguous with the operations being described,although that might mean shuffling pictures around.Keith-264 (talk) 20:12, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Labbatt, have you considered describing the action from right to left rather than principal and subsidiary operations? Keith-264 (talk) 12:37, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The literature, as I've seen it, looks at the actions are principal and subsidiary. I'd support a left to right/right to left approach if we were talking a broad attack of equal proportionality but it's not.--Labattblueboy (talk) 01:11, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Tactically broad-front attacks were preferred because they forced the Germas to spread their defensive fire over a greater area so the subsidiary operations form part of a whole (either because the Germans had less firepower on the principal front or they ignored the diversions).
Oh and do you know if there are definitive Canadian casualty records for Hill 70 and Passchendaele?Keith-264 (talk) 12:41, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean by more definitive? the figures listed in both right now are rather specific--Labattblueboy (talk) 01:11, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The OH has c.14,000 for 3rd Ypres so I wondered if some of the c.16,000 in the COH were 'non-Canadian Corps' Corps troops.Keith-264 (talk) 07:25, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Added losses for RND from Div Hist, 26-31 Oct.Keith-264 (talk) 00:22, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Added a subsequent operations section to cover minor operations and the night attack of 1/2 December.Keith-264 (talk) 22:28, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Did the same for the NZD attack 3 December.Keith-264 (talk) 21:48, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pruning[edit]

Your cuts to the additions I made look like they keep the sense of the new material, while returning the balance of the article closer to what it was, which I agree makes sense for the page, although it seems to me that they were part of an operation originally intended to go as far as Westroozebeke, rather than stop at Passchendaele. Diversion of the Germans from the Malmaison and Cambrai attacks also seem to be part of a whole in late October-December, so the subsidiary/minor attacks on the flanks are more significant in my reading of the material (the 63rd Division night attacks achieved more than the bigger day operations of 26 and 30 October, which may have infuenced the subsequent operation of 2/3 December) which is to say they were part of one operation not coincidental to the CC attacks. If you look at maps for the end of the advance, the northern flank moved forward as well as the central area around Passchendaele. The balance of sources contemporary with us does somewhat emphasise the Canadian Corps operations though, which the page should reflect. http://etheses.bham.ac.uk/3188/ (A moonlight massacre: the night operation on the Passchendaele Ridge, 2 December 1917) may help when it's out in July. I don't mind you pruning to the "subsequent operations" section to rebalance the article, since my descriptive style isn't to everyone's taste.Keith-264 (talk) 07:49, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

RND[edit]

Added a little detail from the RND history - casualties and operations.Keith-264 (talk) 17:46, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mud[edit]

"Moving troops to the front ahead of the attack was nonetheless extremely difficult as the only means of approaching the front line were narrow boardwalks made of wood planking which wound between the shell-holes. Slipping off the duckboards could often be deadly with unfortunate soldiers frequently drowning in mud under the weight of their own equipment." Does the source define frequently? Given the number of soldiers I would have thought that drowning was one of the lesser risks they ran, certainly less likely than being killed by artillery and gunshots. Are we not straying into the arena of legend about Ypres rather than a rare danger which occurred elsewhere like the Ancre valley in late 1916-early 1917?Keith-264 (talk) 21:37, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Franco-Belgian operations[edit]

Found a source at last and have been able to add a brief narrative of operations on the northern flank of the battlefront. Does anyone think there's now enough material to split the page?Keith-264 (talk) 15:49, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The addition of the subsidiary elements of the offensive is certainly helpful. I've had a look though and made some copy edits, but it generally looks like a good addition. There is no need to split, the topic isn't large enough. If it comes to it, we'd just have to summarize content more concisely.--Labattblueboy (talk) 02:24, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Blammed a few typos and concur with your pruning. Actually the split suggestion was a compromise as I'd do four pages, one for each operation....;O) http://digi.landesbibliothek.at/viewer/metadata/AC01858814/1/LOG_0000/;jsessionid=066469642B476E3C81BA6F936B44AB65 The German Official History is online here, which can be deciphered with a translator (albeit somewhat eccentrically) so I hope to glean a few snippets from the other side of the hill.Keith-264 (talk) 07:56, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_Ruquoy is the only detail I've been able to find about Rucquoy/Ruquoy.Keith-264 (talk) 08:34, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Casualties[edit]

Added a sub-heading (as I wasn't sure how casualties have been recorded on this page) for data gleaned from Der Weltkrieg. Feel free to copy-edit as usual.Keith-264 (talk) 13:55, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Added casualty figures for the Second and Fifth armies (from weekly returns "including wastage"). Think Wolff may have only counted the battle days.Keith-264 (talk) 23:11, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New source[edit]

22 Oct[edit]

Revised the preliminary operations section now that the operations of 22 October article is complete. Keith-264 (talk) 22:18, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cut Polderhoek 3 December to a see also as above.Keith-264 (talk) 22:39, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Finished the edits to subsequent operations.Keith-264 (talk) 11:31, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

CE[edit]

Checked sources and amended a few details, swapped to efn for simplicity, cut a dupe wikilink, ce where the passage had a green line (mostly mine) and misc tidy ups.Keith-264 (talk) 23:32, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Second Battle of Passchendaele. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:34, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Minor ce[edit]

Tidied prose, transposed the 63rd and 58th divisions checked the French section.Keith-264 (talk) 14:50, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Second_Battle_of_Passchendaele&oldid=1216290583"