Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 03:16, 20 June 2014

User talk:Keith-264/Archive 1

Sandbox

Sandbox2

Archives

Index Archive 1

https://en.wikipedia.org/Template:Note

]

Material moved to archiveKeith-264 (talk) 16:45, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

RTTS

I think this article is a logical step and will go along way to putting the 1914 campaigns into context. One can see clearly see the progress of operations from south to north whilst providing a succinct overview of the battles and of course the rationale for the northward creep of the warring factions. As ever I think the military strategic context is a must, though I would try to be brief (pot calling the kettle black there). I thought if you added in a brief line about the grand geostrategic realm you could add in a link for Causes of World War I, but perhaps it would be better to keep this solely to military matters.

On a small note, I see you use "Tactical Developments" as a sub-heading. It is an interesting choice in place of "Operational Developments" which I thought would have been better. Then I had a think about it. After some reading, I note that perhaps you were right. Moltke the Eder had spoken of the operativ in the 19th century, but it appears this was not crystallised into doctrine until much later—possibly after the Soviet Soviet deep battle concept which officially was the first to recognise operational warfare. The French had done the same as the Germans and the British had not injected the term into doctrine until the 1980s. I find that the combatants at the time tended to use the term "grand tactics" to describe what we would call "operational manoeuvre".

Sorry for the ramble. Dapi89 (talk) 12:08, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

It's tempting to paraphrase Foley: German Strategy and the Path to Verdun - Erich Von Falkenhayn and the Development of Attrition 1870-1916 and have done with it. ;O) Strachan is similar without the detail so the northern extension of the fighting is not too controversial subject. I tend to split pages up the way I do because of the lack of French and German sources in English, which means they're usually a patchwork of authors. I divide the Background section like that to keep in mind the Eastern Front etc which had a symbiotic relationship with the Western (and southern) front, that way I can keep shenanigans at GHQ, GQG and OHL seperate from the fighting. The tactical developments are usually changes in the way existing resources were used and why - since both sides were always trying to use what they had in the context of outsmarting the opposition, which was difficult when any use of the army, tended to destroy it as fast as the the opposing one, reducing well-trained units to novice status in a few days.Keith-264 (talk) 14:01, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

The page is an outline at the moment and modelled on Arras 1917, which I used for the 3rd Ypres and Somme hub pages, which seemed to go down well with the punters. Since we usually write the lead last, it might stay in the sandbox for a while as I do something about the sub-pages. I used your material copied from 1st Ypres for Battle of Armentières Battle of La Bassée so perhaps you might want to consider how much of it needs to stay on the 1st Ypres page? Keith-264 (talk) 14:08, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Do you think it would be acceptable to leave just a two-line summation and a link to those articles? Dapi89 (talk) 13:22, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

No, the last time I checked the recommendation was a paragraph (see here Battle of the Somme) so I tend to adapt the lead of the article. In the outline I've just copied and pasted such lead material as exists. I've been doodling with the structure of the First Ypres page here User:Keith-264/sandbox5, same as RttS here User talk:Keith-264/sandbox3 but I don't think there's a straightforward way of organising so many battles in the region, which overlapped at some times and reacted against each other at others. I think that the RTTS can be restricted to mid-September to mid-October when the Belgians took up the Yser line, so have put Yser and Ypres at the bottom of the page as Subsequent Operations. La Bassee, Armentieres and Messines seem to fall into two parts, the meeting engagements during the RttS and then supporting operations to the main event at Yser-Ypres after mid-October, so I've experimented with putting them into the prelude for 1st Ypres. I've limited the headers in the Battle section to those in "Battles and Engagements" for the moment but I wonder if sub-sections for La Bassee, Armentieres, Messines and/or Yser might be necessary as "Supporting" or "Subsidiary" attacks after mid-October.

It seems to be an intractable problem with battles that last for more than a day or two, either you chop it into bits and write half a dozen new articles which are almost identical in the Background and Prelude sections or risk having a "Battle" section a mile long. When I was writing some of the pages for the Somme (Other engagements) I asked Oz Rupert, who pointed out that they may look repetitive to us but to a punter they're necessary on each page, since we can't assume they're as knowledgeble as the writers.

Anyway they're thought experiments rather than decisions, so I'm interested in your views as to structure too. RegardsKeith-264 (talk) 13:50, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

I stripped out as best I could. I might suggest that the "Strategic developments" part - from the point "Germany Army was the strongest" to the end, could conceivably go into the First Ypres Orbat articles it relates to mobilisation. That would go some way to reducing size. Dapi89 (talk) 13:45, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

In this section we stand to benefit from continuity, because it seems to me that the Marne-Aisne pages end the beginning of the war> battle of the frontiers>great retreat period. RttS takes the story from the end of the Aisne to the North Sea and Yser-1st Ypres cover operations to the end of the year in northern France and Belgium. I'd concentrate on Falkenhayn taking over and shifting the german effort to the nothern flank, Joffre doing the same, the influence of the Eastern Front (demands for reinforcements from France/opportunity to exploit German difficulties) a few sentences re RttS and then the strategic situation in the north once the ground had been occupied and the flank closed, with a para somewhere on the move of the BEF from the Aisne front (although quite a bit of it ended up south of Ypres in the Messines, Armentieres and La Bassee areas. I had another doodle with 1st Y here User:Keith-264/sandbox5 by removing everything but the headers to see if I could find a satisfactory structure but the three battles specific to Ypres would need seperate pages. Are you OK with sources for the bits you're interested in?Keith-264 (talk) 14:33, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Copied these exchanges here Talk:First Battle of Ypres suggest we use the talk page from now on.Keith-264 (talk) 16:36, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

User talk:Keith-264/sandbox5

This is really nice Keith and the presentation/layout looks immaculate. I'd imagine it would be a compact and concise article to read. One problem I have is my tendency to ramble, add too much context and detail. In that regard the article seems very restrained. The concept of syphoning off major battles into their own article is a smart move, one I need to adopt once in a while! That said I have not edited a campaign article for a long while.

I think this article would complement the Battle of Belgium very well. You know I thought about the Battle of Belgium 1914 some time ago but did not have the inclination or time to do it. The WWII article was easy enough to do with only two major battles over 18 days so I could avoid 'out-sourcing' information to sub-articles (like the Battle of Hannut). All I had to do was place it into the context of the German western offensive and that was that. One thing that article was lacking was the fate of the occupied people. I note you have made efforts to add that information. Kudos.

I haven't really got anything to add. I think coverage of the naval issue and Britain's view of the country (which was a UK creation really) as their outlet into Europe should be added to the background parts when you come to do them. Dapi89 (talk) 13:39, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

No wraps

There is no value in adding nowraps where there is nothing to prevent the wrapping of. In future, please make sure they are needed before adding them... Magus732 (talk) 20:38, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean.Keith-264 (talk) 01:27, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

You know what I mean... stop re-adding the unneeded nowraps to the Battle of Cambrai article... Magus732 (talk) 04:59, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

But some of them served no useful purpose where they were, which is why they were removed. Magus732 (talk) 18:07, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

User talk:Keith-264/sandbox3

No complaints. Its very easy to read. I can't see any problems. The sooner it replaces the other the better. Dapi89 (talk) 15:20, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

hyphens

I reverted some edits of yours on Gallipoli Campaign. The only reason I can think of for you to hyphenate "counterattack" is to implement a UK/Commonwealth spelling. Per MOS:RETAIN, I don't think we should be changing spelling conventions. The article isn't yet listed as a Commonwealth spelling article although it is a heavily UK/Commonwealth topic (MOS:TIES). I can't see any reason you'd hyphenate "northwest." Please explain. Chris Troutman (talk) 03:41, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

I found that I could use a Mozilla spell-checker on Seamonkey so I've been going round the pages I've edited checking for typos (Chris the Speller has been putting the l back into Word for World and adding an I to divsion etc). I'm not that sure about counter-attack either but since the spell-checker us supposed to be "UK English" I'm following its strictures for now. I don't mind you reverting the edits but I'd like you to leave north-west hyphenated ] although I will defer to the antipodean preference if desired.Keith-264 (talk) 09:43, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

I had been heretofore unaware of MOS:COMPASS. I don't seek to implement a diametrically opposed preference. Perhaps we should label this article as being written in Commonwealth English and restore your spellings. What would suggest? Do we need an RfC to override MOS:RETAIN? Chris Troutman (talk) 18:56, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

On the whole, I'd leave it as it is, I made a lot of typo edits elsewhere that haven't been challenged.Keith-264 (talk) 23:18, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue XCV, February 2014

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Rabaul in World War II and Australia in World War I

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 23:54, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Battle of Belgium

Thanks Keith. No I didn't. Seems Ok now. Dapi89 (talk) 21:17, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

RT (TV network)

Your recent editing history at RT (TV network) shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 00:39, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Re: Infiltration Tactics

Hi Keith, Many thanks for your message. I can look into making a PDF of my blog post. I have certainly seen Krause's book. I am new to Misplaced Pages messaging but I assume you will see this. regards, Simon 11 March 2014 (~~~~)

Thanks, and ...

Hi again Keith, and thanks for all your recent edits at WT:MIL. I have a delicate question: what's the gist of the word "zionist", in your opinion? I promise I'm not launching an attack here against you or anyone else ... I just think there may be a larger context or two that we might want to discuss at the Milhist talk page. - Dank (push to talk) 15:42, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Zionist = secular fascist antisemite.Keith-264 (talk) 18:07, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Okay, so it's a subset of "racist". I'm recovering from diverticulitis at the moment, but I've been looking over recent RfCs, some of which I've closed, on subjects like appropriate speech on Misplaced Pages. It's a devilishly hard problem ... people react badly to nannies telling them what and what not to say, particularly on pages like WP:ANI. OTOH, there are quiet little wikiprojects where everyone is reserved and friendly, and we've seen it happen time and time again that someone starts raising the volume and people feel like it's not so friendly any more and the activity dies off. That's not going to happen at Milhist of course ... I'm just pondering about future RfCs, this is not a slap, and I'd like to hear any thoughts you have. - Dank (push to talk) 01:54, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Fascism and antisemitism are not racist. Fascism is classist and antisemitism is a mixture of religious chauvinism and pseudo- or quasi- racism (i.e. racism is a form of fascism). I thought the question asked on the talk page was riddled with assumptions which I contradicted. I was not unfriendly, I didn't raise any volume, I am not responsible for other people's inferences (except to the extent that they are responsible for mine) and invited debate. Are you making similar comments on the other editor's pages or are you singling me out?Keith-264 (talk) 07:47, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

I didn't see that anyone else had used words like "zionist" at WT:MIL, and this is the only page I've talked about this on, I'm not trying to get you in trouble. I know you've worked with and trust other coords, would you be willing to sound them out privately on this? I don't how how others think about this. I just wanted to give you a heads up and chat with you a bit so we have time to see if we can get to a meeting of the minds before I launched any new discussions at WT:MIL. - Dank (push to talk) 11:59, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're on about, do you object to my use of the term?Keith-264 (talk) 12:06, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

That's not precisely it ... to close RfCs, I have to stay neutral, so I try to avoid positions that might interfere with that role when I can. But you define a zionist as an "antisemite" above, and there have been some objections in the past to terms like these (I don't have a diff, I'm sorry), at least in the context of labeling individuals or entire countries. - Dank (push to talk) 12:19, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

I haven't labelled either; since zionism is a secular fascist ideology, it is inherently antisemitic. It seemed to me to be a typical example of the ideological nature of the subject that the original question was put in the terms it was, although I didn't infer that it was deliberate and I wouldn't consider an objection to be any more notable than an agreement. No-one took up my offer to discuss the matter and I assumed the matter was closed.Keith-264 (talk) 12:37, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I'm content that you've got enough distance from this that it doesn't make sense to rehash it as an example of the larger problem of inflammatory speech. Thanks for being patient. - Dank (push to talk) 12:53, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Quis custodiet, ipsos custodes?Keith-264 (talk) 13:46, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

I find your reply to my question of a piece with your other comments on my talk page - disingenuous and stigmatising. I don't want you to make any more comments on this page and will not respond if you do.Keith-264 (talk) 07:50, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue XCVI, March 2014

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Hawkeye7 on military command and Nick-D on F-111s in combat

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 12:35, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

WW1 casualties

I was glad to see your message, your review of the article is appreciated. I am off to the New York Public Library to track down a 1924 French source on microfilm for Serbian and Romanian losses.--Woogie10w (talk) 13:31, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Apologize unexplained remove

If you are offended by my edit, I apologize. (I do not speak English well, sorry Please understand.)

Campaignbox World War1 in Battle of Agbeluvhoe, Campaignbox Frontiers 1914 and Campaignbox Western Front (World War I) in Siege of Maubeuge I think that it is unnecessary to. Because, for example Battle of Agbeluvhoe ⊂ Togoland Campaig ⊂ World War1

My response is slow because I don't know how reply. I am very sorry.

The Bugle: Issue XCVII, April 2014

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Hawkeye7 looks at Britain's War Machine Interview: Article writers discuss German military history

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 14:57, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Talkback

Dewritech (talk) 19:11, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Congrats.

Allow me to express my admiration at the self-restraint you have shown recently in your responses to 108.20.78.154. I am not always able to emulate you. Quite why some people have to announce their presence in such a fashion, I cannot say. It reminds me very much of another "editor" with a similar modus operandi.

Anything I can do to help, btw? Hengistmate (talk) 07:44, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, it's not often that my diplomacy is commended ;O) I'm having a strategic pause at the moment, as real life is getting in the way but I'm still pottering around the margins.Keith-264 (talk) 10:04, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Verstanden. Hengistmate (talk) 12:36, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Ta; Verdun by Paul Jankowski has arrived so I may revise the casualties section of the page tomorrow.Keith-264 (talk) 12:49, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Let's be civil.

Keith-265,

On the Messines article, how about we be civil, eh? Honest, I've made no efforts other than sincere ones to improve the clarity of the wording. Sorry if it came off otherwise ("smileys" generally don't work work as well as they used to I suppose). Thanks for the clarifications in response by the way. Please try not to mistake persistence and requests for clarification as a signal to go in for an attack with dismissive flippant remarks.

These paragraphs do still have a number of wording issues leading to some confusion (particularly with tense and timing of events). I was confused, and that led to my tries at improving it. That's all there is to it, I'm not trying to ride roughshod over the article or anything else.

For one thing, describing post-war bulldozing efforts by Land Drainage Companies is probably off topic with regard to the "Battle of Messine (1917)" let alone "British Plans 1916-1917". It really should be removed from the section (and article) unless it's dressed up somehow to appear more on-topic.

108.20.78.154 (talk) 05:22, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Update and correction:
I just made a fix-up to the soil paragraph making the tense consistent, etc. Now I understand that the Land Drainage Companies activities were not post-war. So, that commentary is actually on-topic. The previous wording (with the flip-flopping tense, "Since 1914", etc.) wasn't so clear. I think it's better now. Again, if I screwed up the intended meaning, please correct it, and take it as evidence that the previous wording really was confusing (so much that I couldn't figure it out even after looking at it as closely as I did). 108.20.78.154 (talk) 05:54, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

I haven't thrown the baby out with the bath water because some of your edits have appeared constructive but Misplaced Pages:Civility is a two-way street. Rather than tedious edits, reverts and re-edits, why don't you collect your questions, opinions and assertions on the talk page so we can go through them en masse. Note also that the markup is {{}} not <></> on the page.Keith-264 (talk) 06:09, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

No problem. If you take a look, the edits are generally really simple high school English stuff (tense, splitting long multiple-subject paregraphs, etc.) I don't think there's really that much of it either. With regard to the "Since 1914", I think I clarified it correctly. I pulled in all the context, your previous comments, then ground them up and finally figured out what it was supposed to mean. I think I got it right.

The nature of most of the edits is not really conducive to hashing out on a talk page before making the changes. That is, it would be a waste of everyone's time to thoroughly discuss the splitting of a paragraph, getting consensus, then making the split. My error in the last two edits was making them all at once. Sorry about that. I've had that done to me elsewhere on pages I monitor, it really is often easier to revert than to give them a good looking over. I ask that you overlook my bunching them all together and do take a look at them and resist the urge to revert. The bundled edits aren't really that bad, it's pretty simple stuff.

About the markup technique, thanks on that. My main point was that noting the source of the defs was more suited to a note of some kind. I was originally quite confused by its interjection into the main text. I've added notes using the "<></>" in a number of other places and it's worked well. If there's a more refined way to go about it, have at it.

Yours, 108.20.78.154 (talk) 06:47, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

See Messines talk page.Keith-264 (talk) 07:21, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Talkback

Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:38, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

German language

If you may be familiar with the german language I would like to offer you a look to the german Willy Rohr and, I think this would be even more interesting, to the side of Sturm-Bataillon Nr. 5 (Rohr) https://de.wikipedia.org/Sturm-Bataillon_Nr._5_(Rohr)

Regards --1970gemini 13:31, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks very much, I speak little German but it's very interesting to see (I can put it through an online translator too), regards.Keith-264 (talk) 14:33, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

God bless the google-translator B-) Regards --1970gemini 17:31, 13 May 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.153.84.20 (talk)

I've added the link to the Verdun External links section.Keith-264 (talk) 16:06, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. And before I'll forget it: Now you're honored to create the english version of the Sturm-Bataillon Nr. 5 (Rohr) B-)--1970gemini 18:06, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue XCVIII, May 2014

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Nick-D looks at The Lost Boys of Anzac Op-ed: Peacemaker67 on Featured Articles involving Yugoslavia in World War II

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 22:48, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Operation Martlet

Good work on improving Operation Martlet. As I read the article to assess it, I found some things that pretty much fall under B4 that could use improvement. I looked briefly at the history and I see they are all leftovers from previous editors' work. Since you've "adopted" this article's improvement, I thought I'd let you decide what to do with them rather than changing them myself. (Besides, you might not agree with all of them). --Lineagegeek (talk) 21:36, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for reading it, I only added the citations. I've got about five articles simmering but I'll try to remedy its shortcomings.Keith-264 (talk) 21:42, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

May 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Second Battle of the Odon may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 ""s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• ] on the right attacking with the [[5th East Lancashire Battalion and 177th Infantry Brigade on the left with 1/6th South Staffordshire

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 17:28, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Battle of Menin Ridge

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 | 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 | 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)

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 Misplaced Pages 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 | 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) 05:44, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for those changes.

In fact "mentalities" are NPOV, when they can be demonstrated through reliable sources – which they can. They are also very important to military history, because they are crucial in understanding the motivation, morale and heterogenity of a particular forces.

Your examples of Belgium and Germany are of limited relevance here because, first, their empires did not include entities with the political independence of the Dominions of the British Empire. (In fact, I'm not aware of any exact parallels to the Dominions anywhere (except perhaps for the position of Iceland in the Danish Empire before WW2.) Second, the structure of the German Army was radically different to that of the collective British Empire forces: "German" was an accepted and unambiguous generic term, that in 1870–1918 covered as many as four separate national armies – Prussia/North German Confederation, Bavaria, Saxony and Württemberg – almost as though the British Army was made up of separate English, Scottish, Irish and Welsh Armies! In fact, there is a German language term Wehrhoheit ("military sovereignty") to describe the independence of the Bavarian Army in WW1. As our article on the German Army says:

The overall commander of the Imperial German Army, less the Bavarian contingent, was the Kaiser. He was assisted by a German Imperial Military Cabinet, and exercised control through the Ministry of War and the Great General Staff. The Chief of the General Staff became the Kaiser's main military advisor and effectively the most powerful military figure in the Empire. Bavaria maintained its own Ministry of War and its own Royal Bavarian Army General Staff, but coordinated planning with the Prussian Great General Staff."

(Even now, as you probably know, the records of the former Bavarian Army are still held in Munich and not in Berlin, Bonn or some other central archive.) In some senses, Bavaria was a case somewhere in between (say) the Indian Empire and the Dominions. However: even then, Bavarian soldiers were still unambiguously and uncontroversially "German" in nationality and part of the broader German Army. Whereas many Indians, Australians, Canadians and South Africans did not, by 1914–18 see themselves as "British"; what's more their armies were officially separate, both from each other and the British Army proper. Grant | Talk 08:04, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Is your term "political independence" synonymous with sovereignty? Apropos, how many Dominion soldiers were born in Britain? How many "Dominion" soldiers were Iroquois or Anangu. Keith-264 (talk) 08:49, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Sorry

It appears we were copyediting German occupation of Belgium during World War II‎‎ at the same time—and I seem to have obliterated your edits ... Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 11:29, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

That's quite all right, they were mostly cosmetic.Keith-264 (talk) 13:40, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Tom Rees

I have made Tom Rees (British soldier) a new article. Feel free to improve the article further.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 10:56, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm glad you've persevered.Keith-264 (talk) 10:59, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Hearts From The Somme is finished

Hi Keith, Its James here, today we have just finished filming our film. We will began post production soon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brickproduction1815 (talk • contribs) 07:36, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

June 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Battle of Villers-Bocage may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• the 7th Armoured Division changed its organisation to a flexible ] structure (not adopted by other British armoured divisions until after ], neither the

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 14:08, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Battle of Le Mesnil-Patry may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• place as soon as possible. At {{nowrap|8:00 a.m.}} the 6th Armoured Regiment was told to attack at {{nowrap|1:00 p.m. and at about {{nowrap|10:30 a.m.}} The attack began at short notice and was less

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 08:05, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Battle of Le Mesnil-Patry may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• ships transported assault forces to the beaches in Normandy, supported by {circa|3,000 aircraft.}} The D-Day landings succeeded but the Allies were unable to capture ] as planned.{{sfn|Ford|

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 15:42, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Franco-Prussian War may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• War |title=Franco-German War |accessdate=18 May 2013 |ref ={sfnRef|Britannica: Franco-German War}}}}

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 23:43, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Seen This?

https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Mark_V_tank#Dates_of_Service.

Ooh-erKeith-264 (talk) 10:01, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

RAF raid on La Caine HQ

Hi, I think there was a misunderstanding - please have a look at my original edit

I was the editor who added the word "Some". My "how many - all eighteen of them?" did refer to "German staff officers watching the aircraft through binoculars", and my "remove weasel word" did refer to the word "unwisely". At the moment, the sentence sounds like eighteen of the staff officers got killed, while all of the staff officers were watching the attack through their binoculars? I should have explained my concerns more clearly. Thanks, --IIIraute (talk) 03:16, 20 June 2014 (UTC)