Talk:Battle of Passchendaele

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search


Added Belgium since it only seemed fair. Can't we have one flag for British Empire forces? If not must we have a flag icon for all the German contingents too?Keith-264 (talk) 12:23, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

In other articles I'm familiar with, such as Battle of Albuera, the convention has been to use a single flag icon (the French forces there included, for example, Polish Uhlans, but these weren't an independent force so are lumped in under "French Empire"). Also, WP:MILMOS#FLAGS may be of some use. EyeSerenetalk 13:14, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Thanks.Keith-264 (talk) 13:30, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
I was of the impression that no Belgian units participated as they were stationed further north. Can you offer any clarification. Certainly such a change should be cited.--Labattblueboy (talk) 04:26, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
The battle took place in Belgium, an allied country, its air service was involved and in the text the concentration on both sides for the battle is described from the Lys to the sea. P. 109, OH "The six Belgian divisions ... were to advance immediately an opportunity offered in the Dixmude sector ...."Keith-264 (talk) 07:21, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
The location of battle is not relevant to the combatants section. Take for instance take many battles (ex: Combat of Barquilla (1810) of the Peninsular War. Although the battles take place in Spain, Spain is not necessarily listed as a combtant. The only question is whether or not Belgian units participated. Belgium should only be listed if it can be shown they participated in one of the battles.--Labattblueboy (talk) 17:33, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
I think that's a little harsh, since Belgian army units were part of the plan even if the plan didn't get past the first stage. 40 artillery observation aircraft of the Belgian air service were counted in the RAF OH figures for air operations (Vol IV, p.141). Remove the flag if you must but also remove the ridiculous unofficial Dominion flags too.Keith-264 (talk) 18:25, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
OK, there we go. If you have confirmation of the participation of the Belgian Air Service then everything is fine by me.--Labattblueboy (talk) 20:25, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Hmmmm, it appears that the Canadian flag at the time looked like a union flag although to be fair the British Empire flag would have been a skull and cross-bones.;O)Keith-264 (talk) 07:59, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

"Next day the French continued their advance in concert with Belgian troops, who crossed the Yser opposite Knockehoek, and captured Aschhoop, Kippe, and Merckem. The southern end of Blankaart Lake was reached on the same day, and early on the 28th October French and Belgian troops completed the capture of the whole Merckem peninsula." Haig Despatches, Boraston, J. H. (1920) p. 131.Keith-264 (talk) 07:15, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I've added the four great Dominions of the British Empire along with the Raj and Newfoundland to that of the UK and British Empire because it informs the reader of the key participants and gives due visible recognition to their signficant contribution to the Battles of Paschendaele and, indeed, the First World War. pidd (talk) 20:58, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

I've reverted again because the dominions and colonies were part of the British empire and had the Union Flag as the emblem. The dominions did not become sovereign states until the Statute of Westminster 1931 and some not until after the Second World War. Military contingents from the dominions and colonies were not allied to the British army, they were part of it.Keith-264 (talk) 21:40, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
Rubbish. Show me a single reference which says the Australian/Canadian/New Zealand Armies were part of the British Army. Closely linked obviously (especially in terms of command), but administratively completely separate. Each state had responsible government which was elected by their own people and which decided on the extent of their own involvement in the war. The argument that they were all part of the British Empire then is a fairly unsophisticated one and sounds like OR to me. (talk) 11:48, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

No government in 1914 was representative, not even New Zealands which had a form of universal suffrage. Please take a deep breath and familiarise yourself with the details before sounding off again.Keith-264 (talk) 12:08, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

So no references then for your ridiculous claim that the dominion armies were part of the British Army then? (talk) 10:00, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Sorry Mr. Number Talk, Keith-264 is absolutely correct. The Dominion forces were not 'armies', they were 'Corps' of the British Army. When the Dominion troops first assembled in Britain to cross the channel, they were distributed among other regiments and corps of the British Army. The Permanent Active Militia in Canada didn't become the Canadian Army until 1940. Similarly in Australia the Citizens Military Force became an 'Australian Imperial Force'. Yes, each of the Dominions had Canadian or ANZAC commanders, as any regiment or corps would, but all them were under the direct command of the senior British officers. By the way, and just to underscore Keith's point, every soldier and citizen in the Dominions and colonies were British. There was no citizenship.

The historic importance of this is the recognition of the development of national identities towards the end of the Great War. The Canadian Corps, for example, fought as one unit together for the first time at the Battle of Vimy Ridge (a part of the larger Battle of Arras)in 1917. Because of the achievement of the Corps (more than half of whom were born in the UK) the Canadian Corps remained a unit through to the end of the war; although always under the senior command of the British Army. Whilst Vimy was a marked victory for the Empire, Gallipoli, especially for the ANZACS was a disaster as was Beaumont-Hamel at the Somme for the Royal Newfoundland Regiment which was virtually wiped out. The events of the Great War and the accomplishment of the Dominion Troops presented the Dominion government with a legitimacy that they had not previously had and so were permitted to have a place at the Paris Peace Conference. This was a prelude to the Dominions being recognised as equal with the Mother Country within the British Commonwealth and established by the Statute of Westminster, 1931.

There is much revisionism today as if the British Empire barely existed. Some historians refer to the Dominions as 'Allies' in the Great War. They were not, as all foreign policy and authority ultimately remained with the British Government. One of the complaints from the Canadians and ANZACs following both World Wars was the lack of identity given them because they were troops of the British Empire or Commonwealth. There is some truth to this. Although the Dominion Troops remained thoroughly British, there was a palpable increase in national pride, from 'esprit de corps' to 'esprit du pays'. Popular 'historians' often portray the Canadians, for example, as being 'anti-British' which is utterly ridiculous. One need only look at the recruiting posters to see that. What is certain is that all of the British troops, UK and Dominions, enlisted and officer corps, had varying degrees of contempt for officers who came across as 'Toffs'. I learned from my grandfather and father how much Haig was loathed. My commission as an officer, like those who went before, is from HM the Queen, the Sovereign, and so it is in all the former Dominions as well as the UK. The brilliance of the British Empire's development of nationhood through its colonies remains unmatched and the events of the Dominion soldiers in the Great War were very much an important part of that history. pidd (talk) 19:43, 23 May 2013 (UTC) is another singleton, also in China. [1]. So far, this discussion has attracked 4 single use IP accounts from China, China, Brazil and Vietnam. Odd, that. Hamish59 (talk) 10:46, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
I saw these on the AmazonUK site today: Anzac's Dirty Dozen: 12 Myths of Australian Military History by Craig Stockings and The Anzac Illusion: Anglo-Australi​an Relations during World War I by Eric Montgomery Andrews and Vimy Ridge: A Canadian Reassessment by Geoff Hayes, Andrew Iarocci & Mike Bechthold which might shed light on contemporary views of Dominion nation-building. I haven't changed anything on the main page yet as I've got a terminal case of ManFlu and can't cope with the aggravation.Keith-264 (talk) 21:03, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
Since when do the objectors to a proposal have to gain consensus for that in a community forum? If YOU propose wholesale changes to the infoboxes of many articles (the implication seems to be that you are) YOU need to get the support of the community, that seems fairly obvious. Currently there are no other articles (that I know of) that lump the Dominions together as you are prosing. All you have done is rejected any objection raised by any IP with bluster rather than facts, and YOU still have not gained a consensus. If you change it back that would be edit warring. So far I've only seen uninformed opinion being passed off as "scholarship", and not a single reference which supports the assertion that these armies were part of the British Army. Show me a quote from a book written by a professional historian of note please which states this and I'll be satisfied. No one is questioning the legal reality that the British Empire existed, it clearly did, and many / most subjects of the Dominions would have no doubt considered themselves British (legally they were of course British subjects although many Irish immigrants probably would not have felt much loyalty to the crown), but to claim their armies were merely "corps" of the British Army does not hold weight. They were clearly administratively separate, if obviously integrated into the British Army in terms of command. The Australian Army for one was formed on 1 March 1901 and operated under an act of the Commonwealth government (the Defence Act 1903). It included both citizen and permanent forces and had its own higher command arrangements with a GOC (from 1909 Chief of the General Staff). The Australian Imperial Force (AIF), formed for service overseas in the First World War, was enlisted under this act also and was used as an expeditionary force. One presumes if they were part of the British Army they would have operated under British legislation but that was not the case, with the Australians having their own regulations regarding discipline and conditions of service (notably the death penalty and pay). Unlike the British Army it was an all-volunteer force and Australia held two referendums on the issue of conscription, both of which defeated. So it was the Australian people and their elected representatives, and not Whitehall, that determined their level of involvement in the war. The citizen force did not become the AIF, rather both the citizen and permanent forces continued to exist during this period as legally they could not be sent overseas. Not sure about the other dominions but ones assumes a similar situation existed. What we are left with then is the recognition that what existed was a form of coalition warfare, albeit one without the national command elements / caveats etc that exist today. Merely applying a "British Empire" flag and not listing the Dominions does not accurately portray this in my opinion, while the current situation seems to work and is used across most articles on Wikipedia. If you want to change that get consensus from the community to do so. (talk) 07:32, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
This seems to be a conversation that Wikipedians writing military history articles have to have over and over again. As a citizen of a Commonwealth Realm (as the former Dominions are now technically known), who has studied such matters in depth, and written about them for Wikipedia, I am happy to provide people a summary of where the Dominions stood in terms of political independence, the emergence of local nationalism (as distinct from loyalty to the British Empire) in 1914–18. is essentially correct about the political situation. There is no escaping the fact, apparently little-known, that by 1914–18, "Dominion" status meant that the governments of Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Newfoundland and South Africa were elected by the citizens of each Dominion (whereas the Crown Colonies and India were controlled, to varying degrees, by the UK government). The Dominion armies (as well as the Australian and Canadian navies) were technically separate from the UK services and their respective headquarters remained in the Dominions. Their pay, recruitment and training and deployment were the responsibility, and occurred at the discretion of, the Dominion governments. Dominion units in Europe and the Mediterranean were usually attached to British Army formations for operational purposes and sometimes commanded, even at divisional level, by generals of the British Army. In the interests of Empire kinship and solidarity, Dominion politicians and senior commanders did not, usually, "rock the boat" – a tendency that seems to have been misconstrued by subsequent generations, in the UK especially. (Exceptions include Australia's refusal to introduce conscription, its distinctive system of military justice and the New Zealand government's unilateral repatriation of long-serving personnel.)
The main point, in any case, is not the political status, control or leadership of the Dominion governments or militaries. By 1914, using "British" as a blanket descriptive term, for people and things (e.g. military units) from outside the UK was already unacceptable to many, if not most people from the Dominions, Crown Colonies and the Indian Empire. In all of the Dominions, many people saw no contradiction between membership of and loyalty to the Empire, even though they did not regard themselves as "British". There is no reasonable excuse for using "British" in a way that was dying out by WW1. Various alternatives were already in use during WW1, including "Imperial", "British Empire", "British and Empire", even "Allied" or – better still – the specific nationalities concerned. Grant | Talk 03:58, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
It seems to me that you're inventing a criterion to determine a conclusion. If a legalistic criterion like carrying a British passport is to be ignored then history will be reduced to an opinion poll. As for contemporary public opinion, what did the real Australians/Canadians/New Zealanders think? On a practical note, what changes do you want?Keith-264 (talk) 07:22, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Keith, I don't really know what your point is there. You seem to think that certain formalities and symbols have more weight than others, although on what basis I'm not sure. The lingering of terms like "British subject" was driven by things like pragmatism and economics: initially, the Dominions borrowed the UK's diplomats and their own diplomatic corps were tiny until around WW2. (British embassies continue to represent Australians and new Zealanders in some countries.) But I doubt if any former "British subjects" born in a Dominion and life-long residents there had passports that were actually issued by a UK passport office. Or even greatly resembled UK-issued passports. Sheer inertia, too, meant that New Zealand law referred to NZ-born New Zealand citizens as "British subjects" until some time around 1980!! Likewise, until the 1980s at least, Australians and Brits emigrating, or even residing temporarily, in each other's countries automatically received voting rights in each other's elections. But I wouldn't feel confident, had I been around in 1914–18, telling the members of the Māori Pioneer Battalion that they were "British"!
All the quaint terminology and archaic symbolism is trumped by the institutions that people in the Dominions/realms have now, in every case, taken for granted for over a century, including: the federation of separate colonies, national parliaments, Prime Ministers, high/supreme courts, national armies and navies with home-grown staff officers and separate ceremonial commanders-in-chief etc. If it were true – which it isn't – that none of these institutions amounted to real independence in 1914–18, their constituents and founders would have been exceptionally gullible. But they weren't. Grant | Talk 09:57, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
It seems as though you're trying to explain something now, rather than describe something then. Were the Dominions sovereign or not in 1914? From the point of view of the rightful owners of Australia, Canada etc, the settlers were illegal immigrants with even less right to be there than the Germans had to be in Belgium. Did the Koori consider the "Australians" to be Australian or terrorists and squatters?Keith-264 (talk) 10:22, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Keith, it does seem that there is still much that I need to "explain", although not for the reasons that you seem to be implying. (As an aside, I find it amusing and curious to see the word "explain" used in such an [apparently] disdainful fashion.) I have to say that, 96 years later, people everywhere (including the Dominions/realms themselves) clearly have quite different understandings of the nature of the Dominions' involvement of in 1914–18. At one extreme, some people see it as a case in which independent nations followed their traditional allies in declaring war on the Central Powers; at the opposite extreme, other people see it as a question of mere obligation and obedience on the part of the UK's minions. In fact, both of these views are misunderstandings, as I will happily explain.

Sovereignty is a quality, not a quantity. It must always be assessed in terms of two dimensions:

  • formal appearances (e.g. ceremonial niceties and legalistic jargon), versus real, de facto power and;
  • domestic (popular mandates/suffrage and their relation to public opinion etc), versus external (i.e. the extent to which power is circumscribed by international commitments/treaties etc) dimensions.

So: yes, the governments of the Dominions in 1914–18 were sovereign. They had both formal sovereignty, especially domestically, but also externally (and which, in the latter case, they exceeded without sanction by Westminster in many cases) and real sovereignty that exceeded that of the government of the UK, i.e. most adults had the vote in the Dominions (except South Africa) while only about 30% of their counterparts in the UK could vote, before the election of December 1918 (when the Representation of the People Act was first applied).

As a result of years of reading about intra-Empire/Commonwealth politics during the 19th and 20th centuries, I think I can explain the misunderstandings mentioned above. First, both the UK and the Dominion governments had formal, legal obligations to each other, which limited their ability to act independently (even though all of these parties, at least occasionally, exceeded their authority in this respect. Second, the national government of each Dominion had absolute responsibility for and control of recruitment and deployment of the individual armies and navies (even when those governments waived operational control, out of "team spirit" etc). Third, to portray the millions of citizens of the Dominions as mere obedient minions of the UK government becomes ludicrously untenable when one has substantial knowledge of the history of the Empire/Commonwealth, and of the Dominions in particular; the force majeur for Dominion involvement in WW1 was not, as you suggest, the authority of Downing St, the War Office or the Admiralty (all of which were dependent upon the cooperation of Governors-General had they wished to discipline a Dominion government in any case), but the individual politics of millions of individual Dominion citizens who wanted to fight and/or volunteered to fight, purely because of their own individual, personal ties to Britain (e.g. in WW1, about 10–20% of the Australian Army was actually UK-born, without counting the children of emigrants from the UK to Australia).

I'm not sure what point you are trying to make about the indigenous peoples of the Dominions. Yes, many, perhaps most of them regarded non-indigenous, including native-born whites, as oppressors and invaders. Nevertheless, quite a few joined up and fought in the Middle East and Europe.

My TL;DR, assuming it is possible to generalise about the Dominions, is this.

  1. The peoples of the various Dominions cooperated so closely with the UK government and its military leaders to the extent that they felt a strong kinship with the people of the UK (whether actual blood or cultural ties). See, for example, the pro-German Maritz Rebellion of 1914–15 in South Africa and World War I conscription in Australia
  2. The governments of the Dominions were clearly answerable, first and foremost, to their electors and in that sense were the equal of the UK government. (FWIW and for better or worse, WW1 weakened that "kinship", at the same time as it strengthened he assertiveness of the Dominion governments. See, for example, Dominion representation at Versailles in 1919 and Canada's attitude to the Chanak crisis of 1922

Grant | Talk 07:29, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Clearly we differ and clearly this matter has been debated exhaustively already. I'm much more interested in your comments about having better sources for the article and the substantial revisions that they imply. Can we move on please?Keith-264 (talk) 08:58, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Keith, no-one likes an inconvenient truth, but you asked to discuss it.

And I'm not sure that we can move on so easily, if some egregiously irrelevant, arrogant and/or demonstrably fallacious statements above are the strongly-held views of many editors of this article. I am referring, for example, to:

  • "the dominions and colonies ... had the Union Flag as the emblem" (Keith-264);
  • "ridiculous unofficial Dominion flags " (Keith-264);
  • "The Dominion forces were not 'armies', they were 'Corps' of the British Army" (Pidd);
  • Keith-264's raising of irrelevancies like "British passports", how settlers were regarded by indigenous peoples, the German ground forces in WW1 being composed of several separate armies, belonging to independent German states and so on;
  • barely-relevant fallacies, such as a lack of "sovereignty" on the part of the Dominions (Keith-264)

No-one in their right mind disputes that most of the British Empire forces in WW1 were from the United Kingdom (which after all, included all of Ireland at the time). That being the case, I'm not sure why some editors insist on upholding the archaic, lazy and always controversial conflation – under "British" – of a myriad of disparate peoples making up the Dominions, Indian Empire and the Crown Colonies. Especially when there were alternatives in use long before 1914–18, especially "United Kingdom" (for the British Isles) and "British Empire" (for the rest).

Grant | Talk 05:48, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

There's a difference between discussion and repetition. If you have something to add to the 3rd Ypres pages rather than a resurrection of a dead horse, then good luck to you. Keith-264 (talk) 07:31, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Personnel of all races, creeds, and religions, from all of the countries of the British Empire, with the exception or the Protectorates, were all British subjects (equivalent today of being British citizens) meaning that upon volunteering or call up to the services they all swore an oath of allegiance to King George V.
FYI, this also applied later in 1939 when the King in question was King George VI.
This meant that also without exception all members of HM's services were required to obey lawful orders from any superior officer (irrespective of respective dominion or colony army or service) holding The King's Commission.
I nearly forgot. Merely by the fact of being British subjects all such persons owed a de facto allegiance to The King. To act in a contrary manner could constitute mutiny or treason, which at the time were capital offences. That's why the Indian Mutineers (who had also sworn an oath to The Queen upon joining the Indian Army) were all hanged. And that's why Breaker Morant, also a British subject, was tried for murder - unlawful under British law, convicted, and shot.— Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:09, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
I agree but sadly I'm outnumbered.Keith-264 (talk) 14:15, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I know. It must be so frustrating for you that you are not able to alter history to suit your own desires. Resolute 15:13, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
See what I mean; has Resolute ever contributed anything to the Third Ypres articles other than bile? Keith-264 (talk) 15:28, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
Thank you, Keith-264. None of the territories of the British Empire had separate citizenship until after the war, most did not get it until after WW II. That means all the Empire participants at the time of Passchendaele held British nationality. As, for that matter, did all those at Gallipoli.
FYI, New Zealanders didn't get separate citizenship until 1949. For Australians it was 1948. Canadians were still British until 1946.
... .and relevant national law (linked above) trumps other people's opinions, whether they outnumber you or not.
... and they also trump the opinions of some so-called 'historians', both in print, and on film, who with a little effort could have found out the true facts, instead of choosing to manipulate and omit the facts to suit their own particular petty-nationalistic agenda(s).
...and the other constituent territories such as India (including what later became Pakistan and Bangladesh), Malaya, Singapore, Burma, Kenya, Rhodesia, South Africa, Zambia, Uganda, Nigeria, Fiji, etc., also didn't get separate citizenship until independence after WW II. Which means they also held British nationality in both World Wars.
BTW, when Mahatma Gandhi travelled to England to continue his education at University College London he did so on a British passport. That's because, outside the Protectorates, there was only one nationality within the British Empire. IIRC, passports issued by the constituent territories had the name of the local issuing authority at the top of the front cover, e.g. "Government of India", "Dominion of Canada", etc., followed below with "British Passport" at the bottom. The latter was necessary because 'British' was the only national status recognised by third-party countries outside the Empire. This BTW, is why, when captured, Empire POWs were all held in the same POW camps - which were supposed to be, under the relevant Geneva Convention, segregated by nationality - which is why twenty years later the American inmates of Sagan (Stalag Luft III) were moved in to a separate area of the camp from the British before the Great Escape.
I nearly forgot. In World War II at least, conscription in the British overseas territories was entirely confined to the 'white' colonists and settlers, etc. The local 'natives' were not subject to compulsory military service, and every one of the non-white personnel who joined the Empire forces was a volunteer.
The above is all JFYI as it may help to understand some of the attitudes and views held by some people at the time.— Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:12, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
"choosing to manipulate and omit the facts to suit their own particular petty-nationalistic agenda(s)" - says the IP dismissing the credentials of any historian that disagrees with their POV. Sorry mate, but we write based on those works by historians. Not based on what your own petty nationalistic agenda is. Resolute 22:45, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
Have you contributed anything to the 3rd Ypres pages apart from carping? Keith-264 (talk) 23:09, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
The above-linked nationality law articles prove that these countries did not get separate citizenship until after WW II which means that all the 'Empire' troops involved in both World Wars were indisputably British subjects, and why the so-called 'historians' chose to either remain unaware of this simple fact, or chose to ignore, it, is best left to the reader to surmise. The earliest of these Acts was 1946 and so the 'historians' have had plenty of time to get acquainted with them.
The relevant nationality of the personnel involved was not secret at any time, and any person interested in the subject, let alone a so-called 'serious historian', could have easily found out the above facts, instead of making spurious statements on nationality that are so easily disprovable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:45, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Sadly, reason is powerless against national chauvinism, ahistorical prejudice and lack of scholarship. Keith-264 (talk) 10:28, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Quite so. And the fact that the poster is apparently mistaking national law as being just my particular 'POV' says a lot. He/she could have quite easily found out what I have stated above first, before making a stand on here on what is so very obviously unsafe ground. Perhaps the poster might ask himself/herself why the 'historians' he/she has consulted neglected to mention any of the above easily checkable facts on the relevant nationality of the Empire personnel involved in both World Wars. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:51, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
You need to learn how Wikipedia operates, friend. We write based on reliable sources, and reliable sources include these nations that both of you POV pushers want to pretend don't exist. It would be helpful if the two of you stopped nailing each other to a cross and gave up on the martyr routine. Resolute 14:07, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
You aren't worth the bother, ignoramus.Keith-264 (talk) 15:30, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
Oh, I forgot, what have you contributed to the 3rd Ypres articles apart from contumely?Keith-264 (talk) 15:33, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
"There are none so blind as those who do not wish to see". — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:35, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Bullet Points in Belligerents[edit]

How come there are bullet points under UK in the Belligerents section of the info box? I edited them away, but that was undone. Why is this? ---Jibbsisme (talk) 18:37, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Is it that the dots represent the seniority of the Union Flag? I'd remove the Dominion flags on grounds of anachronism anyway.Keith-264 (talk) 19:49, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't really know what you're talking about... I just think that these are odd. Is it because these countries are part of the UK or something? I find them out-of-place. --Jibbsisme (talk) 22:26, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

MiaowKeith-264 (talk) 23:41, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

There is an almost perverse aversion to the identifying of the key participants within the British Empire in the First World War. The British Empire was unique in creating large and influential Dominions, beginning with Canada, and that added so much to its strength and enriched its history. A reader of today who simply sees 'British Empire' might think that Britain, along with Togo and Guyana fought on the fields of Passchendaele. The great story of the Dominions troops, in particular, has historical significance with respect to the development of national identities that emerged from the battles of the First World War, such as Passchendaele and Arras (Vimy). The Uber Fueher of this page seems to think that this is spurious and ahistorical. Good grief. I am a Commissioned Officer and a former teacher of history and I cannot think of any comment more disingenuous. pidd (talk) 22:48, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Oh come off it, the facts are that the Dominions and colonies fought in the Great War as part of the British empire, ruled from Westminster under the Union Flag, with some local devolution of power and common trade and foreign policies. French colonial troops and German federal troops did the same with their imperial flags. If you want to add a section to the page on the effect the war/3rd Ypres had on Canadian, Australian etc nationalism fine but please stop adding anachronistic, ahistorical symbols to the infobox which wouldn't have been recognised as legitimate by the Canadian, Australian etc participants. As for your inference about what a reader might think re: Togo and Guyana, Togo was a German colony and Guyanese soldiers fought in the Great War West India Regiment British West Indies Regiment and West Indian labourers worked on the Western Front. You might find this interesting: The First World War: An Agrarian Interpretation (1991) by Avner Offer. I'd like you to reflect on this and agree that flags that wouldn't have been recognised at the time not be shown in the infobox. Keith-264 (talk) 07:05, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Keith, if you believe you can persuade other editors of that POV, why not do it on a more prominent page, such as Talk:World War I or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military History? Such things should not have to be decided on an ad-hoc basis that varies from page to page, and certainly should not be cause for revert warring. LeadSongDog come howl! 01:41, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
There's no revert war. Three people have contributed to the debate so I suggest that you address your comments to all of us. Keith-264 (talk) 07:18, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
I agree with LeadSongDog. This sort of change requires the input of the entire community. Why has it been changed here and nowhere else? It is inconsistent with nearly every other article which lists all the belligerents. Do you propose doing this to other articles? Like Gallipoli for instance? If so then this should be discussed far more widely before being implemented. If you don't then I have to question your motives. (talk) 11:35, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Your change upset the apple cart. The legal status of dominion and colonial contingents in the British army is a simple matter of fact not opinion. LSDs comments were as unhelpful as yours, since they were wrong in fact and inference. You two question my motives and I question your scholarship. If you have nothing more to offer, I will restore the page tomorrow.Keith-264 (talk) 12:03, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

There is also the question of appropriate weight given to the participants. An infobox is a summary of the elements of the event - not the whole detail. To list a very small contributor alongside a major one without qualification could be considered against Undue Weight. To my mind it would be better to briefly state that there were British and Dominion forces in the infobox and then add some information on the makeup of the units available for the battle in the background section. GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:21, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
I note that of two of the IPs involved in reverting, one has been blocked for a year, and the other is a single use. Both have ignored WP:BRD. Hamish59 (talk) 12:33, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
If people want something about Dominions per se the suggestion of a section of text rather than stuffing the infobox seems fair enough, although I would have thought most information about that would be on other pages like this Military history of Canada during World War I so could be linked. If so, German units from Bavaria, Prussia, Saxony etc should be treated similarly. I wasn't sure about including Belgium for its military contribution but thought that since the battle took place in their country they deserved a mention....Keith-264 (talk) 13:32, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
Doesn't have to be a lot of text on the subject but if the consituent makeup of the British (wide meaning) forces did have bearing at any point (c.f. how it came be that it was the Canadians who ended up on the beaches at Dieppe) then its worth mentioning. The Canadian forces were all volunteers and a high proportion (50% by the end of the war) had been born in the British Isles. GraemeLeggett (talk) 17:17, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
Usual anti-IP prejudice used to deflect discussion. To equate Australia/Canada/New Zealand to Bavaria/Prussia/Saxony is way too simplistic. The dominions were unique legally and were ultimately independent nations in all but technicality. I see no harm in having their flags in the infobox. Ultimately they became independent whilst the German states clearly didn't so that is another reason. I question why this proposal is being raised here when it should be discussed in a much wider forum. Seems completely invalid, even underhanded. Claims of violating BRD are equally absurd. The infobox flags were removed, that was reverted, and now it needs to be discussed before you change it again. Exactly how BRD should work. Add compliant references of the assertion that the dominion forces were part of the British Army or go away. (talk) 10:23, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
anti-IP prejudice with good reason: is another singleton, in Beijing this time. [2] says Recently reported forum spam source. (65)
independent nations in all but technicality. No. They had _no choice_ regarding participation in WW1. Definitely _not_ independent.
Ultimately they became independent whilst the German states clearly didn't so that is another reason. Irrelavent. Why not add Republic of Ireland then?
I question why this proposal is being raised here when it should be discussed in a much wider forum. Fully agree. So take it to milhist. So far, none of the objectors have done so. So, go ahead.
Claims of violating BRD are equally absurd. The infobox flags were removed, that was reverted, and now it needs to be discussed before you change it again. Exactly how BRD should work. The infobox flags were added, then reverted, then added again several times. That is a violation of BRD. Hamish59 (talk) 10:40, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Nothing of substance to add then? I'll revert later today.Keith-264 (talk) 10:33, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
    • perhaps you missed this?Keith-264 (talk) 10:35, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
      • I have responded to this nonsense above. Argument re Republic of Ireland is unsupportable and is just added to muddy to waters, how about actually discussing the real issues? Continuing to carpet bag IPs by claiming they have been blocked just indicates the lack of substance to your argument. Discuss the issue. Myself and the others are attempting to take part in an actual discussion but you just seem to want to ignore that. There is no policy that says we need to be signed up users to contribute an opinion so deal with it. Nothing of substance - bullocks, I have raised quite a number of points, none of which you have addressed. You have been asked to provide references for your claims but only provide vague "found this on Amazon have a look at it". YOU show me a quote which supports YOUR claim, that is how it works. As I said above if YOU want to change something YOU need community consensus. I don't need it to object to YOUR proposal. (talk) 07:42, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
        • Was Australia a sovereign state in 1917?Keith-264 (talk) 08:33, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Several thoughts. First, I have reverted back to the bullet point list, as that is the status the article was at before this little edit war began. Per WP:BRD, you don't get to keep reverting to your preferred version while a discussion is ongoing. Second, the entire argument is undone by the fact that the United Kingdom was allowed to remain outside British Empire. If you want to collapse all belligerents, you should collapse all of them. But third, and most importantly, the infobox exists to present key information for the reader. And in the case of this battle, the reader expects a notation of Canada's involvement as a belligerent, and certainly others though I can't speak to Australia or New Zealand's import and impact on the battle, and the battle's impact on those nations. Fourth, While the relationship of the Dominions and the Empire was rather complicated in this time frame, Canada et al were unique national entities, not provinces or territories. The attempts to trivialize them in this fashion belies reality. Fifth, as noted above, this proposed change would affect numerous articles and should not be made piecemeal. If you want to change how infobox information is displayed, I would recommend going to a central discussion point and presenting a case for all such articles, not just this one. Resolute 13:43, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
    • No the change to anachronistic labelleling was the unwarranted one so I have put it back to the status quo. As for your claim of what the reader expects, this is pure POV. I quite agree that all three main belligerents should be listed as French, British and German empires and if I knew how to do that I would. The internal arrangements of the British empire were no more complicated than any other and your use of the phrase "attempt to trivialise" is blatant POV, when the point I stand for is to avoid ahistorical anachronistic labels. If you want to begin a discussion on a policy for all articles, good luck to you, I'll support it but the original infobox was stable for ages before the drive-by interpolations, so it should stand while the matter is resolved. Please try to assume good faith. Apropos, was Canada a sovereign state in 1917? Were Canadians British subjects in 1917?Keith-264 (talk) 14:14, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
      • The infobox style held for years in the current format, even through what appears to be well over a hundred of your own edits. Your change to collapse down remains disputed, and as such, no, your personal and POV preference is not status quo. And likewise, your change to collapse down to just the British Empire (along with your POV of the United Kingdom deserving special mention) is the one that warrants wider discussion, and since that is your desire, it is your responsibility to gain consensus. Resolute 14:19, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
        • No you have jumped in with a certain degree of effrontery and made unwarranted claims about motive, bias and blamed me for the same conduct as you. You have made no comment about accuracy. I invite you to join me in a request for arbitration. In the meantime I revert your meddling.Keith-264 (talk) 14:24, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
          • WP:ARBCOM does not mediate content disputes, only conduct. Also, given you cannot show consensus support for your preferred POV, the original format is the one that remains. Resolute 14:27, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
            • Neither can you so the original format should be the historically accurate one I put there ages ago. I take it that your preferred POV is historical accuracy? Have you noticed that there are other participants in this discussion? Keith-264 (talk) 14:33, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
              • "Ages ago" being a change you snuck in in January. And that change is in dispute, therefore the version that existed for years prior to your change is what takes precedence, until you can show support for your change. Also, yes, I have noted the other participants. Only one of them supports your position, and at least six (counting both talk page messages and those that reverted you in the article) oppose, and one more implicitly opposing you given they are arguing this should not be done ad-hoc. Resolute 14:41, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
Yet again you impute bad faith. The page was moribund for years so I'm not sure that a change in January challenged in May makes the January change the point of contention. Pidd changed his/her mind, H59 agreed as did GL. The last time I was involved in a discussion about this the upshot was that a policy was futile because there would be drive-bys whatever the resolution, which is what your revert looked like in the light of the comments that were appended. ( Having given due notice when the debate seemed to have ended I think I have been more than fair but am open to contrary opinion. If enough people are willing to try to establish agreement on a broader talk page I'll join in but until now it's seemed like an excercise in futility. Keith-264 (talk) 14:58, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
Stating that your interpretation is wrong is not a synynom of stating you are acting in bad faith. I don't think your actions are bad faith, merely misguided. You are correct, however, that I failed to note pidd's changing of mind (and I also missed Jibbsisme's comment originating this section). But all that means is that your change goes from being outright opposed to, at best, no consensus. Resolute 15:14, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
Is the matter to be decided by facts or opinions? The Westminster parliament declared war in 1914 and that affected all of the empire, unlike in 1939 when seperate declarations were made, so something was different. I assume the Statute of Westminster 1931 amended the laws I noted further up the page. Would you agree that if it could be demonstrated that sovereignty inhered at Westminster in 1914 that settles it? If not, Germany and the USA were federal states so shouldn't we put separate icons in for Saxony, Prussia and Texas etc? If it is to be settled by vote then for consistency's sake other polities ought to be treated the same. Oh and there's a UK icon because I blundered into lots of disambiguation notices. "British Empire" turned out to mean the colonial empire but not the metropole.Keith-264 (talk) 16:20, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
I am already aware of the history. As I said, the relationship between dominions and the empire were complicated. While they did automatically end up at war with the empire, they certainly were not mere provinces of Great Britain at that time, so your examples of Texas and Prussia are not applicable. Speaking of facts, the date of Canadian Confederation is 1867, not 1931. While all the former colonies retianed very strong ties to the Empire at the time of WWI, they were already their own unique entities at that time. And indeed, you won't find many sources discussing the battle in terms of "British Empire troops", but specifically as Canadian, Australian/ANZAC, etc. Resolute 20:13, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Texas and Prussia were not provinces, they were states. I can see that I'm wasting my time relating facts to you so I'll leave it there.Keith-264 (talk) 20:30, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

No shit. You're simply arguing semantics now. The point, of course, is that Canada, Australia, New Zealand, etc. were not sub-national entities (i.e.: 'mere provinces') of a larger nation the way Prussia and Texas were. Resolute 21:50, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Anachronistic flag wavers[edit]

CANADIAN INDEPENDENCE (C) Andrew Heard 1990 Canada's transition from a self-governing British colony into a fully independent state was an evolutionary process, which arose in such a gradual fashion that it is impossible to ascribe independence to a particular date. The Supreme Court of Canada reflected this uncertainty when it said in Re Offshore Mineral Rights of British Columbia that Canada's "sovereignty was acquired in the period between its separate signature of the Treaty of Versailles in 1919 and the Statute of Westminster, 1931..."[1] However, the development of this independence had its roots before 1919, and was not actually completed until well after 1931. As Frank Scott has argued, "Never at any time in [1919-39] was the full international personality of the Dominions, as distinct from Great Britain, established beyond equivocation".[2] Indeed, symbolically-important legal traces of Canada's colonial status were only shed with the passing of the Canada Act[3] by the British Parliament in 1982. That Act not only provided for the first time a process by which Canada's basic constitutional laws could be legally amended without action by the British Parliament, but it also declared that no British law passed thereafter would apply to Canada. There are still two final vestiges of colonialism to be eliminated, those found in ss.55 and 56 of the 1867 Constitution Act which provide for the reservation and disallowance of federal legislation. Of course Canada has been an independent nation for a number of decades, and these shadows of her former status are nothing more than anomalies which illustrate how the legal provisions of the Canadian constitution failed to keep pace with the political developments which propelled Canada to full statehood.

At its inception in 1867, Canada's colonial status was marked by political and legal subjugation to British Imperial supremacy in all aspects of government - legislative, judicial, and executive. The Imperial Parliament at Westminster could legislate on any matter to do with Canada and could override any local legislation, the final court of appeal for Canadian litigation lay with the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in London, the Governor General had a substantive role as a representative of the British government, and ultimate executive power was vested in the British Monarch - who was advised only by British Ministers in its exercise. Canada's independence came about as each of these subordinations was eventually removed. What is remarkable about this whole process is that it was achieved with a minimum of legislative amendments. Much of Canada's independence arose from the development of new political arrangements, many of which have been absorbed into judicial decisions interpreting the constitution - with or without explicit recognition. Canada's passage from being an integral part of the British Empire to being an independent member of the Commonwealth richly illustrates the way in which fundamental constitutional rules have evolved through the interaction of constitutional convention, international law, and municipal statute and case law.

Just a thought. Keith-264 (talk) 13:29, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

WP:DEADHORSE. Resolute 15:37, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Civility"I can see that I'm wasting my time relating facts to you so I'll leave it there." I left it there, this is for everyone else.Keith-264 (talk) 15:54, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
I realize you are obsessed with getting your own way here, but at some point, you simply have to accept that your POV is not preferred. Resolute 16:15, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military historyKeith-264 (talk) 16:25, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Oh Jesus... you're still on that absurd argument that dominions that gained nationhood decades before WWI should be held equivalent to a US State? Facepalm Facepalm. Resolute 19:33, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military historyKeith-264 (talk) 20:30, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
" ... that gained nationhood ..." - I think you may be confusing 'nationhood' for statehood. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:24, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Move suggestion[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Calm down, mates. QEDK (T C) 06:22, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Battle of PasschendaeleThird Battle of Ypres – Anyone mind if I move the title to The Third Battle of Ypres or The Battles of Ypres, 1917? Thanks Keith-264 (talk) 20:25, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

(Replies moved from Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history#Passchendaele Alansplodge (talk) 16:26, 13 November 2016 (UTC) )

I would move it to the Third Battle of Ypres personally. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 04:45, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
"Passchendaele" is the widely used name in Commonwealth countries, see Battle of Passchendaele (Third Ypres) from the Australian War Memorial, also Passchendaele from the Canadian War Museum, Passchendaele: fighting for Belgium from the Research and Publishing Group of the New Zealand Ministry for Culture and Heritage, The Battle of Passchendaele from the Auckland War Memorial Museum, THE BATTLE OF PASSCHENDAELE, JULY-NOVEMBER 1917 from the Imperial War Museum in London. Finally, there is the Passchendaele Society in NZ and the Memorial Museum Passchendaele 1917 in Belgium. There are also any number of books about the battle with "Passchendaele" in the title, a quick Google search will show you several pages. I think we should leave well alone. Alansplodge (talk) 16:04, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Umm, yes. I very much would object to such a pointless move away from WP:COMMONNAME. Resolute 17:43, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose move, clearly and unambiguously known as Passchendaele. DuncanHill (talk) 17:51, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
The Battles Nomenclature Committee named it The Battles of Ypres, 1917, which is followed by the Official History. Are we really to set that aside for facile quantitative analysis and cherry picking, surely there's a difference between RS and pop-history? Notice that there are two Battles of Passschendaele within the Third Battle of Ypres. This isn't pointless, it's history.Keith-264 (talk) 18:01, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
We're not here to parrot the Official History. Wikipedia uses Common Names for most subjects, and as Passchendaele seems to be the name most commonly used, not least amongst those who fought in it, we should stick to that. DuncanHill (talk) 18:12, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
J. P Harris, no parrot, uses the proper name in Douglas Haig and the First World War Cambridge Military Histories 2008; is Passchendaele common or ignorant? I'll leave the question open for a bit longer but I fear it's turning into another beauty contest.Keith-264 (talk) 18:35, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
Yes, we are all aware of how you are the only enlightened man watching this article. Passing yourself off as intellectually superior is rather ironic given all of your intellectualism fails to realize that you have not made a policy-winning argument in favour of getting your way. Resolute 18:45, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
Sarcasm? How sad, how lonely. Can we have a grown-up discussion please? Regards Keith-264 (talk) 19:34, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
Keith, you don't get to make snide remarks about "pop history" and "another beauty contest" and then complain when people call you out. And please indent properly, instead of abusing indents to make it look like you own the conversation. DuncanHill (talk) 19:45, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
Hmmm, my retort removed with no notice. Can we get back to the point; this article should be called the Third Battle of Ypres.Keith-264 (talk) 21:01, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
Do you have policy-winning argument in favour of this? Please, in your response, avoid making personal comments such as "are you mad", "how sad, how lonely", or the like. I will revert any further personal attacks by you, whoever they are aimed at. DuncanHill (talk) 21:07, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
I am be happy to be reverted on an even handed basis but I fear that you will not revert yourself. I will not agree to one-sided abuse so I suggest that you acknowledge a conflict of interest. Keith-264 (talk) 21:49, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
Do you have policy-winning argument in favour of changing the article name? DuncanHill (talk) 21:58, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
Do you have a conflict of interest? Keith-264 (talk) 22:25, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
I have no pecuniary or professional interest in the name of this article. It's hard to imagine how anybody could. Do you have a policy-winning argument in favour of changing the article name? DuncanHill (talk) 22:29, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
Do you have a conflict of interest and who will judge the "argument"?Keith-264 (talk) 22:48, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
No, and try reading WP:CONSENSUS. Now, what policy-based argument do you have to support your proposal to change the name of the article? I will not be responding to any more of your sidetracks. DuncanHill (talk) 22:51, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
I disagree, I think you've set yourself up as a judge and shown bias by not censoring anyone else. I suggest respectfully that you recuse yourself. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 23:07, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
Please report this discussion to ANI if you are unhappy with my participation. Do you have a policy-based argument for moving this article? DuncanHill (talk) 23:12, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
Anyone mind if I move the title to The Third Battle of Ypres or The Battles of Ypres, 1917? Thanks Keith-264 (talk) 23:20, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
Yes, this has already been objected to above. Do you have a policy-based reason to support your proposal? DuncanHill (talk) 23:22, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
Thank you Keith-264 (talk) 23:23, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose. As noted above, Passchendaele or the Battle of Passchendaele is a more commonly used name and how people are likely to search for it. Yet another example is this BBC history page, which, while acknowledging the "official name," refers to it as "Battle of Passchendaele." BlackcurrantTea (talk) 07:06, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
WP:move see here Keith-264 (talk) 09:14, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
Further, WP:commonname Battle of Ypres disambig page has three numbered battles.
  • "determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources"; with 99 years of writing this might be difficult because of the schools of thought, polemics and apologetics on the campaign. I would be happy to join anyone who wants to devise a list of "independent, reliable English-language sources".
  • Battle of Passchendaele (21 letters) Third Battle of Ypres (18 letters), proposal meets the concision criterion
  • Confusion with two of the battles that really are battles of Passchendaele. Various commentators had also pointed out that TBoY is the official name.
  • WP:OWN several people have overstepped and failed to treat the proposal according to WP:AGF and WP:Civil. I think that this has deterred other editors from commenting. Keith-264 (talk) 13:13, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The most common name in the English-speaking nations that fought in it is the Battle of Passchendaele. And that's what we use, not necessarily the "official" name. As long as the latter is recorded in the article that's fine. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:26, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
Is it the common name? Keith-264 (talk) 15:06, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
I think so; see my post above where I have linked to its use by every national war museum of the participating English-speaking nations, plus the name of the museum on the actual battlefield. Also we have: Passchendaele: The Sacrificial Ground by Nigel Steel and Peter Hart, Passchendaele: The Story of the Third Battle of Ypres 1917 by Lyn MacDonald, The Prairie To Passchendaele: Man of Kent - Soldier of the 10th Canadian Infantry by Fred Knight and Joy Lennick, Passchendaele: The Hollow Victory by Martin Evans, Passchendaele: A New History by Nick Lloyd, Passchendaele: The Untold Story by Robin Prior, Passchendaele: The Anatomy Of A Tragedy by Andrew Macdonald, Passchendaele: The Day-by-Day Account by Chris McCarthy and Passchendaele 1917: The Story of the Fallen and Tyne Cot Cemetry by Frank Bostyn and Jan Van Der Fraenen. There are many more but my lunch hour is running out. Oh and by the way, I Oppose. Alansplodge (talk) 12:43, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for taking the trouble, I didn't think that the museum references were all that convincing. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 13:06, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for taking the trouble, I didn't think that the museum references were all that convincing. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 13:06, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
Here are a few more [3] some using both terms. Keith-264 (talk) 14:23, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
Granted, but using the search term "Passchendaele" on the same site produces at least ten times as many results (that's a guess - I can count them all if you like). Alansplodge (talk) 18:18, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
No because First Battle of Passchendaele is official, same as Third Battle of Ypres or Battle of the Somme. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 20:44, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Third Battle of Ypres[edit]

I missed the discussion last year on this issue but I would strongly suggest this article is misnamed Passchendaele. If I was writing a book on the whole campaign I would select Passchendaele for its emotional resonance but the two battles of Passchendaele (12 October 1917 and 28 October/10 November 1917) were the last two of eight battles fought between 31 July and 10 November 1917. At present I am updating a VC biography and noted Passchendaele listed instead of Third Ypres. It is a bit silly listing Passchendaele for a soldier who was posthumously awarded the VC for Menin Road. Anthony Staunton (talk) 14:01, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Let's stop this before it turns nastier
Thanks, I fear that there is a claque of Canadians who won't be persuaded; shame really.Keith-264 (talk) 14:03, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
You are correct, and like it or not, WP:COMMONNAME trumps your own selfish, self-centred wants. Resolute 14:04, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
Not just Canadians. I don't see any evidence that the common name has changed since the last discussion. DuncanHill (talk) 14:13, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
What have you two contributed to the 3rd Ypres pages apart from contumely? Keith-264 (talk) 17:03, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
Keith, please read wp:IDHT. LeadSongDog come howl! 18:49, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
 Done It describes the claims of other editors. If I might ask, what have you contributed to the 3rd Ypres pages? Keith-264 (talk) 19:16, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
Fair's fair.Keith-264 (talk) 22:50, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Recent edit[edit]

@Sproutly: Thanks for the commemoration edit but is it really notable? Regards Keith-264 (talk) 12:27, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

@Keith-264: Just mentioned it because it was the centenary of the battle --Sproutly (talk) 13:21, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

That's ok, I was being a little bit facetious anyway ;o)Keith-264 (talk) 13:31, 4 August 2017 (UTC)


@Mukogodo: In "Note on Casualties" pp. 343-347 Terraine wrote "...I may remark that an addition of 20% to the figure stated in the German Official Account (p. 367) gives a total of 260,400...." p. 347. He was writing about the assumptions other writers had made about the different criteria used in casualty counting by the British and Germans and that German counts were not exact by comparison with British methods. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 10:17, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

So let's simply perpetuate Terraine's ignorance of how numbers work, just because he wrote them down. Good for you. "Foolish consistency..."Mukogodo (talk) 19:11, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Your alteration was OR so NBG; Terraine was explaining why he thought 20% needed to be added to the Reichsarchiv figure then did it to reach 260,400. It was the Reichsarchiv who gave a precise figure from the Sanitatsbbericht, a painstaking casualty count. RegardsKeith-264 (talk) 20:32, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Add number of casualties to lead section?[edit]

I can see the numbers are argued over but is there a reason the number of casualties are not summarised in the lead section? This seems important information. -Lopifalko (talk) 11:57, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

The lack ofn consensus makes it too much of a detail for the lead. The lead is next to the infobox which does offer numbers and a link to the discussion. It will unbalance the lead to delve into it there. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 15:03, 7 November 2018 (UTC)