Talk:Second Battle of Ypres

message: Question: the bit about the Canadian soldiers and the urine-soaked handkerchiefs confuses me, in that chlorine says that bleach mixed with ammonia or urine produces chlorine gas, which is toxic, etc. How does adding urine to chlorine gas produce the reverse reaction? I don't understand the chemistry involved. grendel|khan 19:52, 2004 Dec 14 (UTC)
:Its not a reversal as such, rather different reactions as liquid bleach is not simply chlorine in water. Off the top of my head, the chlorine will react with ammonia producing hydrogen gas, nitrogen gas and hydrogen chloride. The hydrogen chloride, being very acid then neutralises itself with the base ammonia or other chemicals in the urine. There would actually be hundreds of simultaneous reactions going on as urine is chemically complex but it boils down to the the very reactive chlorine reacting with chemicals in the urine before it gets a chance to get to the lungs and react there. Just for the record I think if you add ammonia to liquid bleach (aqueous NaCLO) although some chlorine will be released, via chloramines, much would end up as NaCL or good old table salt. NB don't try that at home to check - the reaction could be quite energetic to say the least and if not kept cool you'd likely get some chlorates which can be VERY explosive not to mention the corrosive and explosive gasses. --LiamE 20:14, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question 

message: Who was the offender in this battle, and who was defending the town?
:Germany was attacking, Allies(Canada & England) defending.  It was the last major German offensive on the Western Front until Verdun in 1916 and the last offensive directed against the British until 1918. Geoff/Gsl 10:42, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The British, Belgians and French were defending. Canada wasn't a country then, it was part of the British empire. Keith-264 (talk) 15:38, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry but that is incorrect. Canada became a nation on July 1st 1867. Regards. Deeds before Words (talk) 17:56, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

text: Perhaps but according to the Canadian Supreme Court it didn't become a sovereign state until the 1920s.Keith-264 (talk) 18:00, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Attacker 

message: —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.225.238.151 (talk) 05:05, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Headline text 

message: I see complaints about the Cdn POV of this article, but when I (a Canadian) tried to put an Algerian flag in the campaign box, it gets removed. Yes, technically at that time Algeria was part of France, but the contribution of Algerian troops is mentioned, and should not be negated. Maybe with a period-appropriate tricoleur? Similarly, I think there should be a mention (and flag) for the Lahore Division, if I could only figure out if they're Indian or Pakistani (again, with period-appropriate Union Jack). Suggestions? Esseh 07:12, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Lahore division is pretty hard to flag, other than using the Union flag to denote the Britsih Empire. It was a mix of Indian (Including modern Pakistan and Bangladesh), Nepalese, British, Irish etc. --LiamE 13:19, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi LiamE and Basser g, and thanks. Actually, I had added Algeria with tricouleur before, and someone removed it. As for the Lahore Div., yes, definitely the Union Jack, but I wanted to list the current national affiliation (as NF is). Pakistan, I presume? As LiamE says, they were likely mixed composition (likely with English officers and local recruits, if anything like other colonial contingents), or was the division composed of ethnically-different battalions? As for the comment on Africans "running", I think that was a reference to the Algerian contingent, if I remember correctly. I don't really remember seeing anything (before here) on the Sénégalais contingent, though if they were involved, they should be in the campaign box, too.  Esseh 20:30, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I was rather wondering the same thing. Could we put both? Esseh 22:00, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Brave Bravo Basser g, for putting in everone's flags - esp. on finding the Blue Ensign. Credit to all there, eh ;)  Esseh 03:39, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (Sorry, my typo.) Esseh 03:42, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Funny... 

message: ::On another interesting chemi-historical note, I just ran across this reference to a 1908 paper on the reaction of chlorine with urea! I have already added the paper to the article on gas warfare, and am now going to add it to the appropriate sections here. NOT ammonia (as I suspected - there's very little in fresh urine), but urea, which is present in large amounts in urine. Also, have another ref for why chlorine was so deadly. As I suspected, 2Cl2 + 2H2O -> 4HCl + O2. For those less chemically inclined than myself, what it means is that the chlorine gas, when mixed with water (as in the eyes, lungs, etc...) forms hydrochloric acid (muriatic acid). Very corrosive, explaining the tissue damage to the lungs. Comments? Esseh 22:03, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, the other article was Poison gas in World War I... Esseh 22:26, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Thanks Basser g. Better check again - I've added a few more, with more notes.  Esseh 22:08, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some histori-chemistry.. 

message: Although I would prefer including Algeria and French West Africa, at the very least Algeria was viewed as an integral part of France at the time and was not even a colony.. See the French_Third_Republic for details.. But we could still include colonial specific references within the article itself. I fear however, that it is too historically inaccurate to include Algeria as a combatant, and possibly French West Africa (I will check that now). Basser g 21:27, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Seems I may have made a mistake...

message: Help is needed to bring this article to demonstrate a more worldly POV. Anyone who can help contribute to German, British, Australian, Indian, Newfoundlander, or French and their colonial forces roles in the battle would be greatly appreciated. Canada's role has been fairly well defined but it is equally important to ensure all these other groups roles in the battle are portrayed with equal justice. Basser g 21:51, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In reading some more, I think the Belgians should be added as well. They held the left of the Allied line throughout the battle. Curiously, in one history of the Lahore Division I saw, Ypres was not mentioned as one of their battles (though they fought before and after). However, they are mentioned in Gen. French's official report. I'll look into it further.  Esseh 22:05, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: World view

message: If there was Australian involvement wouldn't there also have been New Zealand involvement? I'm fairly sure that throughout the war they fought in unified ANZAC divisions didn't they? Basser g 23:40, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: New Zealand?

message: ..."the first time a non-European force (Canadians) pushed back a major European power (Germans) on European soil." I think the Mongols, Huns (Rome), Moors in Spain, Portugal, Sicily, and Ottomans might disagree. Maybe "the first time a former colonial force..."? Thoughts? Esseh 07:12, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You could add Hannibal and the Persians to that list too. Its just a bit overstated. I would go with something along the lines "former colonial.." as you suggest. --LiamE 09:25, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done.  Esseh 16:40, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can we say this? 

message: Hello again, all. Found some interesting pics for the article, and thought I'd post them here until we're sure where they can/should go. As they get used, we can delete them from here, and we can add any more we find to the gallery. Sound good? Esseh 22:12, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed the Zoaves - they're now incorporated. Also, I found a ref (and added it) on the composition of the French Colonial Forces. Apparently, they were Algerian and Moroccan.  Esseh 20:41, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some photos. 

message: The section on Kitcheners' woods is essentially a word-for-word copy from the Veterans Affairs Canada website (http://198.103.134.2/remembers/sub.cfm?source=feature/bh_somme2006/bh_youthoverseas/ericbrenchley). hodgetts 02:45, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extensive Copying 

message: It is proposed that Battle of Kitcheners' Wood be merged into the Battle of Gravenstafel section. 
#  I have not found a single principal World War I work that uses the term Battle of Kitcheners' Wood.
# The article concerns the actions of no more than 2 battalions and those actions fall directly within the purview and timeline of Gravenstafel.
# There are no citations in the and Battle of Kitcheners' Wood article and the only noted book is the regimental history, not exactly evenhanded.
# The only article that links to Battle of Kitcheners' Wood is the page on the battalion and regiment involved.
To be honest I think Battle of Kitcheners' Wood would be a candidate for deletion rather than merge but thought I should bring it to this forum first--Labattblueboy (talk) 03:52, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Reject merge proposal - Intellectual laziness on your part is no reason for a call for deletion. The battle was a seperate battle. That you can't find information on it within arm's reach does not mean it doesn't exist. Other editors better able to handle the task may in future be able to expand it.68.145.135.240 (talk) 16:13, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

text: Accept merge proposal - The article for the 2nd Battle of Ypres differentiates between several battles that were part of it, and at least two sites  and  (see also here ) list Kitcheners' Wood as a battle under the heading of 2nd Ypres. I have no agenda to promote or denigrate. I just think it is logical to include the KW article (expanded when more information is found) as part of 2nd Ypres. ([user: talk:Thukyd1des|talk]) 11 August 2009  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thukyd1des (talk) 15:28, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

text: Accept merge proposal (postscript) - What I meant to say above, in case it was unclear, was to merge the article about Kitcheners' Wood under the article about the Second Battle of Ypres, not *just* the Battle of Gravenstafel. The battles that comprise the Second Ypres "Campaign" in the article could well include Kitcheners' Wood, *separate* from Gravenstafel. I think this would be fair and an objective recognition of the Canadian and other British Colonial Forces' Troops, and highlight it apart from the other battles in the Second Ypres article.
--Thukyd1des (talk) 10:59, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

text: Oppose - While it was not officially deemed a "Battle" there is certainly ample documentation as "Attack on" or "Assault on". Nicholson chapter 3 repeatedly denotes the geographic area as "Kitcheners Wood" (no apostrophe) and the actions as the "Battle of Gravenstafel Ridge-The First Gas Attack, 22 April", followed by "The Counter-Attacks of 22-23 April" and "The Battle of St. Julien-The Second Gas Attack, 24 Apri1". The battalions engaged were different for each of these three, probably due to the heavy casualties. A simple rename/move to "Kitcheners' Wood" without the "Battle of" might be cleaner.LeadSongDog come howl 17:46, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge proposal 

message: Answering an issue raised in NINAD's paragraphs about proportions of conscript/volunteers in the Indian Army at the time, and not wanting to disrupt them, it may be enlightening to point out the British Empire troops at that battle were all volunteers.  The Indian Army was volunteer throughout the war, while conscription had yet to be introduced in Britain (who began it in 1916) and Canada (in 1917).Special:Contributions/Cloptonson (talk) 20:57, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: British Empire Forces - No Conscripts Then

message: I question the correctness of referring to Canadian troops taking part as being from a former colony.  At that time Canada had been a self-governing Dominion (and confederation of provinces with their own legislatures) within the British Empire since 1867, which politically put them above 'Crown Colony' rank.  It may have been commonplace in Britain to think of Canadians as 'colonials' but there were Canadians at the time (eg Sam Hughes) who would have strongly disagreed with the implication.  (NB - I am not Canadian but have much studied that period.)  Might a rephrase be in order?Cloptonson (talk) 21:08, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Canada wasn't considered a nation until this war. It is very important for Canada because people sort of regarded us as meaningless back then. During WW1 the effectiveness of the Canadian soldiers became renowned around the world, and established us as a nation. Before this, we were considered little more than cannon fodder. ~A canadian  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.65.96.152 (talk) 00:23, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Status of Canada at time of battle

message: This is the first time that I've heard of this, although I've been interested in the subject for quite a while. Up to now I was convinced that the first succesful chlorine gas attack had been made at Steenstraete. There was a monument erected after the war - destroyed by Nazis in the next war - rebuilt differently afterwards. I have visited the place in 2009, and I have seen numerous historical pictures. Funny I can't find any reference to this on Wikipedia. What's up with that?
* http://forumeerstewereldoorlog.nl/viewtopic.php?t=12532
* http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=50.918159&lon=2.841079
Also a little note in the article currently says the former "Gravenstafel" is today named "Gravenstafel". Using the links provided I find "s'Graventafel". Changed the note accordingly. 
--BjKa (talk) 10:10, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Gas attack on Gravenstafel" 

message: In section 'Aftermath' I notice inside a paragraph the sentence. "Another Canadian Division joined the British Expeditionary Force in late 1915, joined eventually by two more in 1916." Unless there is evidence this was directly attributable to the battle, is this relevant as the additions were several months post-battle? There was a continued recruiting drive in Canada from 1914 through 1915 into 1916, the three added divisions being raised from that.Cloptonson (talk) 21:19, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Extraneous Information? (re later Canadian Divisions)

message: I've noticed that there's an external link to my old unmaintained website at http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~cjmorton/service/ww1/ypres/overview.htm . I'd like to move this to my new maintained site as http://cjmorton.org/ww1service/ww1/overview/ypres.html . However, since this appears to represent a potential conflict of interest under Wikipedia guidelines I'm adding this note to see if there are any objections. Thanks. MochaFossil (talk) 11:25, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  External link 

message: From the British point of view, 2nd Ypres was the first big battle of the war, and it brought home to the army, the politicians and the public that this was actually a major conflict that might last years. Valetude (talk) 17:00, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: This seems a bit strong - the First battle of Ypres had 56,000 British casualties, and this (second) had 70,000.  So it seems a bit of a fetch to call it the "first big battle".  However, coming on top of the First battle it may have indeed have "brought home" the notion that it might be a long war. Baska436 (talk) 00:43, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wake-up call 

message: Did a cheeky little ce, added some citations, changed some web cites to books, put a map and a loc map in the infobox, changed to efn for notes and thought that there were too many long quotations for an article this size.Keith-264 (talk) 12:31, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  CE 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Second Battle of Ypres. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051123165216/http://www.legionmagazine.com/features/victoriacross/04-07.asp to http://www.legionmagazine.com/features/victoriacross/04-07.asp
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110609170125/http://www.histori.ca/minutes/minute.do?id=10200 to http://www.histori.ca/minutes/minute.do?id=10200
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051123165216/http://www.legionmagazine.com/features/victoriacross/04-07.asp to http://www.legionmagazine.com/features/victoriacross/04-07.asp
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:09, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Can someone on here specify/clarify the contribution of Australian, South Africa, New Zealand, Newfoundland and Southern Rhodesian forces in this battle? I don't doubt individuals from these nations served in British, Canadian and Indian units during this battle, but as their own specific national units did they take part? because I'm pretty sure as units almost all of them didn't start taking part in battles on the western front until the following year, so shouldn't they be removed if they took no part? Afterall, on the Battle of Jutland page I remember reading that there was individuals from Australia and Canada that served in the Royal Navy but their not listed under their own flags in the infobox, perhaps the same can be done here if that was the extent of their involvement. Thanks in advance. Chelseacanuck21 (talk) 16:54, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that's a fair question but the article is well overdue for a drastic re-edit so that will come forst for me. If you want to take those countriies out, I won't object. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 18:22, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Keith, i'll remove them at later time if that's the case. On a separate note why has the South African flag of the time been changed from the red ensign to the blue ensign? seems to be the case across multiple WP articles where their involved, was there ever a reason/discussion on this? Chelseacanuck21 (talk) 14:41, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm afraid I don't know. RegardsKeith-264 (talk) 16:41, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misleading Infobox 

message: The gravestone (an unmistakable CWGC stone) in Kells, Ireland, is stated to be a soldier who died during this Battle at Bellewaarde. However at that stage of the war British soldiers who died on the Western Front were not repatriated.  About this statement I would say to whoever wrote the caption 'Prove it'. I have checked up the CWGC website and do agree with placement of the grave in Kells. It is probable he could have been wounded in the battle and died after being repatriated. I note the date of his death precedes by one day the beginning of the subsidiary Battle of Bellewaarde.Cloptonson (talk) 13:38, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Picture caption questioned 

message: the head is the wrong shape, theres hair where he never had hair, the picture quality is way off for 1906, it doesn't exist anywhere else on the internet except wikimedia commons, it's only used on this article, the nose is wrong. i don't think its a photo of fritz haber and im not convinced it's a real photo at all. the close up angle also seems wrong for 1906.  DParkinson1 (talk) 11:53, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: i've clocked it. the photo is an AI image adaptation of https://www.sciencehistory.org/sites/default/files/styles/rte_full_width/public/historical_profile/bio-haber-sketch.jpg?itok=_RZ1LWOL this 1911 sketch thats been flipped horizontal and misatributed to the wrong year.  DParkinson1 (talk) 12:02, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

text: since no one has got back to me, im going to change the image and put in the one from the main fritz haber article DParkinson1 (talk) 18:30, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  something seems off about the photo of fritz haber