Talk:Battle of Verdun

message: Do you have the page number for that data? Thanks Keith-264 (talk) 00:07, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: It's on page 226 of Philpott's book, with him stating that "The Germans had inflicted by French reckoning 377,000 casualties on their army, of which 162,000 were killed. The Germans themselves suffered 337,000 casualties. Other imprecise estimates put the total casualties both sides suffered around Verdun over four years as high as 1,250,000." Reaper1945 (talk) 00:12, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, just found it in the Casualties section. Hope it wasn't me that wrote the higher figure. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 00:17, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent edits Comment 

message: You're basing your edit on a 26-year old source. What has been written since? Regards Keith-264 (talk) 22:20, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent edits 

message: The description of the place in France of Verdun having been removed from the loc map, I wonder what "Location within France" adds to it? Regards Keith-264 (talk) 11:23, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: It is the default when there is no caption. I agree, "Location within France" adds nothing but I can't see how to remove it. Cinderella157 (talk) 11:52, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the map itself and this explanation do add something, especially if you know where the border with Germany is. The border is shown although Germany is not named. And especially if you know where Paris is. Geographical context is important where battles are concerned. It might be better if the map showed the border as it then was, the approximate position of the western Front at the time of the battle and the position of important cities eg Paris, Lille, Amiens, Rheims and Lyon but I don't know if such a map assists on Wiki Commons. The other maps on the page are good but they lack the broad, strategic view. Spinney Hill (talk) 12:47, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

text: That is in the other maps in the article but since the Infobox is a broad brush it seems too elaborate, I'd remove the loc map instead. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 13:33, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent edits 

message: There are many figures for total casualties reported in the casualties section which are both above and below the reported ranges in the infobox. While the rational for the ranges reported in the infobox are not apparent, the casualty section would also indicate that there is significant nuance to the various reported figures. The German dead reported in the infobox is aligned in the casualty section to a source which reports total casualties outside the range reported in the infobox. French dead and wounded reported in the infobox do not have corresponding figures reported in the casualty section. Consequently, those figures in the infobox are not verifiable?
I found the casualties section a particularly hard slug with multiple sources giving multiple figures. I would observe that significant amounts of numeric data is usually best presented in tabulated form. Unfortunately, these are not my strength. In this sentence () I note a contradiction in authorship, the work is not cited and the figures referred to by virtue of the percentages are not given. There is then this sentence (), it is apparently referring to figures from the first edition which have not been given. Casualties at Verdun from 1914 to 1918 do not appear relevant.
The last paragraph of the lead deals with casualties. The level of detail regarding casualties is inconsistent with the purpose of the lead being a summary. I am also a bit concerned that the costliness is OR and the verifiability of the symbolism.
Comments please. Cinderella157 (talk) 10:24, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that things could be better; I don't bother with Churchill but other editors do. Some editors also tend to include hyperbole and superlatives, that aren't as evident in recent accounts, which give a sober (albeit sombre) historical, descriptive account of the battle. I can dig out Edmonds's casualty analysis and its discontents if it will help. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 10:56, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we need to improve the readability of the casualty section in the first instance. Collating all of the various figures into a table would probably be a good start. This should include who wrote what and when. We then need to make any reporting in the infobox transparently consistent with the prose - if this is reasonably possible. In pointing to Churchill, I was indicating issues with the readability of the prose rather than the source. I don't think we can ignore Churchill but this needs to be put into context as to how they are viewed by other sources. Cinderella157 (talk) 12:35, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't accept Churchill as a RS but others do. A table is going to be rather complicated which means that cutting and pasting, which I usually do, might not work. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 12:48, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Casualties