Talk:Battle of Hill 70

message: Hey, please look this over and add to it!Mike McGregor (Can) 00:29, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

message: There's no mention at all of the casualties the Germans received during the battle. It seems like a pretty important bit of information to include. 66.36.138.127 (talk) 18:51, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  German Loses 

message: I have have spent some time doing a complete re-write of the article. The entire battle has now been incorporated, as well as a more even preservative from the German side.  The goal is to move it to GA. If you have a moment to do some copy-editing that would be appreciated. --Labattblueboy (talk) 06:42, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: done Labattblueboy (talk) 02:16, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

text: The Battle of Hill 70 did go over some of the same terrain as the Battle of Loos, the scale was much smaller though. Without more information as to where the 6th Batallion Queen's Own Cameron Highlanders was located for Loos I could not tell you for certain.--Labattblueboy (talk) 12:21, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Re-write

message: I removed the following text:
The fighting at Lens cost us, once again, the expenditure of considerable numbers of troops who had to be replaced. The whole previously worked-out plan for relieving the fought-out troops in Flanders had been wrecked. (Von Kuhl)Von Kuhl, Der Weltkrieg, in Terraine, J. The Road to Passchendaele, p. 234 (1977)  
It does not have any context that would provide it with a direct purpose.--Labattblueboy (talk) 06:08, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  removed text 

message: Added snippet from Farndale pointing to the sophistication of the methods used.Keith-264 (talk) 20:09, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Added references, altered a few items for consistency and added a couple of categories.Keith-264 (talk) 12:44, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Artillery 

message: Suggest it should read "British victory" for the usual reasons. Keith-264 (talk) 08:28, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Disagree. There were surely British units involved (tunnelling companies, gas companies, artillery (heavy)) but I don't see that change as appropriate. Same reason I undid the change a couple days back where it was changed to Canadian victory, there was a mix.--Labattblueboy (talk) 06:46, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Britain and Canada weren't allies.Keith-264 (talk) 07:46, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: If you'd rather put Entente victory I'd be fine with that, but It's not OK with British victory.--Labattblueboy (talk) 04:23, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

text: Will we call Verdun an Entente victory too?Keith-264 (talk) 06:41, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Well it's not getting listed as British victory so you figure a  alternative you can live with and let me know.--Labattblueboy (talk) 00:49, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

text: Without wanting to resurrect the sovereignty question, I gather that Canadians were British citizens with British passports in 1917. How about calling the military forces ivolved the BEF?Keith-264 (talk) 07:36, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Not quite, but getting too into details of citizenship is not something for this area. Besides I don't see it as particularly relevant as a topic for resolution here. It's a wider discussion topic. I'd be more inclined to state Canadian Corps victory if we'd pick a formation.--Labattblueboy (talk) 00:43, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: There were other BEF units involved.Keith-264 (talk) 07:28, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Far as I understood it, attached to the Canadian Corps.--Labattblueboy (talk) 01:03, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox 

message: Loos-en-Gohelle: pourquoi les Canadiens tiennent-ils à ce point au centenaire de la bataille de la Côte 70?
In three years, August 15, 2017, the centenary of the Battle of the Hill 70 "For the Canadian government will celebrate this commemoration is very important. Last month, a delegation came in Loos-en-Gohelle prepare for the event. They came with two architects who were commissioned to create a new memorial in Loos-en-Gohelle. This memorial should be built next to the military cemetery. "The sketches of the project offer under a majestic obelisk erected in the center of a circular plaza. "The plans we were shown are superb. All the details are cared for, the natural environment is respected. It promises to be beautiful! "Looks forward Alfred Duparcq.Keith-264 (talk) 08:41, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  French newspaper article 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Battle of Hill 70. 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/20110525085636/http://www.wlu.ca/lcmsds/cmh/back%20issues/CMH/volume%205/Issue%201/Bell%20-%20The%20107th%20Timber%20Wolf%20Battalion%20at%20Hill%2070.pdf to http://www.wlu.ca/lcmsds/cmh/back%20issues/CMH/volume%205/Issue%201/Bell%20-%20The%20107th%20Timber%20Wolf%20Battalion%20at%20Hill%2070.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:05, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Added some material on the OOBs and analysis from Delaney and Durflinger. Where's the casualty section?Keith-264 (talk) 14:03, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a good addition to the content! There's never been a standalone section for casualties.--Labattblueboy (talk) 16:25, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

text: OK, thanks v much, the index is quite detailed about casualties so I'll see what I can do.
PS used sfns as I don't know the other system. Keith-264 (talk) 18:16, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Did a casualties section but haven't yet found a cite for 25,000+ German casualties.Keith-264 (talk) 13:00, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: The 25K figure seemed like a weak estimate, the revised figure has a better citation backing. Any data on German awards associated with the battle? I don't much like the one sided nature of just mentioning VCs but I don't have any mnaterial on hand that could add content to the German side on this subject.--Labattblueboy (talk) 22:52, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

text: Neither do I  my sources don't mention anything. Keith-264 (talk) 22:57, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

text: Had a look in XIV Reserve Corps Vol III but nothing about Hill 70 I'm afraid. There's some good stuff in Wise RCAF OH I but I couldn't find a place to put it, hence the shuffling about and extra headers, all suggestive. Keith-264 (talk) 08:15, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Added material on air operations from Wise but had to juggle the headers and layout a bit more. I think it's all relevant but a bit lop-sided because of the absence of a German counterpart. I'll keep looking. Keith-264 (talk) 09:16, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent edits 

message: I think that some of the local operations are confused in some of the sources, going by OH 1917 II, which briefly describes a few more than in the article and puts the 46th (NM) Div feint with dummy tanks etc at 14 August. Perhaps the sections provisionally labelled local operations and deceptions could be merged? Keith-264 (talk) 09:27, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Added this section but have an open mind about whether all the contents are needed. Still musing about the Deceptions section. "The 46th (North Midland) Division at Lens in 1917" (2011 ed) P. S. C. Campbell-Johnston has a lot of detail about the division's doings outside Lens. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 10:16, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  First Army operations 

message: Done most of the alterations made available by Delaney and Durflinger but still doubtful about the deceptions section. Will keep digging. Keith-264 (talk) 12:59, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Added a bit of detail. Keith-264 (talk) 09:46, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Latest edits 

message: "The operations were not a diversion but a means to keep the First Army front active for as long as possible, to mislead the Germans as to British intentions in Flanders." On reflection, this passage seems a little confused so I'll check the source. Keith-264 (talk) 10:51, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent edits