Talk:Battle of Arras (1917)

message: 1914-1918.net divides the Battle of Arras as follows:
*The Battle of Vimy, April 9-12, 1917
 
*The First Battle of the Scarpe - 9th - 14th April 1917
*The Battle(s) of Bullecourt - 11th April - 16th June 1917
*The Second Battle of the Scarpe - 23rd - 24th April 1917
*The Battle of Arleux - 28th - 29th April 1917
*The Third Battle of the Scarpe - 3rd - 4th May 1917
*The Flanking Operations Towards Lens - 3rd June - 26th August 1917
Subsidiary actions are listed under each of these (http://www.1914-1918.net/bat18.htm ). I think that might be a useful structure for us to start with(?) Grant | Talk 04:11, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's kind of what I've been working with, although the last section (Flanking operations towards Lens) technically falls outside the dates of this particular campaign, which is generally considered to have ended after the Third battle of the Scarpe in early May. Carom 17:42, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Subsidiary battles/actions

message: i have added on to the section on the Second Battle of Bullecourt to include the fact that this Village WAS taken, which to me looked unfinished or not properly explained.Bullseye30 (talk) 20:44, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Added section 

message: I finalized the GA review for the article. I had earlier put the GA nomination on hold for some NPOV issues. Overall findings:
:1. Well written?: Very balanced writing with no apparent struggles with grammar or syntax.
:2. Factually accurate?: Seems correct, no glitches that would draw my attention. Referenced throughout.
:3. Broad in coverage?: Preface, background, developments during the battle and aftermath all well balanced.
:4. Neutral point of view?: This is still an issue, though not as much as when I last had an eye on this. All references are British or American, apparently no German sources have been applied. This is still partly reflected in the text, that rather clearly has a British POV, however in a quite neutral way. If FA status were interesting, broadening the reference base with German POV is something to consider.
:5. Article stability? Plenty of small edits, mainly polishing. No major disputes in the air.
:6. Images?: Good images and well positioned.
Passing GA. Added the article to Wikipedia:Good_articles#Conflicts.2C_battles_and_military_exercises. --Drieakko 17:25, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA review 

message: I am currently doing a copy edit of this page. I have noticed one particular problem pop up repeatedly: "this" is used without a reference or an unclear referent. Perhaps one of the editors might go through the page and fix this problem. It is hard to fix as a copy editor unless the referent is explicitly clear. Awadewit | talk 04:18, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've fixed, I believe, all the internal question issues. Just to be on the safe side, I've removed all the thisses. ROGER TALK 08:52, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Thanks for the comment - I will look at this tomorrow evening. Carom 05:20, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I was already well advanced when I read this. ROGER TALK 08:52, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No worries - this is a collaborative effort, after all! Carom 15:04, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Hyphens gone. ROGER TALK 13:05, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

text: This is a tricky one. The entire focus of the article is a battle, its umpteen sub-battles, and the planning that went in them. Under these circumstances, repetition is inevitable. I'm not sure how many synonyms/euphemisms can be used without it becoming laboured or faintly risible. I'll see what be done with recasting on my next revise (I'll be adding more German-perspective stuff later today) but I'm not that hopeful. ROGER TALK 09:40, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "This" and copy edit

message: Another small issue: sometimes "counterattack" is hyphenated and sometimes it is not. The editors should decide whether or not to use the hyphen and then apply the decision consistently. Awadewit | talk 04:23, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hyphens gone. ROGER TALK 13:05, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "Counterattack" vs. "counter-attack"

message: There is some diction in this article that seems to repeat a lot (e.g. "attack," "planned," "assault"). These should be replaced with a greater variety of words. My military diction is not very wide, so I wasn't exactly sure what to use. Awadewit | talk 04:51, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a tricky one. The entire focus of the article is a battle, its umpteen sub-battles, and the planning that went in them. Under these circumstances, repetition is inevitable. I'm not sure how many synonyms/euphemisms can be used without it becoming laboured or faintly risible. I'll see what be done with recasting on my next revise (I'll be adding more German-perspective stuff later today) but I'm not that hopeful. ROGER TALK 09:40, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "Attack"

message: Congratulations on getting the article to Featured status. I look forward to seeing it on the Main Page :) GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 16:59, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I concure.  A lot of effot has gone into this page.  Carom and Roger have done themselves proud.
Cam 18:50, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I third the notion. Well done!—RJH (talk) 16:19, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Congrats 

message: I have just seen the recent page move. This was no doubt done in good faith but it is normal practice to discuss moves of mature pages on their talk page prior to doing them. The literature–including the source you edited (see Nicholson, Chapter 8, p 250) and the Canadian Veterans' Affairs fact sheet–unanimously calls it the "Battle of Arras". I strongly object to the page rename. --ROGER DAVIES talk 17:58, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Moved back. Woody (talk) 19:27, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nicholson P.244 speaks directly to the subject and says Battles of Arras.  P.250 says Battle of Arras, but just in passing.  Context matters.LeadSongDog (talk) 03:58, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page move 

message: Should we mention the opening of the underground Carrière Wellington museum (on 15 Feb 2008) in this article? Here is a media release about it Jamie Mackay (talk) 09:44, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No other memorial or museum is presently in the article. Reasonable choices would appear to be to add the largest one, all of them, or just all major ones (which then opens the discussion of which are sufficiently notable). I'd suggest its better if the museum has a dedicated article of its own that can demonstrate notability.  See Vimy Memorial for an example.LeadSongDog (talk) 14:27, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  New museum 

message: Hmmmm, so both sides sacked their commander. Falkenhausen for the defeat and Allenby for the success! Then Lossberg saved the day. I think this is contemporary propaganda. Could Falken' use 'elastic defence' on Vimy Ridge? Could elastic defence make a difference on the lower ground in the south? Did Falken' have his reserves too far back? If so did this preserve them from being caught in the bombardment? Had he held them closer could it be that he would have been blamed for losing them in the iniial British advance? Presumably defence of the Ridge was the German defensive 'schwerpunkt'. What resources did Falken' have left? Lossberg rolls up but so do lots of reinforcements which give him more means to hamper the British advance. Suspiciously good timing to put responsibility for a severe defeat on one man and responsibility for 'stabilising' the situation on another. Isn't this a common bureacratic dodge to contain accountability? This succeeds in stopping the British advance but only at the cost of expending German infantry and artillery at an unsustainable rate.
Falken' gets the sack for lack of hindsight, Allenby gets the sack to take the blame for high losses (which were inevitable, particularly once the attack continued for political reasons) and for the lack of a breakthrough which was never on (with the French army in turmoil and Nivelle getting Limoge perhaps Haig got his retaliation in first to forestall Mr George, like the sacking of Gough in 1918). So a long war goes on, consuming huge numbers of men and material and the leaders resort to strategems to evade the odium of the human cost of the policy of victory or bust. Allenby and Falken' become rhetorical casualties as the high command plays for time. Subsequent historians add to the misleading impression by using a 'breakthrough' or a 'manoeuvre' model anachronistically and marking generals accordingly. Surely the German high command reacted to the materialschlacht unleashed at Arras with horror and a sense that time was running out? Keith-264 (talk) 12:30, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you substantiate any of these assertions? Carom (talk) 06:33, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not clear to me what, precisely, you are hoping to accomplish. It is possible that your hypothesis is correct, but I do not believe that the evidence necessary to support such conclusions is readily available. Furthermore, several of your questions, while appearing in the guise of links in a logical chain, are rather assertions that are not necessarily supportable without a greater knowledge of the particular culture of, for example, the German High Command. There may be scholarly work on this topic - I confess my own interests have shifted somewhat later in the century, and I am not as well-informed about the most recent work on the war as I was two years ago. Ultimately, though, the questions you raise seem purely academic - interesting, and perhaps even fruitful, for debate and inquiry - of little current use in improving or expanding the article. Carom (talk) 06:27, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conclusion 

message: I see that in the box, "German Empire" is broken down in "Prussia" and "Bavaria", while in other places not. Is this right? Bavaria was not a separate entity at the time, like Canada and Australia were. 200.222.3.3 (talk) 16:27, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prussia/Bavaria? 

message: I see no reference to Siegfried Sassoon's famous poem "The General" which makes a direct reference to the battle of Arras. Surely it is worth a mention here? Bjmullan (talk) 23:11, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Siegfried Sassoon 

message: The Somme a 'costly failure'? A costly success surely? Which side was bled most grievously in 1916, the Entente or the Central Powers? The Austro-Hungarian army was nearly destroyed by Brusilov and the German strategy for victory in 1916 was left in tatters by the failure of the Verdun offensive to destroy France's offensive capacity and the unexpected success of Britain's new model army in forcing the Germans off the commanding ground north of the Somme while the Germans failed to do this to the French at Verdun. 'Win-lose' thinking seems to me to be unhelpful when the war was being fought on three fronts; 'cost-benefit' seems much more fruitful. All the contenders lost heavily in 1916 and Germany was least able to bear it.Keith-264 (talk) 12:55, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Prelude

message: The sections Creeping barrage and Counter Battery contain assorted errors.  The CB one can be sorted out fairly easily (the description of flash spotting is utter tosh).  The creeping barrage description seems to contain considerable poetic licence and misundstanding of artillery tactics. It appears that the authors are confused into thinking that all artillery fire was a creeping barrage or that all barrage was creeping. Nfe (talk) 04:01, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Significant Inaccuracy 

message: I don't think the result should say 'indecisive', this battle was an unmitigated success of British imperial forces.  They made significant advances across the front and achieved all of their objectives; as well as making some significant progress in tactical doctrine. The only thing that was a failure was the French offensiveBen200 (talk) 23:28, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  British victory 

message: Really? The front line at the end of the battle had been advanced most south of Arras. The Fifth Army mainly acted to hold German troops, while it was being depleted to reinforce the armies further north and the Second Army in Flanders. See sketch 23 OH 1917 I, p. 522.Keith-264 (talk) 01:07, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  In the south, British and Australian forces were frustrated by the elastic defence and made only minimal gains 

message: "Although historians generally consider the battle a British victory, in the wider context of the front, it had very little impact on the strategic or tactical situation" shouldn't there be a reference to the Nivelle Offensive of which it was a part?Keith-264 (talk) 13:03, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Impact 

message: Added a "see also" for Capture of Oppy Wood to the paragraph on the 3rd Scarpe.Keith-264 (talk) 11:20, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oppy Wood 

message: It took a while to find the pages associated with the Nivelle Offensive but I have in mind making this page the main one about the development of the Allied strategy for early 1917 and the aftermath and the other pages Battle of Arras (1917), Second Battle of the Aisne, Battle of the Hills for the details of the military operations. I did a campaign boxes to tie the pages together. Arras is pretty complete but the other two suffer from lack of English sources. I've gleaned enough to double the material on each page and added material from Tactical development on the Western Front in 1917 but there's very little about the German defence of the Aisne. If anyone has suggestions for English-language sources I'd be grateful.Keith-264 (talk) 18:11, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nivelle 

message: Found the details in the GOH but used sfn's as that's the only thing I know; change to parentheticals if desired.Keith-264 (talk) 16:34, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  German casualties 

message: Added material to the prelude and altered the header levels. There are deficiencies in the citations to some parts of the article, page numbers and dates are missing and one source looks unpublished (WO document). I'm not sure that some of the changes since the A class and featured status are good enough to retain the A though. Keith-264 (talk) 10:07, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Expansion 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Battle of Arras (1917). 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:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.army.mil.nz/at-a-glance/news/army-news/375/tia.htm
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.defencesurveyors.org.uk/News/DSA%20History.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130228160616/http://www.warpoets.org:80/conflicts/greatwar/sassoon/ to http://www.warpoets.org/conflicts/greatwar/sassoon/
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) 12:59, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Added some detail from the OH about tunnelling but couldn't work out how to add notes using ref /ref so used efn }} instead, apols. Keith-264 (talk) 16:25, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Did a cheeky little ce of the lead after recent edits and reverts. Happy to discuss. Keith-264 (talk) 11:18, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  CE 

message: It's quite been a while since I'd looked over this article however in reviewing it today I wonder whether it still meets the WP:FACR. I note that significant passages or paragraphs or cited by one source and whether summarize style is being effectively employed. I note there are quite a few instances of quoted text where summary text would suffice. I'm not sure if  has been by the article and I am wondering what the interest level is of making improvements vs. sending the article for Featured article review.Labattblueboy (talk) 19:11, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the article shows a considerable amount of editing by divers hands, which has made it somewhat inconsistent. While I prefer more description than other writers, I can see your point that some of it doesn't need to be in a general article. Perhaps writing separate articles, as per the campaign box, to go with Hill 70 and Oppy Wood will solve the problem? I want to finish the 3rd Ypres articles before 31 July (I missed my 1 July 2016 deadline for the Somme articles) and review the ones we did a few years ago but I wouldn't mind having a dash at the sub-articles like Laagnicourt later in the year. regards. Keith-264 (talk) 10:38, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Featured article review? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Battle of Arras (1917). 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/20080621231902/http://www.vac-acc.gc.ca/remembers/sub.cfm?source=memorials%2Fww1mem%2Fvimy%2Fbattle to http://www.vac-acc.gc.ca/remembers/sub.cfm?source=memorials%2Fww1mem%2Fvimy%2Fbattle
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) 23:41, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Battle of Arras (1917). 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/20070928084354/http://warchronicle.com/wwi/battles/vimy.htm to http://warchronicle.com/wwi/battles/vimy.htm
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) 09:46, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: This question might have an answer of a simple “No”. Should there be a ‘Notable casualties’ section, to include Norman Callaway? JDAWiseman (talk) 16:18, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm against it, I think that the concept implies that other casualties are not notable, which I find invidious. Keith-264 (talk) 21:01, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  I’m not passionately pro, but to admit to notability of some does not, to me, obviously denigrate the others. JDAWiseman (talk) 21:12, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

text: I could imagine there being occasions where a Notable casualties section might be appropriate but never as a simple bullet list. The expectation would be that such a section would address both sides in a well cited manner and provide context of their notability within the scope of the battle/military service. Without sounding crass, it would be necessary to show that the death was notable. Furthermore, this is an aggregate article that captures the many components of the Battle (or might we say Battles of Arras. For Norman Callaway, there might be a place in an article concerning the Second Battle of Bullecourt but not here.--Labattblueboy (talk) 23:24, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

text: I've deleted the entire 'Literature and music' section. It contained no citations at all (unacceptable for an FA article). Someone dying in the battle does not necessarily make them notable to the battle.--Labattblueboy (talk) 19:02, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  As you'll see, I reverted your edit. The links to the other Wikipedia pages contained well-sourced references to what happened to their subjects, and to Sassoon's poem, which specifically referred to the battle of Arras, and is well-known. For Scott Moncrieff, who I just added, there is a fairly recent biography which contains details of the action, and which I am more than happy to cite if you'll leave the section there. The other cross-links were there in the FA article before you deleted the section. I suggest we see what other editors have to say; they - like me - might not agree that "Someone dying in the battle does not necessarily make them notable to the battle." Thomas Peardew (talk) 19:29, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notable casualties