Talk:Battle of Ortona

message: This is a biased article be careful! It says 7 days in the begining and then says after  8 days of fighting
:If we include each day of the December 20-27 period, it would be 8 days. Don't have a heart attack. Captain Jackson 20:04, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Anyway how would that make it "biased"? It's just a discrepancy.Historian932 (talk) 15:12, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

text: both the Juno and the Canada at War websites give 20-28 as the battle dates so I've regularised it and put in a footnote reference. Stephen Kirrage talk - contribs 18:37, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Bias?

message: I'll move this once it's in the article page.Mike McGregor (Can) 21:26, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Stuff for a battle box

message: It seems as though this page seems to be a magnet for vandals.
:Uh...yeah.  Maybe we should block new users or unregistered users from editing.  It's what they did on Battle of Stalingrad, because that page was a magnet for vandals for an extremely long time, and now the problem is pretty much solved.  I don't know how many times exactly this page has been vandalised, but it's been vandalised a lot.
Climie.ca 23:37, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Vandalism

message: Is there anyone who knows the following:
1:  Canadian Forces Strength [I need a reliable source, I've emailed a few of my history nut friends, but they haven't replied yet]
2:  German Forces Strength
3:  German Casualties [I know that this figure is extremely hard to get a good solid and reliable number for, since the casualty figures are so "wishy-washy", but if anyone could get one, that would be really great!]
If anybody knows any of these statistics, please let me know immediately by sending me a message. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Climie.ca (talk • contribs) 16:04, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes I think these would be important too. Personally it made me wonder whether German casualties weren't *relatively* low since they weren't reported (Allied history tends to highlight it whenever they lose fewer men than their adversaries in a given battle, ergo if the obverse happens their enemy's casualties tend not to be listed). However, this may not be the case here, of course.Historian932 (talk) 15:18, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Here goes the only source i have found regarding German Casualties(+800) its in Italian but can be undestood by simple reading, use a translator if you are not a Itaian speaker. http://www.casaberardi.it/images/stories/file/PDF/natale-di-sangue-Ortona1943-SdCinematografica.pdf  Page 10.Mr.User200 (talk) 18:48, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  German Casualties 

message: I found a reliable source for what the civilian casualties were in the Battle of Ortona.  They were approximately 1300, according to the Canadian War Musem.  The German casualties were at least 1400, since all sources I can find, although they can't give an exact number, say that the German casualties were "More than the Canadians".  Anything else that I find will be told to everybody. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Climie.ca (talk • contribs) 03:00, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Civilian casualties 

message: I've given this article protection, since there seems to be a ton of edits by anonymous users who we can't track, or a ton of vandalism by anonymous users.  As such, I've given this page semi-protection, so that only users who are registered are capable of editing it.  
if anyone disagrees with my choice, please contact me on my talk page.
Cam 05:02, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protection 

message: Kirrages & I are preparing to do a revamp of this article.  I've come up with a short list of things that should probably be accomplished:
*Expand Background
*Create section outlining German preparations & defenses
*Split the battle section into timing-subsections
*Incorporate the "gallery" at the bottom into the article itself.
Feel free to add. Cam (Chat) 06:50, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  To-Do 

message: I've terminated the existence of this clause with extreme prejudice from the intro: and was considered among Canada's greatest achievements during the war.
I can't honestly fathom why anyone would have written such drivel. Vokes was heavily criticized for his conduct of the entire Moro River campaign - the first real divisional level battle Canadians fought in the Second World War, as a unified division, it will be pointed out. In it, he continued to push forward brigades into hopeless frontal assaults. Instead of sensibly bypassing Ortona, he once again slammed two full battalions straight up the gut, and then for an entire week, they couldn't take the town due to miserly allocation of reinforcements. They didn't cut off the northern end of the town to prevent the Germans from escaping nor did they have the means to apply firepower to prevent such a withdrawal, and as was usual for fighting in Italy, the battle did not end when the Allies achieved a masterful stroke of victory, but when the Germans decided they had attrited the Allies enough and broke off the engagement. And this is somehow a "greatest achievement" of the war? PLEASE. 
I don't have sources for any of this, naturally, though the criticisms of Vokes are easy to find in Copp's articles in Legion Magazine or more recent books by Dancocks etc. More to the point, the original author of this silly statement can't possibly have a serious quote to back up this non-sensical assertion. Canada's greatest achievements in the land war were probably more in the area of its penetrations on D-Day in Normandy, it's holding firm post D-Day, the clearance of the Scheldt Estuary (after the British unfortunately dropped the ball at Antwerp), and the Rhineland-post Rhine fighting. As far as Italy went, just keeping a corps in the field was achievement enough, though even there, healthy criticism abounded for draining manpower to keep an unnecessary corps headquarters active and then sending the wrong generals to run it - Burns was too dour, Crerar was no one's favourite and should have been knocked down to run a division first according to some, and Foulkes and Vokes were mixed up via clerical error.
If having the snot pounded out of you for a week by German paratroopers who then screw off when it suits them is Canada's greatest military achievement, it makes one wonder what else is at the top of the list. Post-war apologists seem to place "noble defeats" such as Hong Kong, Verrieres Ridge and Dieppe up there too so they can get down deep and wallow in the blood but it really has no place in an encyclopedia article.139.48.25.60 (talk) 20:27, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: " ... Instead of sensibly bypassing Ortona ..." - Ortona was wanted for its port facilities, which where needed for the advancing 8th Army coming up from the south;  - the narrator of the linked documentary film is, I believe, Andrew Sachs.  Part 1 here: — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.148.8.159 (talk) 08:34, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Greatest Achievement??? 

message: Why do we have the entire months worth of casualties in a battle that lasted for 8 days? The article is about the battle of Ortona and is listed from Dec 20th to 28th. It doesn't make sense for the whole months losses to be there.
Wokelly (talk) 22:36, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Casualties again

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Battle of Ortona. 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/20070621182506/http://www.ortona.ca:80/ to http://www.ortona.ca/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050522030350/http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com:80/index.cfm?PgNm=TCE&Params=A1ARTA0005994 to http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?PgNm=TCE&Params=A1ARTA0005994
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) 19:41, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Battle of Ortona. 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.ortona.ca/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080314131038/http://www.italiancampaign.ca/ to http://www.italiancampaign.ca/
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?PgNm=TCE&Params=A1ARTA0005994
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) 04:55, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Please note that Template:Infobox military conflict#Parameters states against "result" that "this parameter may use one of two standard terms: "X victory" or "Inconclusive"." The infobox has been amended to reflect this. Please read the template "result" guidance in full before amending or reverting. It would probably be best to discuss any proposed change here first to seek consensus. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:03, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox "Result"