Talk:Battle of Caporetto

message: I amended the intro to clarify that not the whole Italian Army was routed (otherwise the battle would have decided the war on the Italian Front, which it did not) but one of the 4 armies making up the Regio Esercito was routed, and the other 3 armies were forced/able to retreat to Piave river and stop the Austro-German advance there. This topic is also linked to the Info box Strength and Casualties: at the start of the battle the attackers were about 350'000 and the defenders 250'000, the rout of the latter forced a much larger number of Italians to retreat and a number of prisoners, stragglers and deserters totaling more that the initial 250'000: I am going to put in the number citing the source book I have.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.205.194.4 (talk) 13:32, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intro and Info box 

message: The decimazione was not illegal but a practice officialized by Cadorna in 1916 
Nonostante tutto ciò Cadorna non era del tutto soddisfatto del lavoro dei Tribunali, lo si legge nella circolare n° 10.261 del 22 marzo 1916 in cui incitava i propri comandanti ad istituire senza riguardo Tribunali Straordinari. Come se non bastasse, con un preciso ordine Cadorna rese ufficiali le fucilazione per decimazione scrivendo in una circolare "……mezzo idoneo a reprimere reato collettivo è quello della immediata fucilazione dei maggiori responsabili, allorché l’accertamento dei responsabili non è possibile, rimane il dovere e il diritto dei comandati di estrarre a sorte tra gli indiziati alcuni militari e punirli con la pena di morte..... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.101.126.212 (talk) 04:06, 5 November 2006‎ (UTC)
*As I suppose that not all readers of English Wikipedia can actually understand Italian language, I try to translate the previous lines:
*"Besides all this, Cadorna was not satisfied with Tribunals' work, since on his bulletin n° 10.261, wrote on 22 March 1916,he urged his commanders to institute without any respect Extraordinary Tribunals. Moreover, with a precise order Cadorna made official the "decimazione" shooting, writing in another bulletin that "...idoneous mean to reprime collective fault is the immediate shooting of primary responsibles, and when it is not possible accerting responsibilities, commanders have the duty and right to extract by lot among the suspects some troopers and punish them with death penalty..."
*Regards, Lord Ics (talk) 17:09, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Decimazione 

message: I'm quite unhappy about the names of the Austro-Ungarian rgts, as my only source is a 1914 list, and I strongly suspect that by 1917 at least some regiment could had changed its name. Does anybody have access to a 1917 list? --Arturolorioli (talk) 15:40, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Austro-hungarian regimental tiles 

message: Are they necessary?  What do they contribute to the article?  Are they better suited as a link to their original source at the bottom?  As it is right now they are a massive eyesore and they break the flow of the article.  I'll leave them for the time being and allow for discussion but I'm inclined to at least move them to the end of the article if not delete them completely.  --Kampfers (talk) 00:16, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point. I moved the order of battle content to Battle of Caporetto order of battle.--Labattblueboy (talk) 16:56, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Orders of Battle 

message: User:Jonas Vinther has added  paragraph to the lede section.  I have reverted it as I do not feel that it is appropriate.  The lede is a summary of the article, and adding the Rommel paragraph is incorrect.  The article itself mentions his achievement, and is in my opinion sufficient.  I will repeat this on the talk page.  Hamish59 (talk) 20:33, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you very much.  Hamish59 (talk) 21:58, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rommel in lede 

message: Almost amused by the fine work a Italian fifth column have done here, no mention of the enormous casualties suffered in battle (40k killed 20k wounded).200.48.214.19 (talk) 15:19, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  350,000 Missing = POWs or Dead???' 

message: The infobox states that there were: 10,000 dead, 30,000 wounded, 265,000 captured and 350,000 missing Italian soldiers, which means there were 655,000 casualties and loses of the total 400,000 Italian soldiers that were engaged in the battle. This information is obviously incorrect and should be fixed. (talk) 10:51, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some infobox numbers 

message: Tidied references and citations, split aftermath into sections. The footnotes re: casualties in the infobox shouldn't really be there, they should go into the casualties section and the result criterion was inconsistent with Template:Infobox military conflict criterion Result
 Regards Keith-264 (talk) 09:07, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Not to reopen this mighty can of worms, but "Decisive X victory" is the standard term that most accurately renders what the bulk of the sources say. Albrecht (talk) 18:20, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not so sure, since some of them use it in the Clausewitzian sense of a battle with political consequences, rather than to mean "big" On the whole I'd prefer to keep the lid on too. ;O)) Regards Keith-264 (talk) 18:44, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  CE 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Battle of Caporetto. 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/20120428064039/http://www.potimiruvposocju.si/_en/index.php?lang=en&page=soskafronta to http://www.potimiruvposocju.si/_en/index.php?lang=en&page=soskafronta
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) 14:26, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: It was very obviously the entire Italian army that was routed - although like all such incidents it started somewhere - and as always some soldiers retreated while others (in this case very many) simply fled. Remember the lead section is a summary - we fill in broad outlines, to be 'coloured in" and detailed in the main article. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 22:28, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course almost everything stated above is true enough. The point is that we are not talking about the whole article, but the first line of the lead paragraph - a "balanced assessment" at this stage is not possible, how ever much we want the article as a whole to set everything in context. "Rout" is indeed a strong word - but it is the normal English for what happened at Caporetto, like it or not. A euphemism, like "forced retreat" may well be more diplomatic and kinder to national sensitivities but this is an encyclopedia, when all is said and done. The Italians were able to recover brilliantly (or the Austrians and Germans failed to follow up their victory - depending on your point of view) - but that is another story. The first sentence of an encyclopedia article needs to be very highly specific to the case (all else confusion!). --Soundofmusicals (talk) 00:55, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Please sign your posts with four of these signs (~) so we know who we're speaking to! To the point - We already mention the "Austro-German forces" - for the moment at least can we just refer to the "Italian forces" opposing them? (I have made this change - as you will notice). The paragraph still probably needs some work. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 23:31, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Italian rout or retreat?