Talk:Battle of the Somme/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Recent edit warring

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Given the recent edit warring on this page, I've protected it. This action is not an endorsement of the article's current state. I have, however, given a warning to one of the participants. Please discuss potentially controversial edits before making them, and if consensus is against your view, you should yield. Best, Ed  ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 22:32, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

I've had a look at the edits that caused this recent editwar. Obviously I endorse The ed17's comments. Correct me if I'm wrong, but there appear to be two interconnected issues: placing of historiographical conclusions in the lead, and the best description to ensure the reader understands that much French and GErman historiography is inaccessible to English-speakers. The article as currently written does not mention any historiographical perspective in the lead at all, and there is no problem with adding a two-sentence summary noting, perhaps, that historians' opinions changed over the years, somewhat radically away from the popular view, and that historiographical discussions in English remain incomplete. As articles grow in size, so does the lead. This might present a way forward. Buckshot06 (talk) 04:34, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Buckshot06, I'm new to the dispute resolution process, so I've a procedural question. Should we make comments here (e.g. I have a reply to your comment), or is that better done on the dispute resolution page? I know disputes can be sensitive issues, so I want to make sure I'm following correct etiquette.Thomask0 (talk) 05:30, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Discussion about a page always should first go at the talk page, so comment here. Only if no resolution is possible on talk pages like this does discussion go elsewhere.

I should also note that WP is generally intended for generalists, not specialists, so the 'not been translated' rather than technical terms seems best to me. Buckshot06 (talk) 08:05, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

I suggested a joint approach for resolution to try to get beyond the impasse here but I'm newish to it too (I think I've tried it once before). When that as refused I requested it solo.

• " ... adding a two-sentence summary noting, perhaps, that historians' opinions changed over the years, somewhat radically away from the popular view, and that historiographical discussions in English remain incomplete." this is a description of the page as it was so it suits me, although I'd avoid the term "historiography" since it has two meanings.Keith-264 (talk) 09:09, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
• Buckshot06, the matter which we have moved to the Historiography section constituted, in the article as it was, a full 38% of the entire lead. So while adding back a two sentence summary would leave the article better than it was originally, I'd still consider it as degrading the quality from what we have now. Certainly a two-sentence summary would have to be more succinct for sure, and drop the obscure wording which was part of its problem. It would also reduce the significance of the contested matter in the lead, which was an even bigger issue. Further, it would probably keep out of the lead what was, as Rjensen has pointed out, an as-yet unsupported position that the existence of "anglophone monoglot" scholars who are unable to obtain a translation of certain French or German books and articles is in some way significant. However, in my opinion it would be an unnecessary compromise that would leave the article in a poorer quality state than it is now, given that this is a general encyclopedia. As Rjensen has brought to the discussion, the information that was in the contested matter was historiographical and in my opinion (and presumably in his too, since he created the section and moved the contested matter), that does not belong in the lead *at all*. The article represents, primarily, a history of the Somme, not a history of the history of the Somme. It is clearly relevant to include such historiography somewhere, but not in the lead. Note that this issue was raised before as documented above with the editor (unsigned -- from IP 84.215.224.190) deciding not to attempt to fix it out of fear of the same rapidity of reversion of their prior attempt to solve the other problem (of obscure wording). So these problems are being observed and commented on over a period of time. I think they are finally solved, in the context of this contested matter, in the article as it stands now in its locked state, which looks pretty near to where it should be. Thomask0 (talk) 16:35, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree with the comments of Thomask0 Rjensen (talk) 17:41, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

I note your and Rjensen's views, Thomask0. I did scan through some of the previous discussions. I tend to believe the use of the term 'historiography' can be clearly understood in its proper sense from the context of the entire article. Article leads are about summarising what's in the entire article. It comes down to a question of how the consensus of authors working on the article balances 'WP:DUE' and WP:UNDUE. I've just run a size test on the historiography section, and it represents roughly 3700 kB of an article which is roughly 73,000 kB. Concerned editors may wish to comment on whether they believe that fraction of an article (bearing in mind there may be 5-7 kB of diagrams, pictures etc in the article) deserves mention in the lead. Regards to all, Buckshot06 (talk) 20:02, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Buckshot06. Earlier I'd noted that the article as it stands "looks pretty near to where it should be". The reason I said only "pretty near" was precisely because I think there's one thing left to do, namely rationalize and probably shorten the new Historiography section. What we have at the moment is a relatively quick amalgamation of what were the two lead paragraphs (albeit slightly changed), with the information formerly in the Aftermath section. Rjensen was in the middle of finalizing that new section (adding citations, correcting typos etc) when the edit lock was enforced. Had that not happened, it would then have made sense to check whether simply appending the two sections made sense or whether, as I suspect, some duplication would have to be removed. So whatever the size of the current Historiography section, it probably needs to be made a bit more brief. It is, after all, *merely* an Historiography note.Thomask0 (talk) 21:42, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

• As the lead stood, the reader was made well aware from the start of the polemical minefield, which is associated with the Battle of the Somme in English history writing. The Aftermath contained several referenced lines to list some of the participants. By shortening the duplicate Historiography (sic) section, you will be returning the article towards its original form, undermining the point of your original edits.Keith-264 (talk) 21:54, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

On a complete side note, purely to satisfy my curiosity, Keith what are the two meanings of historiography that you refer to? Buckshot06 (talk) 20:08, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm equally interested in this answer. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 06:14, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

It's further down, with an addition today.Keith-264 (talk) 11:09, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

• it would probably keep out of the lead what was, as Rjensen has pointed out, an as-yet unsupported position that the existence of "anglophone monoglot" scholars
  • Not scholars, anglophone monoglots - English speakers who don't speak other languages who are ignorant of the writings of French and German historians who are prone to insularity and vulnerable to English historians and writers [using the battle as a political football]Keith-264 (talk) 20:25, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
    • I think we all understand the meaning. But I oppose its use, and the statement within which it occurs, for three reasons. First, it is an extremely obscure phrase (500 hits on Google, 53 on Google Books, and 0 on Google Ngram -- given Google's search base, those are absolutely *tiny* numbers). Second, even if you replaced the obscure phrase, you have not yet produced any evidence for the significance to this article, or even for the mere existence, of English-only speakers of the "insular" type to which you refer. And third, even if you did replace the phrase and gave support for your position, that aspect does not belong in the lead (even if a brief summary reference to an historiographical debate does, of which I'm not yet convinced). But we've covered this ground already, so I think we simply have to agree to disagree on these matters, and go with whatever the consensus ends up being. Thomask0 (talk) 21:58, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
• If you understood the meaning, why do you misinterpret it? If you want to play a numbers game "Battle_of_the_Somme has been viewed 194568 times in the last 90 days." (see here http://stats.grok.se/en/latest90/Battle_of_the_Somme) only three or four people have complained. As for evidence, there is (or was) a description in the Aftermath section. Ignoring the controversial and polemical uses to which the fact of the battle has been put ever since it began, short changes the reader, particularly those who have had no opportunity to see German and French perspectives, because they haven't been translated. (It's not as bad as it was in the 60s, Philpott has rescued the French battle from oblivion and Sheldon, Whitehead, Foley and Duffy have done something for the German battle.) This should be in the Lead section because it affects everything which follows.Keith-264 (talk) 22:52, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
• The article as currently written does not mention any historiographical perspective in the lead at all, and there is no problem with adding a two-sentence summary noting, perhaps, that historians' opinions changed over the years, somewhat radically away from the popular view, and that historiographical discussions in English remain incomplete.
  • By tampering with the Lead, material in the article is not represented which makes it incomplete. Adding a section duplicates material already in the Aftermath section.

[[1]]

*1   The name of the war (including alternate names).
*2  When did it happen?
 *3  Who fought in it?
*4   Why did it happen?
*5   What was the outcome?
 *6  What was its significance, if any?

See for lead content: Ignoring the history of the writing of the history of the Somme (not historiography, which is the philosophy of history - great man versus impersonal forces for e.g.) neglects the effect of partisan advocacy and ahistorical polemic on the sources of public knowledge in Britain and the English-speaking world, which have changed in three ways which are roughly chronological. A) Tough fight against a worthy enemy which tested state and society. (The orthodox view.) B) Futile bloodbath in which idealistic sheep were sent to the slaughter by hatchet-faced generals and shot as examples when they went mad. (The revisionist view) C) Nuanced version of the orthodox version which does not deny costly British mistakes and failings but puts the battle in the context of the general Allied offensive of 1916 (hence sections on Verdun and Brusilov) agreed at the Chantilly conference December 1915. Puts the French and German contributions to the battle into context, despite much of it being written in German and French and contradicting much of the B) version. (Neo-orthodox view). All of this adverts to "Outcome", since writers and historians writing in English vary from: tough fight of Britain's new model army in a war of exhaustion, to self-destructive massacre (What French Battle of the Somme?) brushed aside by a few anonymous German machine gunners and latterly, "the beginning of the end of the German army".

Ignoring this in the lead contradicts the content guide by not mentioning the elephant in the room.Keith-264 (talk) 20:14, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

• To my eyes the above 6-point list is merely further argument for moving the material as we've done. The above list make it clear that the lead is supposed to talk about the battle and its effects. Notable by its absence is any mention of discussion about subsequent critiques of the key individuals and, more to the point, also absent is any mention of discussion about how subsequent critiques of the key individuals have changed over the years. As far as I can see, the above list makes it clear that the kind of historiographical information under discussion absolutely does not belong in the article lead.Thomask0 (talk) 22:09, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

*4   Why did it happen?
*5   What was the outcome?
*6  What was its significance, if any?   

Are we only to use information created at the time by the participants? Churchill and Lloyd George had different conclusions to the Official Historian and Terraine. Much of the tertiary literature (in English) follows one or other school of thought. Ignoring their existence or excluding mention from the lead when it has led to such variance in conclusions is a cop out because there was a Battle of the Somme and there is a "Battle of the Somme". Keith-264 (talk) 22:33, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

No of course we're not restricted to contemporaneous information. The question is whether any given chunk of info merits being in the article lead. In the context of what was one of the most heard-of battles in history, the fact that some people disagree with others about who bears blame etc is, for a general encyclopedia, a relatively minor point. Were WP an encyclopedia of WW1, and were this article "Causes and Motives for the First Battle of the Somme", then perhaps the contested matter would merit a place in the lead. Even then, though, it would still be better without reference to obscure phrases and with backup for unusual claims. And let's not forget the overall point here. Space in the lead of an article is expensive encyclopedic "real estate" because it's where most people start and end in their reading. The reason for moving the contested matter out is not simply to lower its emphasis, but it is also to keep the reader focused on what is most important. The fact that the lead was too long and unfocused has already been raised, as early as August 2013. What we're trying to do here really has very little to do with history and everything to do with being effective encyclopedists in the context of a document to be read by general, not expert readers.Thomask0 (talk) 23:01, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

It's quite well known in the English-speaking world; the use to which the fact of the battle has been put by writers and historians, has distorted the history ever since. Before August 2013 the lead was criticised for lack of detail. If the readers aren't to be alerted in the lead that here be dragons, they are being let down. As for unusual claims, that's another matter of opinion. Lots of historians and some writers preface writing about the battle, with mention of the polarisation it has been subject to in English language writing. To the French and Germans, the battle was the latest of many attritional battles, not the novelty it was to the British (the article used to have a banner warning of anglocentric bias). Treating this as unimportant for the Battle of the Somme is a mistake and "keeping the reader focused" is patronizing, let the reader decide.Keith-264 (talk) 23:44, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

When writing, it's a simple fact that it's possible to err too much on the side of simplicity or, conversely, on the side of complexity and so all authors/editors have to take a view on their intended audience's reading level and sophistication, even at the risk of being "patronizing". In this case, I don't believe we're making that error. But it's a judgement call, as much of writing is, so again we'll just have to agree to disagree and let a consensus evolve. I do think reasonable minds may differ on these things.Thomask0 (talk) 03:15, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

The article reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies. It contains a large proportion of the material necessary for an A-Class article, although some sections may need expansion, and some less important topics may be missing. This is criterion B2 [[2]]. The lead [[3]] The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies. I doubt that there are many battles more controversial than the Somme in British history. ;O)Keith-264 (talk) 15:12, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

PS usage of the term historiography is a bit like use of the term "decimate". People who look it up, use it to describe reduction by a tenth and those who don't, take it to mean reduction by nearly everything.Keith-264 (talk) 20:19, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Historiography in this context simply means the debates among historians that took place long after the battle ended. Those debates continue to this day and probably will never be finalized. Here is a recent quotation about the historiography:

"[Philpott's book] is a bold, provocative, and not uncontested, revisionist thesis; what strengthens it is the book’s skilful analysis of how public perception of the Somme has become more negative over time and its detailed coverage of multiple national perspectives of the battle, particularly the British and French; .... Like Philpott, Elizabeth Greenhalgh also adopts a transnational approach in her study, Victory through coalition: Britain and France during the First World War (...2005), which suggests, drawing upon detailed research of both French and British sources, that improved co-ordination between the British and French armies in 1917-18 was key to Allied success, despite the initial reluctance of their generals to embrace coalition warfare. Clearly, the historiography has, as yet, reached no overall consensus on why the Allies won." Heather Jones, "AS THE CENTENARY APPROACHES: THE REGENERATION OF FIRST WORLD WAR HISTORIOGRAPHY Historical Journal (2013) p 862-3. Rjensen (talk) 22:02, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

How have you communicated that to the reader? The term is not simple and the debate was begun in August 1916 by Winston Churchill; it has been a political as well as historical football and is been insular, since French and German writing has tended to put the battle into the context of a war of exhaustion (Ermattungskrieg) of the sort foreseen by Moltke the Elder after the Franco-Prussian War. Much of this writing has not been available to anglophone monoglots.Keith-264 (talk) 22:07, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Are those quoted passages an advert? Philpott isn't a revisionist, that is period B); the newer writing (which isn't commercial hackwork) is post-revisionist or neo-orthodox.Keith-264 (talk) 22:10, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Buckshot06, Keith-264, Rjensen: I'm concerned we're now at the point-thrashing stage. Personally I think I've said all I know here and I don't think I have much new to contribute. Trying to see a way out I thought it would be informative to look at other related articles -- both WP articles about other controversial military events, and also non-WP articles about the Somme. On the first of those I looked at Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki. My expectations were that the lead should talk about the bombings, that the controversy over the justification etc for the bombing should be discussed, but that the latter should not be in the lead. That's exactly what I found. Another example is Battle_of_Stalingrad where the kind of historiographical controversy we're discussing here is place in a Significance subsection and, again, is not put in the lead. Obviously this is not decisive, but it does show that what we've done, in leaving the lead clear of this material, is not exactly new. However, all that said, looking at this article, I see there's a short sentence (right at the very end) which acknowledges the existence of the controversy without going into a lot of detail. In other words, it states what the controversy is, and doesn't try to go into details.

• The trouble with comparing articles is that articles aren't sources and it is equally the case that absence in the lead isn't necessarily right, particularly according to B2. ( Keith-264 insertion into, so as to comment on, Thomask0's edit)

So, wrapping all that up here's a possible compromise. First, I still believe that our article would be superior left as it is now. However, no one is arguing that the Somme is *not* controversial, and I'm also aware that Keith-264 is a significant and subject-expert contributor here whereas I have only a passing and more general-encyclopedist interest, and he has to live here when I've moved on! :-) So perhaps we could reach agreement by having something (in the lead) like the following (avoiding a straight copying of the above quote article's end paragraph):

"The battle has famously been the cause of controversy, from the time of the battle itself and continuing today, over its strategic significance and cost in lives. The conduct of Sir Douglas Haig in particular has been scrutinized. His inflexibility and persistent use of flawed tactics are criticized by some; but others argue that the Somme offensive was a simple necessity and that Haig had no other choice given the overall situation at the time."

As I say we could place something like that as a final paragraph in the lead, and we can then elaborate in the Historiography section (although there I'd still argue for the removal of "anglophone monoglots" and for backup of that particular argument). That said, as I looked for comparisons in other articles, the existence of an Historiography section is unusual. Most of this sort of stuff does get placed in an Aftermath section or similar. (That said, now that I've heard what it's about, I actually think "Historiography" is correct and I prefer it, so maybe we should start a fashion!)Thomask0 (talk) 18:22, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

I'll see your anglophone monoglots and raise you the amended paragraph.;O) ( Thomask0: moved yours to an alternative rather than amending mine, so as to preserve the original meaning of my edit) I would drop the historiography section and leave it to the original wording in the Analysis section, which appears to have been truncated. Apropos your comment about moving on, I'd prefer you to stick around if you have an interest in the Great War.Keith-264 (talk) 18:57, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Alternative proposed by Keith-264:

"The battle is controversial in the English-speaking world, over its strategic significance and cost in lives. The conduct of Sir Douglas Haig has been criticised since 1916, for inflexibility and flawed tactics by Churchill, Lloyd George, Liddell Hart and Harris among others. Haig, Edmonds, Terraine, Bond, Philpott et al. have concluded that the Somme offensive was unavoidable, given the commitments made at the Chantilly conference and the strategic circumstances of the Allies by mid-1916, regardless of the incomplete nature of the British mobilisation and the inexperience of the British Expeditionary Force (BEF). The effect of the battle on the German and French armies has received less attention."

Apologies, I forgot to leave the original intact.Keith-264 (talk) 20:11, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Two points: a) The historiography is complex and important and should be included. Philpott's revisionism, for example, is considered quite controversial by many scholars. (Keith-264 Seems to say that there once was an "official" interpretation that said it was unnecessary battle. No, there was no such interpretation.) b) the "Lions and donkeys" theme, historians all agree, is a major component of British popular culture and thinking, as well as most of the scholarly books on the war. It has been the standard interpretation since 1917, it needs to be included. Rjensen (talk) 19:20, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Agree the historiography is complex and important and needs to be included. However getting into significant details in the lead for a section which is 3.7kB of 73 may be inappropriate. I would encourage people to consider going with a version of Thomask0's para above, but with footnotes, and then make sure that every phrase/sentence in that short para is developed into two or three sentences/para in the main section at the end. That section may benefit from redrafting here at the talkpage as well. Regards to all, Buckshot06 (talk) 19:45, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Philpott's not a revisionist, that's the Butchers and bunglers school, begun by Churchill and extended by Lloyd George in the 30s. The orthodoxy had it that there were many reasons which made the battle unavoidable to the British, despite the cost and that the British and French did mortal damage to the German army, this lasted from about 1916-1930, despite challenge. The revisionists challenged this, particularly in the battle of the memoirs, after Haig was safely dead (1928-1960s) and questioned the effect of attrition on the Germans, by comparing it unfavourably with the cost to the British army. The post revisionist/neo-orthodox school (never dormant during the ascendancy of the B&B school, see the OH 1932/1938) has exploited the opening of British archives and French and German sources (up to a point) and posited a nuanced version of the orthodox school, using empirical knowledge to quantify the cost and analyse the relative consequences in a war of exhaustion (that's why there is argument over the German retirement in 1917), concluding that the German army was never the same again. This was partly the cumulative effect of the war and partly the arrival of a third million-man army.Keith-264 (talk) 19:54, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

The trouble with a briefer comment in the lead, is that it was like that until someone tagged it for weaselling. If we put a Note on the end of a lead para it risks duplicating the Historiography section which duplicates the shorter section in the Analysis section (or did until it was truncated) which had a selection of names and citations to point to the schools of thought.Keith-264 (talk) 20:03, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

The scholars say Philpott is a "revisionist", see 1) "The book [Three Armies on the Somme] is a refreshing revision of traditional interpretations of the Somme" American Historical Review June 2012, p921; 2) Herwig, Journal of Military History April 2011, page 649 reviewing Three Armies on the Somme says "It is revisionism at its best"; 3) Patrick Deer (2009). Culture in Camouflage : War, Empire, and Modern British Literature. Oxford UP. pp. 22–23. 4) http://www.military-history.org/articles/the-somme-revised.htm 5) ""[Philpott's book] is a bold, provocative, and not uncontested, revisionist thesis" says Heather Jones in Historical Journal (2013) p 862. Wiki rules say we must go by the reliable sources. Rjensen (talk) 20:18, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Some do but how notable are ephemera like book reviews? See Bond [[4]] [[5]]Keith-264 (talk) 20:50, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

This might explain it better [[6]]Keith-264 (talk) 21:09, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Scholarly journals are not ephemera. As for the last reference, it is pretty harsh on Bond what it says " There are lines in which [Bond] doesn't seem to realize that he is betraying himself. When he writes, for instance, that Sebastian Faulks' Birdsong depicts "an extreme view of the slaughter on the Somme," one is forced to wonder what an un-extreme slaughter might look like (76)." Rjensen (talk) 22:19, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Reviews are. The point about Bond is that in The Unquiet Western Front he produced a teleological survey which has had wide acceptance. In my view he's an establishment stooge but that doesn't a priori invalidate scholarship, only raise the question of "Is it scholarship?". An un-extreme slaughter is one you approve of. [7] You might find this interesting on GW fiction and semi-fiction.Keith-264 (talk) 22:50, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

• Reviewing the above, I'd still stick to (something like) the shorter version I offered (which as I mentioned was really just a re-rendering of the final paragraph from this). Keith-264, I think your version goes too far back towards a too-detailed description of what is still a subsidiary point in my opinion. I don't even think footnoting is necessary. All we need to do, to pre-warn the reader that "there be dragons", is say "This battle was controversial. The controversy centers on significance and necessity. And the most prominent figure in the controversy is Haig." Any more than that I still think should go into the Historiography. And I agree with Rjensen that it should indeed *be* in Historiography, rather than in Aftermath. "Aftermath" suggests to me *immediate* aftermath -- i.e. what happened in the days, months and maybe year after the battle whereas what we've been discussing is an ongoing, now-almost-century-old, debate. In fact I think "Historiography" is such a valuable addition to the article structure that it may be worth raising the topic at the military history content guide, so that other articles could benefit. Finally, and to be clear, overall I still consider this to be an Article-weakening compromise. For me, the better Article would be one left pretty much as it is, with the historiographical controversy not mentioned in the lead at all. But in the interests of consensus, the succinct summary I offered wouldn't be too objectionable. Reasonable minds, as they say, may differ.Thomask0 (talk) 21:37, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

PS. If what was meant by "footnote" was citations, then of course that wouldn't be a problem and in fact is probably required.Thomask0 (talk) 21:40, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

No in this article a Note is a passage worth having but separated from the narrative (they're just above the footnotes) for reasons of digression.

4 The aftermath. Who won, if anyone? What were the casualties? Was there a pursuit or followup? What happened next? How did the battle affect the course of the war? You can't discuss any of these criteria without mentioning that they're all controversial, since opinions in the Anglosphere vary so much. Haig isn't the most prominent person, he was an army group commander, following the orders of his government, which for reasons of realpolitik had chosen to take sides in a European war and join a coalition, in which France had primacy. Putting blame on Haig is a stab-in-the-front myth. You can't ignore controversy in the lead because it is so significant to what follows. As it stands the article is much worse than when the latest full and frank exchange of views began. If you look you an see that Aftermath is a 2nd level heading and the detail follows in 3rd level headings. An aftermath is what follows, it begins immediately and then keeps going until it doesn't, that's why there are nods towards 1917. I don't find the Aftermath criterion isn't all that helpful for long battles - the Nomenclature Committee defined twelve battles in the 1916 battle and nearly 25 Other Engagements for the British armies, let alone French and German operations. Keith-264 (talk) 22:39, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

• I refer everyone back to my earlier edit about point-thrashing. I think we're seeing dramatically diminishing returns in debating this. I've made my opinion clear, and as far as I can see the others' are also clear. So what now? Does the dispute resolution process have any way forward? Thomask0 (talk) 22:56, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Once the page gets reopened, I plan to expand and rewrite historiography section. At present it is a clip & paste job. What is needed is a clear statement of the "DonkeY" and revisionist positions, with suitable names and citations. Rjensen (talk) 23:05, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

I should note in response to Thomask0's question above that what I meant was a citation. Given the current state of the discussion on this talkpage, I will not be reopening the page anytime soon. I would also not be recommending to User:The ed17 to do so either. Now, to the subject: I would tend to support both/a split of 'Aftermath' and 'Historiography', because indeed they are clearly different subjects. I would favour the use of the technical term 'Historiography' as it is clearly understood: debate over the writing of history, which, as my secondary school teacher once said, never ends: each generation has its lens. Keith, you're adopting several slightly more technical terms to describe different schools of thought. Are you able to tie those to peer-reviewed sources for us? I should note that 'revisionist', in my interpretation, is any scholar who disagrees with the initial scholarly view on the subject.

Historiography has two usages and you are using the generic one not the technical term [[8]] cites three meanings (!). The battle is 99 years old so there is a generic usage of revisionist as you describe and a technical usage because of the age of the history of the history of the battle. As regards the Somme there are three periods in which there has been a prevailing view. Brian Bond (2002) is the obvious source for this but I don't have it with me. Amazon has a look inside and the contents page chapter headings are Goodbye to All That; Donkeys and Flanders Mud, The War Rediscovered in the 1960s; Thinking the Unthinkable, The First World War as History, which are the three periods I've been going on about.

Philpott (2009) has an aftermath chapter (15) pp. 539–594 on the early period ("remembrance") but then wanders into digression and the Franco-German experience ignored by the British revisionists. Chapter 17 (Memory fades) pp. 592–593 on AJP Taylor and the 60s zeitgeist then refers to Winter and Prost who see three overlapping "configurations". First: post war diplomatic and military history and a battle of the memoirs (much of it bent) and official histories intended to be useful for the post war armies. Second: 1960s everyman and anti-boss class. Third: The Somme as cultural phenomenon and social conflict. Pp. 619 [The Somme] ...Dyer has suggested, "deeply buried under its own aftermath." Pp. 622 "These are all British myths: an Anglo-Saxon Battle of the Somme, not the complete three empire encounter."

As far as I can tell, a way ahead appears to be a moderate rewritting of Rjensen's "This battle was controversial. The controversy centers on significance and necessity. And the most prominent figure in the controversy is Haig." with, depending on what peer-reviewed sources Keith wishes to raise, that wider areas were controversial. This might go some way to deciding on a lead sentence. As for the Historiography itself it would be great to have more of it. In the context of your comments above and below, Keith, might I ask you to support each of your statements with full citations? Regards to all, Buckshot06 (talk) 03:09, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

There's a fairly good overview here historiography and sources I'm familiar with are

• E. H. Carr, What is History? 1961, ISBN 0-394-70391-X
• Geoffrey Elton, The Practice of History, 1969, ISBN 0-631-22980-9
• Richard J. Evans In Defence of History, 1997, ISBN 1-86207-104-7
• Arthur Marwick, The New Nature of History: knowledge, evidence, language, Basingstoke: Palgrave, 2001, ISBN 0-333-96447-0
• Barraclough, Geoffrey. History: Main Trends of Research in the Social and Human Sciences, (1978)
• Karl Marx: The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles.

The citations you require are the ones in the original Lead and Aftarmath: Analysis sections, which offered a potted list of historians and writers.

"This battle is controversial in the English-speaking world over its significance and necessity; the most prominent figures in the controversy are Haig, Churchill and Lloyd George."

(You don't really want to start a sentence with "And" do you?) Putting it like this adverts to the Great Man theory of history. In the Background and Prelude are descriptions of how much choice Haig had given Alliance strategy and strategic necessity. There's nothing about how it's an insular controversy, which makes the statement anglocentric.Keith-264 (talk) 10:57, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

The above rewrite looks fine. My original version was intended merely to say which specific points were worth mentioning -- what, why, and who -- and not how to say it. As to getting English writing style advice from the man who brought us "anglophone monoglots", I'll boldy say that criticizing starting sentences with conjunctions, or splitting infinitives, or even ending sentences with prepositions is the kind of archaic and errant nonsense up with which we should not put. ;-) Thomask0 (talk) 17:57, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Fnar! I think that written English is best treated as a dialect with a body of rules and usages (not necessarily the ones you list). If writers know them, they can consciously choose to follow or depart from them. Trying to render conversational English into prose, is an attempt to be helpful which all too often leads to a lack of brevity and confusion of meaning. Mind you, I am the bloke who spends half an hour deciding where to put a comma then buggers it up anyway.Keith-264 (talk) 18:25, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

:-) Possibly. Either way, conjunction-beginning or no, I think your rewrite *is* superior to my three-sentence example and, modulo Rjensen's input if any, we should stick to yours. I am reasonably well qualified to express useful opinions on writing structure and on how best to achieve the aims of a general encyclopedia, but deciding whether prominence in the Somme controversy belongs to Haig alone or, as you've re-stated it, to Haig, Churchill and Lloyd George, needs subject matter expertise and I'm happy to defer to you and Rjensen on that. Thomask0 (talk) 18:45, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Eythenkew!. ;O)

OK. So, my brothers-in-wikipedia-arms, where have we reached? I'm not trying to force a closure here; just want to try to pull some threads together. By my count, one description of the debate splits things into the following five questions (in which, for shorthand, I'll refer to the core matter as The Controversy). I'll give the questions and then my own answers:

1. Should The Controversy be mentioned in the Article lead, and if so to what level of detail?
2. Should any of The Controversy be mentioned in the Aftermath section?
3. Do we need an Historiography section, and if so how much of The Controversy should be mentioned there?
4. Wherever The Controversy is mentioned, should the argument that British insularity and lack of French and English translations of certain documents is significant be included, and if so can we find sources to back that?
5. Is the phrase "anglophone monoglots" too obscure?

• My (Thomask0) answers:

1. I'd prefer not, but I wouldn't object to the briefest of summaries, for example Keith-264's sentence above. "This battle is controversial in the English-speaking world ...". Actually as I write that I note that it is implying that the controversy exists *only* in the English-speaking world. That's more precise than I'd said, so I just want to flag it so we're sure it's the case. Is there no controversy elsewhere? If so, fine; just want to raise the question. And if it is mentioned then, as per my answer to question 4, I think there needs to be a source as backup.)
2. It depends. I think The Controversy, given that it has now being going for almost 100 years, is Historiography and not Aftermath. However, as Keith has argued, it may be necessary to quote some of The Controversy as part of Aftermath in order to inform the Aftermath itself. If that's really the case, then I think an appropriately succinct mention could be made, perhaps with "See Historiography" links where more detail would be of interest but not essential.
3. Yes, absolutely. If nothing else comes out of this discussion, the nature, value, and appropriate treatment of historiographical information must be one. The bulk, if not all of The Controversy should go here.
4. Yes, if sources can be provided. No, otherwise. Either way, this detail should go into the Historiography section. Mentioning *that* there is a controversy in the lead is sufficient.
5. Yes, but to be honest once it's out of the lead, I care less about this. But it really does stand out like a sore thumb, and anyone of any sophistication in English, with the exception maybe of Keith the author, would see it as such. It is *so* obscure as to be almost pompous.

OK, that's where I think we've reached. I *think* we may be converging. But what say the rest of you guys? Thomask0 (talk) 19:32, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Jensen resonses:

1) yes it should be in the lead-- about three sentences will do it. (explain its very strong popular view ever since 1916 = the lion-donkey theme; note that in recent decades some historians have challenged the popular view claiming it was a victory for the British)

2 The debate should be in the historiography section, not in the Aftermath section. The Aftermath should be the military aftermath of what happened in 1917 and 1918.

3 The historiographical debate is very important and needs its own section. Readers are only interested in the battle details can skip it; history students at the a level our university level will depend heavily on this section. I plan to rewrite to that historiographical section, because at the moment it is a cut-and-paste effort that does not use the best sources.

4. I have not seen any serious historian make this argument. Instead the claim is that the English-language literature on the battle largely ignores the French and German side of the battle. There is a lot of insularity-- but the British are much less insular than anyone else [As demonstrated by Richard Evans in Cosmopolitan Islanders: British Historians and the European Continent 2009] In the vast majority of studies the French historians only write about the French war and the Germans only write about the German war, so they provide little support to attack the "lions and donkeys" view which is all about the British effort.

5. No one has found a RS to support the "anglophone monoglots" notion. It is really quite silly because the issue is not the ability to speak French or German, but rather the ability to use French and German monographs. It is very normal for scholars to hire an assistant to do the reading. Rjensen (talk) 19:58, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

1. Should The Controversy be mentioned in the Article lead, and if so to what level of detail?

• Yes as originally written [but if not,] the abbreviated form of words discussed above and a recasting of the Lead paragraphs to make them have a similar number of lines, rather than leaving the last one dangling.

1. Should any of The Controversy be mentioned in the Aftermath section?

• Yes as originally written.

1. Do we need an Historiography section, and if so how much of The Controversy should be mentioned there?

• No but I'll be blacklisted if I take it out so will undertake only to homogenise the citations in the {{sfn}} form.

1. Wherever The Controversy is mentioned, should the argument that British insularity and lack of French and English translations of certain documents is significant be included, and if so can we find sources to back that?

• Yes as long as I or someone remembers which sources (Philpott, Sheldon?) it comes from (it was one of the reasons that an earlier version was criticised for anglocentric bias).

---

"... Moreover, although almost all of these [German sources] are accessible only to German-speakers.... (Foreword R Holmes p. 6)

• Sheldon, J. (2005). The German Army on the Somme 1914–1916 (Pen & Sword Military 2006 ed.). London: Leo Cooper. ISBN 1-84415-269-3.

"English-language historians.... However their research is too often written from the perspective of one side only. It pays little or no attention to the sources available to the Germans...." Foreword: Strachan p. xiii

"For monoglot scholars, this translation will be a boon beyond measure." p. xiv

• Humphries, M. O.; Maker, J. (2010). Germany's Western Front: Translations from the German Official History of the Great War. Waterloo Ont.: Wilfrid Laurier University Press. ISBN 978-1-55458-259-4. Keith-264 (talk) 13:58, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

the German sources do not speak to the donkeys-vs-revisionist British debate which is what this fuss here is all about. Rjensen (talk) 14:06, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Exactly! Orthodox (Great test overcome)-revisionist (Donkeys)-post-revisionist (historicisation) is an insular debate which should be acknowledged, because it affects English-language writing. "It pays little or no attention to the sources available for the Germans, for what they tell us about German intentions, German reactions or even German perspectives on British and French efforts." pp. xiii-xiv Keith-264 (talk) 15:02, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

The RS say that the "donkeys" = the Orthodox view, "Great test" is revisionist (See the citations above). The British Orthodox view does not depend on the performance of the French of the German armies. It stresses the horrific loss of life caused by generals like Haig who in 1916 did not understand modern industrial warfare. The revisionist view point, according to Bond's Unquiet Western Front, began with Terraine in the 1960s. see also Christopher M. ::::The RS say that the "donkeys" = the Orthodox view, "Great test" is revisionist (See the citations above). The British Orthodox view does not depend on the performance of the French of the German armies. It stresses the horrific loss of life caused by generals like Haig who in 1916 did not understand modern industrial warfare. The revisionist view point, according to Bond's Unquiet Western Front, began with Terraine in the 1960s. see also Christopher M. Hand (1997) "John Terraine: A Study of a First World War Revisionist," Canadian Military History Vol. 6: Iss. 2, Article 6. Rjensen (talk) 15:36, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Vol. 6: Iss. 2, Article 6. Rjensen (talk) 15:36, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

No they don't, was Haig's dispatch of 1916 Donkey? The divisional histories published in the 1920s? Encyclopaedic histories like The Times? The vast majority of the novels written in the 20s and 30s?

• "... the Great War was seen by the vast majority of British people as a just and worthwhile war. There is evidence too, that such attitudes continued to hold sway in the immediate aftermath of the war." "There were of course exceptions." "The same is true of many war memoirs.... Why then did popular opinion undergo such a dramatic change?" "The dam finally burst in 1929." Forgotten Victory Sheffield, G. D. 2001, pp. 5-11

• "By the 1920s and 1930s the Official Histories were no longer alone...." "The accounts of... witnesses... and participants.... Wider historical works too... helped to reinforce the great cultural mythology of the war as having wasted an entire generation of British manhood." [French, Churchill, Lloyd George] "Motivated in the main by self-justification, these works advanced, through their accusation and acrimony, this sense of large-scale loss and waste and blame." Writing the Great War Green, A. 2003, p. 2 Keith-264 (talk) 16:39, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

1. Is the phrase "anglophone monoglots" too obscure?

• No but it's turned into a dead horse.

Sigh. "Just when I thought I was out... they pull me back in." It seems from the above responses from Keith-264 that he isn't willing to budge *an inch*. After all the extensive discussion we have had, on what are, let's face it, a tiny aspect of a tiny corner of WP, it seems that everything he has said is to be taken as valid and nothing neither I nor Rjensen matters an iota. Keith, can't you see that that attitude is what caused the problem in the first place? Had you not slapped down my Jan 14 edit of "anglophone monoglots" I probably wouldn't even be here. Your unwillingness to compromise with other editors has drawn attention to the entire contested matter, and now you have on the table far greater changes than just to the ridiculous "anglophone monoglots". And then when I (foolishly it seems) offer to disengage with the view that the edit war will conclude with a consensus, you go right back to your original position that everything you wrote was right, and the rest of us could just as well go away and leave you to run this page on your own. Can't you see that? SIgh. I'll amend my comments below. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thomask0 (talk • contribs) 17:04, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

• I think you've missed the point. There is what I think and there is what I'll do to obtain consensus. Nothing that's been written has persuaded me that the original edit was unsatisfactory. To end this debate and bearing in mind that my hands have already been tied, I will accept a reduction in the quantity of text in the lead about controversy and polemical writing, to the form of words we've already agreed but would like the size of the paragraphs to be equalised. I can't persuade anyone that the original Aftermath edit was sufficient to address the history of the history of the battle in English-language writing but would like the truncation to be remedied. I can't persuade anyone that a separate Historiography (sic) section is unnecessary, so have undertaken not to change it except to homogenise the citation method with the rest of the page (assuming someone else doesn't). As for monoglottalism Wikipedia:Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass (dead horse) didn't you read this? To be fair to us both, it wasn't until the revert frenzy began, that I realised you weren't making nuisance edits; I was surprised that you took up my suggestion to move to the talk page, which was when I began to take your comments seriously. Notice also that I'm not the only person to revert edits, there are 170 page watchers, quite a few of whom have reverted them too.Keith-264 (talk) 17:32, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

That's twice now you've sic'ed my use of "Historiography", but in several other places where I use it you don't do that. What's the problem you're trying to point out? Thomask0 (talk) 17:46, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

There are three meanings now (not just the two I mentioned).

• "The battle is controversial [or has been controversial since 1916] in the English-speaking world, over its significance and necessity; the most prominent figures in which are Haig, Churchill and Lloyd George." Keith-264 (talk) 17:40, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Well the whole article can be pared down to 250 words, as is done in several encyclopedias. But that would lose some of the complexity and nuance. Likewise pairing historiography down to one sentence. Rjensen (talk) 17:48, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

What would you prefer in the Lead?Keith-264 (talk) 18:01, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Anglophone monoglots

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The phrase "anglophone monoglots" is just silly, certainly in the opening of this article. As I pointed out, Google shows the phrase appearing only just over 500 times *anywhere* on their indexed web. The fact that it is linked to the relevant other pages merely serves to emphasize the fact that the phrase is inaccessible to most ... well, to most anglophone monoglots, even native anglophone monoglots. Some of the surrounding text -- e.g. the theoretically correct but atypical use of the word "insular" -- is also clumsy. I attempted an edit, but the rapid reversion by the original editor suggests I'm treading on someone's pet paragraph, so I'm not about to spend time in an edit war. That author has already been challenged on this specific wordiness, but seems to be resistant to the obvious arguments about clarity and accessibility (remember that Wikipedia is a *general* encyclopedia), so I suggest others who care about this article express their views.Thomask0 (talk) 01:14, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Yet again you seem to be confusing your opinion with facts, I suggest that you're inferring a lack of literacy in the reader and confusing the compromise of wikilinking the terms you object to with "inaccessibility", whatever that is; are all wikilinks evidence of recondite usage? Insular:

Adjective

insular (comparative more insular, superlative most insular)

   Of, pertaining to, being, or resembling an island or islands.
   Situated on an island.
   Separate or isolated from the surroundings; having little interaction with external parties; provincial.
   Having an inward-looking, standoffish, or withdrawn manner. (my Italics)
   Relating to the insula in the brain. https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/insular

It's a perfectly reasonable use of the term and does not need a synonym, particularly for people who live on an island and do not benefit from French and German writing, which has not been translated. The lead is a synopsis of the article and the detail can be seen in the Analysis section. I welcome constructive criticism but you seem to expect that an expression of opinion is definitive. Please also put new topics at the bottom of the page so they are in chronological order.Keith-264 (talk) 01:46, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

It's good that you deign to welcome constructive criticism of what is clearly, from several exchanges that have been initiated with you on this talk page, what you consider to be your article. So, in the spirit of you welcoming such criticism, I point you to Wikipedia:Ownership_of_articles. Thomask0 (talk) 23:29, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

I think it's accurate enough - though probably not great prose style as there are ways to convey the same point without using such obscure vocabulary. The Land (talk) 13:36, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

It's not obscure and I claim no ownership, only equality of opportunity. Land's amendment was inaccurate too.Keith-264 (talk) 15:05, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

The Land, your edit was fine. You're at least the third person to attempt to clear up this silliness. However, Keith-264's repeated rapid reverts on this point, demonstrate that we have an "owner" problem with this Article. (Perhaps we need a move request, to rename the article "Keith's Battle of the Somme Article"). But in fact there is an even more important point at stake here, but also one that has been pointed out before and rejected by Keith The Owner; namely that the article's introduction is simply too long and detailed. And certainly that contentious paragraph is utterly out of place in the introduction. Keith The Owner may know something about WW1, but he clearly has a lot to learn about what it takes to be an encyclopedist. Compare this article with, for example, Britannica's article. The information WP carries may be fine (albeit the prose is, as you say, not great) but the problem is that it seems only Keith The Owner's opinions carry weight here. I've udone Keith-264's reversion since he is now reverting several people on the same point. And, as per discussion with another poster further down this page, and in line with other encyclopedia formats, I've moved the "criticism" paragraphs out of the lead of the article and into a specific "Criticisms" subsection. I hope Keith The Owner will be good enough to DISCUSS HERE FIRST before reverting once again.Thomask0 (talk) 17:50, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Please stop using procedural chicanery and personal abuse and stick to the point, which is a difference of opinion about a form of words. There was no need to start a subsection, it was already there in the Aftermath section. There should have been one revert and then a discussion here to achieve consensus, not name-calling and ganging up. If consensus can't be achieved, the nest step is to request a third party to arbitrate. I suggest we try it.Keith-264 (talk) 18:30, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough, let's discuss. And while I was definitely yanking your chain in the above, my criticism isn't without weight. The phenomenon of article ownership does exist, and I'm afraid that you have *in my opinion* shown some of its behaviours. My point in bringing this up here is to note that this is not a discussion I or others are having with you. This is an open discussion among everyone interested, and your views on their own, while significant, should not be decisive.

First, let me say that I think the fact that you have introduced this content is to be commended. As far as I can see, while many of other popular (i.e. general encyclopedia level) articles on the Somme may mention the debate about appropriate criticism, your information makes Wikipedia superior in that respect because you go into more detail. That's genuinely a Good Thing and shows Wikipedia at it's agile and up-to-date best. However, I think you are making that good stuff harder to accept for two reasons. First, your prose is too intricate. Second, your information should not appear in the article lead. So to restate, *what* you're saying is good and useful; I have objections only to how you are saying (a tiny piece of) it, and where in the article you are saying it. Let me give my reasons for both.

• The lead is a synopsis of the article and the battle is the subject of years of controversy which needs to be mentioned in the lead

Prose style. Reasonable minds may differ on the use of "insular", and on the awkward (in my *opinion* yes) structure of a couple of your sentences, but I think you will find very few people who agree that "anglophone monoglots" is appropriate in this situation. I already showed some Google data to back up my view that the phrase is extremely obscure. Also, as I mentioned, the fact that wikilinking is required is another red flag. No, of course not *all* wikilinks are bad, but where they are used in an article introduction, to allow the use of an obscure phrase that has non-obscure alternatives, then yes they are bad. And note that another two people, who cared enough to comment, have made the same point. And here, in terms of language use, opinion does matter. Your main concern seems to be for accuracy, and it's correct that the proposed "English-speakers" is not synonymous with "anglophone monoglots". But first, "English-speakers" *is* sufficient given the surrounding context, and has the benefits of being easily understood. Second, strictly speaking even "anglophone monoglots" is inaccurate, because to be precise the problem lies with non-French/German speakers, "anglophone monoglots" being merely a subset of that larger group. Again, context helps, but it's the same context that would make "English-speakers" the better choice.

• Tens of thousands of people have read the article, two people have complained. It's not English speakers, it's English speakers who only speak English.

Position in article. This is my greater concern. A quick look at other general-audience-level articles shows:

1. Many don't even mention the difference in views (concerning blame of Haig etc)
2. Those that do merely mention that a difference exists -- i.e. they don't go into the details you do
3. They mention it way down, or at the end of the article, not at the top

Now I believe those articles can have relevance to this discussion because they reflect general views on the presentation of this topic. And since this discussion -- about article structure -- is not about specifics of the topic itself, I believe it is sufficient to use examples like Britannica as evidence in favour of the move I'm proposing. In other words, this proposal is a proposal about the process of creating an encyclopedia and not about the Somme itself.

• As above, the history of the Somme has been apolitical football since 1916.

One final point. A common retort in the past to some of these issues has been that the editor has been expressing mere opinion. In this case, that is not a useful rebuttal because language-use, which includes article structure and which is the central point at stake, *is* a matter of opinion. There simply is no objectively Correct Way to denote, for example, people who speak only English. But the vast majority of English speakers -- i.e. readers of this encyclopedia -- would express *an opinion* that the phrase "anglophone monoglots" is not the best way to do it.

• I suggest (again) that you have expressed opinion about the article and then made unwarranted assumptions which you haven't owned.

To summarize, then. Excellent content, but two minor tweaks are needed. First, simplify the prose; second, push down out of the lead -- a "Criticism" subsection of "Aftermath" is one option. Doing that would improve the overall quality of this article, for example as per here.Thomask0 (talk) 19:14, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

• I think that a joint approach to a reviewer for a ruling will save us going round in circles, giving ever more detailed versions of the same points. Obviously we will be bound by the result in that case. Oh and I don't agree that the content is excellent - it's good enough for B-class but no more. Keith-264 (talk) 19:32, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

• I disagree. As I said earlier, this is not whether your opinions are correct or not. This is an open discussion among anyone who is interested. So I suggest we wait and see if anyone else wants to comment. Thomask0 (talk) 19:40, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

• I disagree I was trying to achieve consensus. This isn't a beauty contest. I have made an individual approach to Oz Rupert asking for his good offices.Keith-264 (talk) 19:50, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

• But we're not going to achieve consensus unless we give others the time to contribute. You can approach Oz and his (her?) "good offices" as much as you like, but we still have to take his opinions as only *part* of an overall view -- i.e. of a consensus. There are other people who may want to show an interest and surely it is sensible to let them contribute first? Thomask0 (talk) 20:03, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

See comment below.Keith-264 (talk) 20:42, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

• You mentioned that there "was no need to start a subsection, it was already there in the Aftermath section..." That may be a fair point; I hadn't noticed that piece. However, now that the "Historiography" section has been added, usefully I think, there's a case for moving that paragraph down from "Aftermath" to join the rest of the text in "Historiography". Of course, there's an alternative argument that would push the "Historiography" up to join the "Aftermath" text. I'm not fussed either way, but I'd defer to history experts -- i.e. those who know what the heck "Historiography" actually means in practical use -- on the matter. All that said, my original point was that regardless of where it moves to, it needs to move out of the lead. That, and the removal of "anglophone monoglots", remain my proposal. Thomask0 (talk) 20:57, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

I moved the paragraph into the historiography section where it belongs. The history sections talk about soldiers and battles, the historiography section talks about historians and how they debate interpret and analyze the history. Historiography is taught in every University history department, so it has nothing novel. Rjensen (talk) 21:21, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Sounds fine. I don't doubt that historiography can refer to a subject, as it were, it was just that a superficial glance at various dictionaries said, to my non-historian eyes, that it sometimes just means "writing history". I suspect you're using it in the more technical and precise sense of "writing about the writing of history", which makes sense in the context of Wikipedia and particularly of Wikipedia history articles. So given that, is there a case for moving the related paragraph from "Aftermath" down to augment the Historiography section? As I say, I wouldn't have a problem with it being in either place, but it may make sense to have it in only *one* place. Shrug. Thomask0 (talk) 22:04, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Oops. I see you already did :-). Thomask0 (talk) 22:08, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Recent edits

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Remedied a complaint about names and restored an unwrranted edit.happy to discuss this if desired.Keith-264 (talk) 20:56, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for referencing the last paragraph in the introduction. I'm not an expert on the Somme or WWI so I certainly won't argue the fine detail with you. However as a casual observer, I feel can still object to the second half of this sentence.

This school of thought sets the battle in a context of a general Allied offensive in 1916 and notes that much of the German and French writing on the battle puts it in a continental perspective which is inaccessible to anglophone monoglots.

My primary objection is that it makes no sense because being multi-lingual and having mastery of French or German are not the same thing. It would be more accurate to say, "it is not accessible to non-French and non-German speakers". However the first part of the sentence already establishes that the notes are German or French making such a statement redundant.

My second objection is that some people would view such a phrase as a typical insult directed at somebody from the English world.--84.215.224.190 (talk) 17:42, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for being willing to discuss it; to me your alternative is the same point from the other direction. Anglophone monoglots are English speakers with no other languages and so rely on translations. Much of the French and German writing hasn't been translated so polemicists (of all schools) have had an easy time writing about the British war. Some of that has changed with the work of Jack Sheldon, William Philpott and the Canadians who have translated some of the German official history (only 1915 so far) but the bulk of the material is still beyond us, which is why it's inaccessible.

We can infer what some people might think but I'd rather not second-guess strangers or venture into projection, to me it's a description of a fact.Keith-264 (talk) 18:04, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I don't think my statement is the same point from the other way around. Both are technically true, but so is the equally absurd statement "Mandarin speaking monoglots can't read Swedish." My alternative was more precise because it does not state that one particular language group does not have access to the writings. Is the important fact here that these works have not been translated, then why not just state that? It is far less ambiguous. --84.215.224.190 (talk) 18:40, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

A rival conclusion by Terraine, Sheffield, Duffy, Chickering, Herwig and Philpott among others, is that there was no strategic alternative for the British in 1916 and that an understandable horror at British losses is insular, given the millions of casualties borne by the French and Russian armies since 1914. This school of thought sets the battle in a context of a general Allied offensive in 1916 and notes that German and French writing on the battle puts it in a continental perspective, which is inaccessible to anglophone monoglots, because much of the writing has yet to be translated. The Battle of the Somme has been called the beginning of modern all-arms warfare, during which Kitchener's Army learned to fight the mass-industrial war, which the continental armies had been engaged in for two years. This view sees the British contribution to the battle as part of a coalition war and part of a process, which took the strategic initiative from the German Army and caused it irreparable damage, leading to its collapse in late 1918.

How about this?Keith-264 (talk) 19:10, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

It still contains the confusing phrase - better to use Plain English. I think the last line in the Analysis does a better job of explaining the problem of untranslated sources and English-speaking bias. Here it reads like a diversion form the primary topic of the article. Introductions to articles should be understandable to a broad readership WP:EXPLAINLEAD and not include side-tracks from the main topic. Also I suggest removing "among others" from the first sentence ("weasel words")

I'd leave among others in because it's hardly weasel when there are already six examples and without it, it implies they're a school rather than a collection, which would be misleading. I think it's also begging the question of what is a continental perspective, which I would defiine as a war of exhaustion.

A different conclusion by Terraine, Sheffield, Duffy, Chickering, Herwig, Sheldon and Philpott among others, is that there was no strategic alternative for the British in 1916 and that an understandable horror at British losses is insular, given the millions of casualties borne by the continental armies since 1914. This view sets the Anglo-French offensive on the Somme in the context of a general Allied offensive and part of a coalition strategy of exhaustion ([Ermattungstrategie] Error: {{Lang}}: text has italic markup (help)) which took the initiative from the German Army and caused it irreparable damage, leading to its collapse in late 1918. Duffy, Sheldon and Philpott have written that this view can be found in German and French writing on the battle, which has not been available to English-speakers. The Battle of the Somme has been called the beginning of modern all-arms warfare.

--84.215.224.190 (talk) 19:32, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

I fear I may be reinventing the wheel but how about this?Keith-264 (talk) 20:44, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Much better. I take your point about "among others". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.215.224.190 (talk) 20:53, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

On second thoughts (after looking at some of the highly rated WWI articles and reviewing wikepedia guidelines on introductions) the introduction is too long and contains details and academic argument that is uninteresting to the casual reader. I would have edited it already if I didn't think it would be immediately reverted, seeing how I have to post here several times just to remove 2 irrelevant words from the article. --84.215.224.190 (talk) 20:43, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Which other WWI articles, I'd be interested to have a look at them? As for the "casual reader" let them speak for themselves and make room for the non-casual reader. [[9]] demonstrates that casual readers are only one group to be catered for. The lead is supposed to reflect the main text, which it does and your views of relevance are yours not anyone else's. I've found your contribution to be helpful (hence my attempt to address your concerns) but you tend to express opinion as fact, which seems more a matter of enthusiasm than authority. Would you support the amended paragraph?Keith-264 (talk) 22:01, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

"...but you tend to express opinion as fact, which seems more a matter of enthusiasm than authority" Is in itself just an opinion.

Maybe I paraphrased the wiki guidelines somewhat, assuming you were familiar with them, but use of Plain English and short accessible introductions are both recommended. The phrase "casual reader" is from the technical article guideline.

"The lead is suppose to reflect the main text" is your opinion. This is what Wiki says about it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Lead_section#Introductory_text I've highlighted 2 parts that I think (opinion!) are relevant here. The lead is the first part of the article most people read, and many read only the lead. Consideration should be given to creating interest in reading more of the article, but the lead should not "tease" the reader by hinting at content that follows. Instead, the lead should be written in a clear, accessible style with a neutral point of view; it should ideally contain no more than four paragraphs and be carefully sourced as appropriate. Editors should avoid lengthy paragraphs and over-specific descriptions, since greater detail is saved for the body of the article. I will not attempt to make further edits or visit this page again for reasons already mentioned.

--84.215.224.190 (talk) 20:18, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies.[2] The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources, and the notability of the article's subject is usually established in the first few sentences. Apart from trivial basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article.

I found this quite helpful and would point out that the original lead had two paragraphs but I split them after their length was criticised. I'm disappointed that you don't feel that your opinions are taken seriously, that's not the impression I intended.Keith-264 (talk) 21:33, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Being bold, the "anglophone monoglots" thing really has to go. A Google search for the phrase throws up only just over 500 instances on the entire searchable internet. It barely qualifies as valid English, let alone English suitable for the opening of a general encyclopedia article (so unusual in fact that I even mis-quoted it in my edit comment). I've change it to "English-speakers" (although maybe that needs its hyphen dropped?) which is precise enough for the opening. Go ahead and "monoglot" to your heart's content in the body of the article. Also clarified the sentence about "understandable British horror" which, as it stood, didn't really convey what I think was the intended meaning (i.e. that it was parochial/insular *despite* being understandable). Thomask0 (talk) 00:50, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

You're entitled to your opinion but that's all it is. Rather than inferring what I meant, I suggest you ask and have more faith in the literacy of the readers.Keith-264 (talk) 01:05, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Keith, I was following the WP Be Bold suggestion, which seems to me to say that "asking" first is neither required, nor even desired. As to faith in readers' literacy, surely you'd agree there's a sensible level of material that is suitable for any given publication? As to opinion, I mentioned that the Google search incidence of the phrase "anglophone monoglots" is barely over 500. In other words, it is *astoundingly* rare. I, a native English speaker, had to follow the links to find out what you meant. I suggest that forcing a reader to use links for meaning is less than ideal, particularly where a far more accessible option -- "English-speakers" -- is perfectly sufficient. In the context of your sentence, "English-speakers" would be taken by most readers (since you are talking about the lack of translations of non-English documents) to mean "English-only-speakers". Thomask0 (talk) 01:33, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

The boldness is in editing but when there is an objection it should be taken to the talk page to try to reach consensus, which is what you did - thank you but we are not obliged to treat dissent as sufficient to establish facts, particularly when opinion is masked by reference to hypothetical readers. I don't much care for Google and your point is OR which is unWiki. Here is something which Wiki provides:

[10] Battle_of_the_Somme has been viewed 42,213 times in the last 30 days. One complaint in 42,213 views doesn't seem to me to indicate a problem.Keith-264 (talk) 01:59, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

the literacy part is in bad taste and of dubious quality. It deals with historiography (not history) and that should be in a separate section where I put it. It does not fit in the lede. Unsourced claims of course are not allowed. Rjensen (talk) 19:44, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Historiography sections are usually near the end of the article, so I moved the historiography from the lead to that position, and use the section heading "historiography" to alert readers that this is about the historians of the battle. I also added numerous citations from they scholarly periodical literature. They appear to demonstrate that the participants are fully familiar with the German and French scholarship. Keith-264 has a mysterious problem with this-- This is the place for him to explain himself. As for the mysterious English scholars who cannot read German and French, Keith-264 has not named any of these writers, nor has he provided a citation to any RS that claims that the basis of the problem is that "anglophone monoglots" are unable to obtain a translation of French or German books and articles. Rjensen (talk) 20:52, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Flags

I wouldn't bother with any but while they're there all should be represented. Bermudans and South Rhodesians were involved in the battle. Keith-264 (talk) 15:21, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps we would be better served to just include the Dominions of the British Empire (as well as the United Kingdom, of course) and remove Bermuda and Southern Rhodesia. There were no doubt participants from all the territories. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Omnisome (talk • contribs) 13:37, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Actually, no that's why they were included. The Bermudans and Newfoundlanders participated in the first day. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 13:54, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Post-dispute tweaks

What's the status of the dispute? Are we done and back in editing business?

@Keith-264: I notice you're doing some minor (unproblematic) tweaks. I wonder if you need to revert a tiny piece? You took this:

"The German army was exhausted in 1916. The loss of morale and the cumulative effects of attrition and frequent defeats caused it to collapse in 1918, a process which began on the Somme, echoing Churchill's view that the German soldiery was never the same again."

to this:

"The German army was exhausted by the end of 1916, loss of morale and the cumulative effects of attrition and frequent defeats caused it to collapse in 1918, a process which began on the Somme, echoing Churchill that the German soldiery was never the same again."

The latter's "by the end of 1916" certainly sounds better than the former's "in 1916", but you've also backed out the prior editor's split of the thing into two sentences. That's left you with what is effectively a comma splice (followed by an explanatory phrase that doesn't really fix the splice). Can I suggest something like:

"The German army was exhausted by the end of 1916, with loss of morale and the cumulative effects of attrition and frequent defeats causing it to collapse in 1918, a process which began on the Somme, echoing Churchill that the German soldiery was never the same again."

or (I think this is slightly more readable than the above):

"The German army was exhausted by the end of 1916. Loss of morale and the cumulative effects of attrition and frequent defeats caused it to collapse in 1918, a process which began on the Somme, echoing Churchill that the German soldiery was never the same again."

Thomask0 (talk) 20:54, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

OK. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 13:55, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Further reading

Rjensen, are we really going to have to go back to the beginning? You can't recommend a book you haven't read so which was it, the book or the web?Keith-264 (talk) 08:30, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

I read the whole book on the web. That is how many if not most people read books these days. However it is seriously misleading to call it a website, because the author had zero to do with that website. What we have is the unchanged photocopy/OCR of the original book. It was written as an "old-fashioned" (ie paper) physical book and it certainly was never designed as a website. Indeed, many of the books bibliography are also on the web in unchanged format. Websites are 21st-century creations that have quite a different structure than 20 century books. Rjensen (talk) 07:16, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

If your source was the web, the web was your source. QED Keith-264 (talk) 07:59, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Qed?? you have an amazingly narrow view of books--you don't seem to understand either books or websites. Insisting on fringe views damages your credibility. Rjensen (talk) 08:49, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

If you use a source then that's the source. If it's a book in your hand its cite book, if its a book on the web its cite web, since your source is the website. Template:Cite web. Are you stalking me? Keith-264 (talk) 09:31, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Originally published as a book but digitized later = use cite book template. 101.168.85.63 (talk) 09:59, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Template:Cite book Keith-264 (talk) 10:09, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Avoiding a 2nd edit war

@Keith-264:, consider this a friendly pre-warning. You appear to be, as of Feb 12th, in violation of WP:3RR, having now made four reverts. Please stop or it may be necessary to escalate this to a formal complaint. Instead please consider bringing the topic that concerns you here to the Talk page for polite discussion. Thomask0 (talk) 23:20, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

British English

Based on a previous question about an American spelling in this article, I have tagged the article as written in British English. Any American (or other non-British) usages may be copy-edited to British English. (I'm an American, but I don't think that any American blood was shed in this battle, and an excessive amount of British blood was shed in this battle, probably much more than any other Commonwealth blood.) Robert McClenon (talk) 18:53, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Couldn't agree more, Aussies won't care, 98% of British spellings are used in Australian English. Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 11:32, 23 February 2015 (UTC)