Talk:Plan XVII

	France portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject France, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of France on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FranceWikipedia:WikiProject FranceTemplate:WikiProject FranceFrance articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Military history: European / French / German / World War I B‑class

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

B

This article has been rated as B-class on the project's quality scale.

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	European military history task force
	French military history task force
	German military history task force
	World War I task force

Content

Battle of Mulhouse There is conflicting dates on the Battle of Mulhouse between this page and the link it provides. This page states 7th August, whilst the link states 9th. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.168.79.184 (talk) 04:30, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In the article you descib Germany's Schliefen plan, and you say that the German troops 'advanced almost unopposed' however did the Belgians resistance and the BEF do nothing to slow them down, as i thought that they did (and i need this for history project soon).

--Death of Rats 12:16, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Much of what is written here in regards to Germany's war plan is based on incorrect assumptions, hearsay, and the author's own conclusions. Who knows if the fact the Germans used more troops in the east cost them victory in the west? This comment implies that what is known as the Schlieffen Plan (there's actually evidence that would show there never was an actual "Schlieffen Plan") would've succeeded had those troops participated. This article is accurate when discussing the French side of things, which is the point, but its information and accuracy in regards to the German side of things is questionable at best.

--GeoffreyVS 1:32, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Citing from within the article: "The offensive French military strategy in World War I known as Plan XVII was initially created by Ferdinand Foch. The offensive plan used brute force and a mystical belief in the French "élan" or "fighting spirit." General Joseph Joffre adopted this plan upon becoming commander-in-chief in 1911". This statement is currently (intentionally) contradicted in the article on general Foch, where it is stated that this is little more than a widely held misconception.

--Georgebaltz , 06 November 2007 —Preceding comment was added at 02:43, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

-- The Guns of August not cited? -- I'm surprised that one of the most definitive and well known books on this subject, Barbara Tuchman's "The Guns of August," wasn't cited. The third chapter of her book deals with Plan XVII. Also, what "evidence" is there that there never was a Schlieffen Plan? Schlieffen's journals and notes on the subject are very well known. Andacar (talk) 23:48, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kiesling

The Kiesling link doesn't resolve. Linkrot, probably. Or subscription? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 11:11, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Should work now. Keith-264 (talk) 11:51, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edits

@Ifly6: Dear Ifly, you dropped edits into the lead yet you didn't incorporate them into the text which the lead is supposed to reflect, that's why I called them Cuckoo edits. I hope I've made my meaning clear this time. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 05:55, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I understand what you mean then; saying that, frankly, is far less insulting than the claim which I thought you were making (that I am sneaking unverified information into articles duplicitously) given that as far as I can tell, 'cuckoo edits' refers to 'the practice of inserting unverifiable or false new content into an existing, referenced statement, thereby hijacking the existing statement's reference to provide legitimacy for the new content'. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Cuckoo_editing (compared favourably with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Don%27t_hijack_references in proposed page merger). That said, I've moved the portions previously in the lead into the body paragraphs as requested. Ifly6 (talk) 06:09, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That was quick, what time is it where you are? ;O) "French formations moved forward with insufficient reconnaissance." Is this really necessary amidst a list of mistakes which give a general impression if inadequacy? PS I didn't notice the biblio edits, sorry for overlooking them. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 06:04, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is necessary; there are two general threads in the literature. One is a relatively traditional view that French forces attacked simply without caring for enemy strengths and dispositions. The other is a newer view that French forces simply did not know that the enemy were so close to their mustering locations. The former implies something of superhuman bravery. The latter implies incompetence. The source I quoted from talks on that difference shortly. Ifly6 (talk) 06:12, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know that anyone else used the phrase, I thought that I invented it. No wonder you were a bit miffed. I know what the sources have to say and I suggest you are cautious about what the two schools of thought imply since it's not for us to infer conclusions, only report those that are in the RS. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 10:38, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edits

The lead is skimpy but we ought not overstuff it with minutiae or overdo RS differences of opinion. Apropos, have you any Zuber? Regards Keith-264 (talk) 11:09, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edit

@188.125.189.197: Dear 188, the source was already in the bibliography so you putting it in the lead set off harv errors. It's also not necessary to cite the lead because it can only contain matters from the article which are cited. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 07:19, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]