Talk:Attack at Fromelles

I split "Books" from "References" because it's rather unclear what it actually contains. Are we talking a general bibliography that supports the article or is it just a list of furthering reading? Please clarify this.

Peter ^Isotalo 11:00, 9 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

Is it so that Fromelles is an important part of Australia's history? Or is it merely another failed mission for the soldiers of Australia- who were led by the greedy British; who at the time were using Australia to their own benefit — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.209.240.243 (talk) 00:12, 6 May 2012 (UTC)Reply

Changed citations to sfn in the main text (not the contemporary dig) to shift the references to the bottom of the page, preparatory to adding material from the OH and AOH. Oh and Australia was not an independent state allied to Britain in 1916. The AIF was an integral part of the British army.Keith-264 (talk) 11:01, 4 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

Did some tidying of references and external links, considering that I'd made some things worse....Keith-264 (talk) 08:33, 28 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

G'day, Keith, just to clarify, were you meaning to remove some of the publication details and citation templates from the Further reading section? IMO the new format seems to include a lot less detail, and it may in fact have been more useful for readers the other way. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:08, 28 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

Per WP:LINKFARM there's no need to them at all, I don't see where this improves an article. Moagim (talk) 09:22, 28 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

I thought that I left enough material but I can revert if you prefer, there were red harvid signs all over them so I thought they were redundant.Keith-264 (talk) 10:46, 28 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

The text of the battle has been revised and expanded and I'd be grateful if someone would have a look for typos etc. Keith-264 (talk) 17:54, 8 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

• I had the articles for creation process in mind but see that I'd forgotten the details.;O)Keith-264 (talk) 20:51, 12 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

I had a go at the contemporary section but I'm not sure about the citations and there are two paragraphs without them.Keith-264 (talk) 08:49, 9 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

Found a literary source for the exhumations and new cemetery, removed redundant citations and references.Keith-264 (talk) 10:57, 10 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

Added a map and rearranged the photographs (after a lot of mistakes). Feel free to alter.Keith-264 (talk) 13:26, 10 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

Made some minor alterations to FleurbaixMan's edits for consistency.Keith-264 (talk) 14:39, 15 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

I note the hook on the main page "The worst 24 hours in Australia's entire history"

5,533 losses were incurred by the 5th Australian Division

How does this compare with the Fall of Singapore and loss of 8th Division (Australia)?

Almost 15,000 Australians became prisoners of war at Singapore

Hamish59 (talk) 07:38, 19 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

Perhaps those didn't take 24 hours?Keith-264 (talk) 08:39, 19 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

They became POWs on 15 February 1942 when Singapore surrendered, so yes, within 24 hours. Hamish59 (talk) 08:54, 19 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

In a campaign with several battles before the surrender; any British or German troops who surrendered at Fromelles did so in one day. I can't say I care much for the passage myself but someone did, enough to write it anyway which is why I left it in, same as VC awards on other pages.Keith-264 (talk) 09:21, 19 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

31 Bn also had significant casualties in this battle which should be noted. In the history of the 31 Bn, "Crossed Boomerangs" by Bob Burla (ISBN: 1-876439-67-X) on page 66 I quote - "For 8 Brigade it had certainly been a baptism of fire. In one night's sharp fighting and the hours that preceded it, the 1262 casualties in the attacking battalions comprised-

31 Bn Officers 16 Men 528................................................... 32 Bn Officers 17 Men 701 "

The Crossed Boomerangs book mentioned could also be listed as a reference

I also mention that the Bugle played in the 2010 ceremony attended by Australia's Governor General and Britain's Prince of Wales was the original bugle of the 31st Bn in France and now resides in the Battalion's Museum in Townsville.

I am a member of the 31st Infantry Battalion Association Inc (Brisbane Branch).

Regards Mickeljohn14 (talk) 03:39, 19 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

Greetings Mickeljohn14,

• Burla, R.; Burla, E. Crossed Boomerangs: A History of All the Australian 31 Batallions (2nd ed.). Loftus NSW: Australian Military History Publications. ISBN 1-87643-967-X.

is this the one? Can you list the page numbers for the information you added above please? RegardsKeith-264 (talk) 09:00, 19 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

No need I found a reference in Bean III and put the Burla book in Further reading. RegardsKeith-264 (talk) 09:20, 19 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

Tidied quotes and citations but can't add details for The Australian due to a paywall, help appreciated. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 11:16, 5 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Battle of Fromelles. 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/20160205113032/http://www.news.com.au/national/british-accuse-australia-of-banning-them-from-wwi-battle-of-fromelles-centenary-commemoration/news-story/dbf568bc321d32f5e3ccec4a0f1f12fa to https://www.news.com.au/national/british-accuse-australia-of-banning-them-from-wwi-battle-of-fromelles-centenary-commemoration/news-story/dbf568bc321d32f5e3ccec4a0f1f12fa
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120405085256/http://www.australiangeographic.com.au/journal/Fromelles-diggers-laid-to-rest.htm/ to http://www.australiangeographic.com.au/journal/Fromelles-diggers-laid-to-rest.htm/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:22, 28 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Battle of Fromelles. 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/20070609104522/http://awm.gov.au/wartime/36/article.asp to http://www.awm.gov.au/wartime/36/article.asp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070609104522/http://awm.gov.au/wartime/36/article.asp to http://www.awm.gov.au/wartime/36/article.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:00, 16 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

Anyone mind if I move this to Attack at Fromelles as per James A record of the Battles and Engagements.... (1990 [1924]) p. 11? Keith-264 (talk) 09:28, 1 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

Seems fine to me, Keith. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:41, 1 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

Does battle not exaggerate somewhat? Just curious. Keith-264 (talk) 11:59, 1 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

G'day, Keith, to clarify, I was saying that your suggestion to change seems fine to me. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 02:33, 2 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

Apols I misinterpreted, I don't want to tread on Oz sensibilities, hence my caution. I'll leave things be for a few days to make sure all the page watchers have seen the suggestion. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 07:56, 2 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

No worries. No doubt, it was the imperfect way I phrased my response. ;-) Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:30, 2 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

Moved as discussed. Keith-264 (talk) 23:26, 5 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

Having worked a lot on this article in the past, due to a personal/family connection, I clearly haven't paid any attention to it in the last few years, because I only just noticed the change of title. I am surprised and aggrieved, to put it mildly, by this change.

Firstly, I don't know why a quasi-official source from 1924 (James) should be considered authoritative, especially given the contentions by Pompey Elliott and others of a whitewash, the Brit Army old boys' club closing ranks around the cretin Haking etc.

I do not agree at all that "battle" is unwarranted(!) Especially since it has never been a matter of numbers and is applied to much, much smaller actions.

The word "Battle" has also become normal in the Australian historiography regarding Fromelles in recent years. I am less familiar with the UK literature, other than that by Paul Cobb, who uses "battle" and "action" about equally, while also noting the change in usage.

On a lesser note, the whole sorry chain of events in July 1916 was originally known, during the war itself, as the "Action at Fleurbaix"". But I don't imagine that will hold appeal for anyone, especially since it's even more outmoded than "Action at Fromelles".

I am not going to change anything unilaterally, however. Are there any serious objections to the article being called "Battle of Fromelles"? Grant | Talk 14:09, 31 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

James added the units participating in events named officially by the The official names of the battles and other engagements fought by the military forces of the British Empire during the Great War, 1914-1919, and the Third Afghan War, 1919 : Report of the Battles Nomenclature Committee as approved by the Army Council (1919-1921). Regards Keith-264 (talk) 17:17, 31 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

"The Attack at Fromelles (French pronunciation: ​[fʁɔmɛl], Battle of Fromelles, Battle of Fleurbaix or Schlacht von Fromelles) 19–20 July 1916" seems quite comprehensive to me. I want it left like that. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 17:33, 31 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

As the article indicates, the German name (including that used by de.wikipedia) is Schlacht von Fromelles, and Schlacht is translated, especially in this kind of context (a military history article) as "battle".

The French WP title is, likewise, 'Bataille de Fromelles.

The Australian War Memorial, a reputable source, leaves no doubt: Battle of Fromelles. Neither do the many books on the subject published in recent years.

Why should we overthrow common usage and give priority to one, very outdated source, over what is now the common name (see WP:UCN) in English language, as well as German and French sources?

Keith-264, with regard to the desire you have expressed in 2018, to not "tread on Oz sensibilities" – outside Wikipedia, I have had a lot of direct, personal contact with other people who have a personal connection to Fromelles, including people in England who are descended from members of the UK 61st Division, and French people resident in the area around the battlefield. I feel confident in saying that the change of title in 2018 has already offended and will offend the sensibilities of people from many countries.

Grant | Talk 03:07, 2 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

Your translation of the French and German titles takes no account of usage making it OR. Parochial concerns are catered for by Wiki WPs but this seems to be a personal matter for you, particularly the use of "battle". I will check my sources to see what the RS have to say. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 07:16, 2 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

I've got a reprint of the Battles Nomenclature Committee Report. Page 16 has "—with subsidiary Attack at Fromelles". Regards Keith-264 (talk) 13:21, 12 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

@FrankDynan: If you want to change that bit you'll need a reliable source; if you want it removed you'll need to show that the McMullin cite is inaccurate. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 17:59, 29 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Keith-264: Hi Keith, I thought I had, in noting that McMullin's article makes no reference to Bullecourt. Please go and reread it. Therefore, in reference to Bullecourt, it is a meaningless citation. The footnote referencing the Boer War, Korea and Vietnam IS contained in McMullin, and is valid. As to the value of the statement itself: "caused one of the greatest numbers of Australian deaths in action in 24 hours, surpassed only at...", I note the original comment introducing a reference to Bullecourt was to "battles like Bullecourt" which you amended from a vague to a specific reference (Revision as of 17:38, 8 May 2013). That was style-wise an improvement, but in being precise made it precisely wrong. Greatest numbers of Australian dead in WW1 by date of death:

4/10/17 (Broodseinde) - 1,282^[1]

19/7/16 (Fromelles) - 1,260^[2]

3/5/17 (2nd Bullecourt, worst day of those two battles) - 945^[3]

I can see arguments for referencing Broodseinde on calendar date basis, or for recasting Fromelles as absolutely the worst based on the 24 hours from the beginning of the attack (which is actually what McMullin says), but that is a probability, rather than certainty (500+ deaths in CWCG for 20/7/16; 200+ for 5/10/17, so Fromelles is almost certainly greater for a literal 24 hour period), or simply for removing the comparison to other WW1 battles entirely (leaving a slightly vaguer statement, with the McMullin reference to other wars in place). Any of those three work for me; this is clearly a pet article for you, and I have no skin in the game, so I'm happy to leave that choice to you. But whichever you choose, the implication that Bullecourt saw more deaths in 24 hours is flat wrong and should be removed. cheers! FrankDynan (talk) 14:50, 30 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

I read it before commenting, I'll remove that bit since it is uncited by definition; see that you think. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 15:54, 30 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

@DocWatson42: Apologies for treading on your edits; I have restored them as =far as I can work them out but aren't sure about the long footnotes. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 13:57, 19 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

It's okay—I should have checked before I tried to save. I just restored the majority of my edits, to the references in the appendices; the rest is minor, and mostly just according to my preferences for spacing. —DocWatson42 (talk) 14:09, 19 July 2024 (UTC)Reply