This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Attack at Fromelles article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on July 19, 2009, July 19, 2010, July 19, 2011, July 19, 2013, July 19, 2016, July 19, 2017, and July 19, 2024. |
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)
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)
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)
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)
Made some minor alterations to FleurbaixMan's edits for consistency.Keith-264 (talk) 14:39, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
I note the hook on the main page "The worst 24 hours in Australia's entire history"
How does this compare with the Fall of Singapore and loss of 8th Division (Australia)?
Hamish59 (talk) 07:38, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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:
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).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:22, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
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:
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).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:00, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
@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)
References
@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)