Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Razing of Friesoythe/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 31 December 2019 [1].

Razing of Friesoythe[edit]

Nominator(s): Gog the Mild (talk) 16:51, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In mid-April 1945 in NW Europe, the 4th Canadian (Armoured) Division burnt down the small German town of Friesoythe on the orders of the divisional commander. A minor war crime in a conflict thick with them. Surprisingly (to me) it seems to have hidden in plain sight for 75 years. There has been little attempt to cover it up, bar some fudging in the official history, but this article is the only specific treatment of it of which I am aware.

The first article I created (26.1.18), my first GA (24.2.18), and my first A class (14.8.18). After which it languished until Nick-D, bless him, added Briddiscombe and so provided the underpinning to tie the article together and, perhaps, hopefully, make it fit to be considered for FA. Given its history I am sure that it is riven with faults and will be grateful to all those who help to point these out. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:51, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by CPA-5[edit]

Great to see another battle of WWII.

  • Link WWII.
See below.
  • Pipe Germany to Nazi Germany.
  • Pipe Canada or Canadese to the Dominion of Canada.
  • the division's commander, Major General Christopher Vokes "Major General" needs a hyphen.
No it doesn't. Did you click the link? Canadian usage.
  • Do the sources say it without a hyphen? Because I've heard that some Commonwealth countries before and in WWII use those kinds of ranks before they got old fashioned.
It is confused. Vokes doesn't hyphenate it in his autobiography, but the official history does. Let's assume that Vokes didn't know how to spell his own rank and I will hyphenate through out. (Good point.)
  • Link Soviet Union.
  • about the threat of a German resistance movement, and Soviet forces killed Link the German resistance.
I am unable to find an article on German resistance to the Allies. If you could point me to it I would be grateful.
  • Here a German resistance to the allies - Werwolf.
Thanks. Done. (I was typing in werewolf!)
  • 4th Canadian (Armoured) Division, Major General Christopher Vokes "Major General" needs a hyphen.
See above.
  • Link Rhine.
  • Link Allied/Allies.
  • circumstances as buoyant as it was recognised that British recognised here we should use Canadian English.
Good point. Done.
  • an assault crossing of the Ems river --> "an assault crossing of the Ems River"
No. River Ems; but Ems river. Honest. (Check it, you won't find an "Ems River" usage. You may find "Ems, River", that's different.)
  • I always am confused with both of them.
English, a language deliberately invented to confuse foreigners. It also confuses almost everyone else - as you prove a little below.
  • Primary units metric vs English?
I am not getting your point. Primary units are imperial. As used by Canadians at the time. Is that incorrect?
  • You're not wrong but I mean look at this sentence "The division advanced a further 25 kilometres (16 mi) to Sögel" which is written in metric units.
    • (talk page stalker) There's also "20 miles (32 km) west of Oldenburg", so these should be consistent. If you wish to preserve the source figure in the convert template, you can use |order=flip so that the input is displayed as secondary and the output as primary. – Reidgreg (talk) 21:01, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • west of Oldenburg, on the river Soeste --> "west of Oldenburg, on the River Soeste"
Ah! Done.
  • Got you. ;p
Yep. Dead to rights :-( .
  • Several hundred paratroopers from Battalion Raabe of the 7th Parachute Division No link for the Battalion Raabe?
No. An ad hoc battlegroup. It may only have existed for a few days. The article on the division is only 8 lines.
  • repelled an attack by the Lake Superior Regiment Same as above with the Lake Superior Regiment?
Strangely perhaps, no. (The articles on the last of the WWII divisions are still being created. It is probably expecting too much for all of the battalions to have been filled in.)
  • Argylls secured the town by 10:30 am --> "Argylls secured the town by 10:30"
  • headquarters by surprise at around 8:30 am --> "headquarters by surprise at around 08:30"
Both done.
  • the fucking place. Get the people the hell out of their houses first.'"[12][21] Re-order the refs here.
Done. (You do realise that there is no Wikipedia requirement for this?)
  • I do! But most sources use refs in numerical order and because this isn't included in MOS it shouldn't be included.
  • Canadian force was also authorised to burn down the village British authorised.
Done.
  • The Canadian army official historian Link Canadian army and capitalise "army".
Army capitalised. See below re link.
  • Be that as it may."[12][11] Re-order the refs here.
Done.
  • In the image "File:Moncel_and_Vokes.jpg" "Major General Christopher Vokes" --> "Major-General Christopher Vokes"
See above.
  • was used to fill craters in local roads to make them passable Change the "in" with "on".
Er, why?
  • Sounds better in my ears but if it doesn't to you then I do not mind having "in" instead of "on".
Yeah, craters are in a road. They might be on the moon, but off hand I can't think of another example.
  • forces destroyed German buildings on a number of occasions --> "forces destroyed German buildings on several occasions"
Done.
  • The British commanders disapproved of retaliations against civilians --> "The British commanders disapproved of retaliation against civilians"
No. In this case, "retaliations" is the correct usage. (A noun, rather than a verb.)
  • This was accomplished with several truck-loads of dynamite Remove the hyphen here.
Done.
  • eight hours and Friesoythe was almost totally destroyed Remove totally.
No. The phrase doesn't make sense then. How I have expressed it is acceptable usage - honest. "Almost destroyed" means something completely different.
  • According to one German assessment, 85–90 per cent of the town was destroyed British per cent.
Done.
  • the destruction to be as high as 90 per cent Same as above.
Done.
  • Canadian authorities of the damage or the civilian casualties --> "Canadian authorities of the damage or civilian casualties"
No. One needs both definite articles for the two nouns.
  • several 17-year-old youths with less than eight weeks military experience --> "several 17-year-old youths with fewer than eight weeks military experience"
No. Fewer is used when the intervals are discrete. And while weeks are, they represent time here, which isn't. So "less" is correct.
  • Strange because I thought fewer is used for countable nouns like weeks and less for uncountable?
Ah. this is a tricky one. So you might say "Should basic training last 12 weeks, or fewer?" meaning that it will always last a number of complete weeks. But "I wish that basic training lasted less than 12 weeks." meaning that this might be one day, 10 days, or any other period of time not related to whole weeks. IMO, the article is using weeks in the latter sense.

That's anything from me. Hopefully, we'll have more WWII battles here. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 14:29, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Probably not - more WWII battles that is.
  • Some of the suggested links above. I know that you have read MOS:OL, so why are you asking for so many links which are "[e]veryday words understood by most readers in context"? Eg WWII; USSR, Rhine; which are pretty much specifically included in the categories of things not to link. Am I missing something? I have linked as you suggest where I think that I have missed something, and thanks for catching those. Others I have left, pending discussion here.
  • I understand you wanna stay with unlinking those especially WWII. But the USSR and the Rhine are different. Believe the USSR is indeed really common but most people would say Cold War, Communism, Stalin and Russians. I do not think they know the rest of the former country especially the younger generations who never met the Cold War (like me). And speaking about the Rhine I do believe it is really common among us, Europeans like us, but would Americans, Canadians, Aussies, Kiwis or the rest of world know it? It's not the same as the Nile which is one of the important and longest river the world has.
    • (talk page stalker) I tend to favour the more-specific links. In the case of the Allied crossing of the Rhine in Operation Plunder the linking to the more-specific article is probably more useful to the reader, while Rhine is linked in the lead sentence of Operation Plunder so that it is still easy for the reader to get to that article. It's easy to work from a specific article to a general one; the reverse is not always easy or obvious. Linking both diverts attention, etc. "Canadian Army official history" could be pipe-linked on first mention in the lead and body; I wouldn't link only the "Canadian Army" part. Perhaps "Soviet Union's leadership" could be linked to something like State Defense Committee, if that's correct and felt to be useful. – Reidgreg (talk) 21:01, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Edit clash with Reidgreg. Hi Reidgreg, I wondered if you might be watching this. I had just made the changes suggested by CPA-5, and added this comment here:
  • Done, but I think that you are using your common sense, rather than what it says in MOS:OL: "the following are usually not linked: The names of subjects with which most readers will be at least somewhat familiar. This generally includes major examples of: countries; geographic features; locations... " You are saying that "Canada" doesn't fit into one of those? (I have linked it anyway - see here.) Then again, possibly I overdo the not overlinking malarkey. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:21, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@CPA-5: Phew. I seem to have given you quite a bit of work to do. Thanks for your usual very thorough review. All of your points addressed above, although I have disagreed with several and queried a couple. Gog the Mild (talk) 01:30, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks CPA-5. Much appreciated as always. I think that I have covered everything that you have flagged up. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:15, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@CPA-5: Good afternoon. All of your points above have been addressed, some with queries or explanations. What do you think? Cheers. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:40, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Gog the Mild: Good afternoon mate sorry I had a really busy week. Yes all except one are addressed, you missed this one which unit should be primary in the article miles or kilometres? This is the only comment who's not addressed by you. BTW last comment here is it Razing of Friesoythe or Battle of Friesoythe? Because the infobox says something different. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 15:47, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@CPA-5: No worries. real life happens. I knew that you were busy/distracted by some of your delays in getting back to things, but you do a huge amount of reviewing here, so who cares? I am more than grateful for what you do do.
Kms/miles: I am not happy, but the editorial consensus seems to be for km, so all switched. And yes, "Razing". Good spot, not sure how that happened. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:16, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, I believe all of my comments are addressed so I reckon I can let it pass. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 18:28, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Source review by Fiamh—pass[edit]

  • This article says that reprisals are per se forbidden by the Hague Conventions. According to this article, it's actually disputed amongst legal scholars:

The Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907 avoided the issue of reprisals for “fear that express regulation might be interpreted as a legitimation of their use.”54 Some contend, however, that Article 50 of the 1907 Hague Regulations is the first primitive effort to codify the law of belligerent reprisals. That article reads: “No general penalty, pecuniary or otherwise,shall be inflicted upon the population on account of the acts of individuals for which they cannot be regarded as jointly and severally responsible.”5

  • The post-war WWII trials tended to follow the position that reprisals were legal if they met certain criteria (p. 99).
  • Rogers, R. L. (1989). and Foster, Tony (2000) appear to be self-published sources, what makes them reliable?
Rogers is printed by the Lincoln and Welland Regiment. It is their official history. I don't see that as "self published".
Foster: I am not sure where you are getting that from. The first edition was published by Methuen and jointly authored by the Mazal Holocaust Collection, which is about as RS as I can imagine. See WorldCat
You might consider listing the regiment as the publisher, as Google Books does, although it's fine either way. Foster is currently listed as published by the vanity press iUniverse but as long as the previous edition was published by a credible publisher it is fine.
D'oh! I have no idea why I didn't do that. Even when you queried it, it didn't occur to me. Over focused I think - been working on this for too long. Done.
The copy I accessed was by iUniverse. I didn't realise that it was dubious - the book itself is so obviously scholarly. No idea how iU ended up printing an edition. I understand your point now, but the actual text is impeccably scholarly and RS. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:00, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. Both done.

Other comments

  • Reprisal should be linked in the lede and first occurrence in the body
Reprisal links to "A reprisal is a limited and deliberate violation of international law to punish another sovereign state that has already broken them ... " That is not what is meant here. I couldn't find an article on reprisal in the Hague Convention sense, which is why it is unlinked. However, spurred by you, I have found collective punishment which more or less fits, and I could link it to there; what do you think?
  • Some German civilians joined the fighting and were believed to have killed several Canadian soldiers. This seems like an important detail. Shouldn't it be in the lede? Currently, if you just read the lede, you'd think that the only justification for this attack was the misattribution of the commander's death to German civilians.
That quote is from the "Context" section, sub-section "Battle for Sögel"; which was 4 days before the "Battle for Friesoythe" (new section) and 21 miles away. So it didn't justify the razing of Friesoythe. It was used as a justification for the illegal partial razing of Sogel, which is covered in the lead: "A few days earlier the division had destroyed the centre of Sögel in another reprisal and also used the rubble to make the roads passable." There wasn't even an attempt to use it to justify the razing of Friesoythe, for which, as you say 'the only justification for this attack was the misattribution of the commander's death to German civilians'. The Sogel reprisal is mentioned partly as part of the background and leadup to Friesoythe, and partly because it arguably (probably) put the Canadians "in the mood" to believe that they had been attacked by civilians - and perhaps it was easier to raze a town if you had done something similar a few days earlier. But the sources don't explicitly say that, so I am careful not to.
@Fiamh: I do like a reviewer who is rigorous and has a good poke at an article. Thank you. I have covered everything except your first major point about what a reprisal is. I want to save what I have so far, then get my thoughts and sources together for that; so I will be back with the balance of my response shortly. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:25, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Fiamh: My apologies for the delay on getting back to you on this. RL, my health and WP have all become busy. I am aware of this and should respond soon. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:28, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Fiamh. Apologies for taking so long to get back to you. Right then.

The paper you quote above is discussing "belligerent reprisals", which is something different from "reprisals". Belligerent reprisals are defined by the author as "Effectively, belligerent reprisals allow for derogation from the laws of armed conflict to ensure compliance with those same laws." They also distinguish them from "reprisals": "Belligerent reprisals, therefore, bear many of the characteristics of reprisals in general". To support my use of "reprisals with nothing to explain explain or qualify it I shall quote from some of the sources of the article:

  • Official History of the Canadian Army in the Second World War: "Accordingly, as a reprisal and a warning, a number of houses in the centre of Sögel were ordered destroyed"
  • The memoirs of the author of the official history: "a result a great part of the town of Friesoythe was set on fire in a mistaken reprisal. This unfortunate episode only came to my notice and thus got into the pages of history because I was in Friesoythe at the time and saw people being turned out of their houses and the houses burned. How painfully easy it is for the business of "reprisals" to get out of hand."
  • The Canadian Encyclopedia: "Vokes ordered the burning and levelling of the town's buildings in reprisal."
  • Briddescombe: "reported that the town had been burned down by American occupiers as a reprisal for persistent sniping."
  • Williams: "The Germans had to be taught a lesson – keep to the rules of war or suffer reprisals."

Another modern, popular source:

  • Atkinson: "When a sniper took a potshot ... Patton ordered German houses burned in retaliation."

Note that Hague IV, Article 23, prohibits acts that "destroy or seize the enemy's property... "

Not sure if I have fully addressed your point here, but see what you think. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:02, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Fiamh: While you are making your mind up on this can I flag up that in meeting a request by Nick-D I have added an additional source - Atkinson. I don't see that this will cause any problems, but I needed to let you know. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:42, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would agree with you that the Friesoythe case was not a "belligerent reprisal" because the German side had not actually broken the law of war. However, arguably the Sögel case was, because civilians are unlawful combatants and it could be argued that burning the town was justified because it would discourage similar illegal actions in the future. I can't see the Briddiscombe source to see exactly what he wrote, but it might be an improvement on the current wording ("Vokes was aware that these actions violated the Hague Conventions") to say instead something like, "Vokes believed that these actions violated the Hague Conventions" or simply that he avoided issuing written instructions and let the reader draw their own conclusion. Fiamh (talk, contribs) 20:56, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Biddiscombe does not share your view that destruction of civilian property, outside immediate battle circumstances, ie ever legal. Vokes did this as a policy "even though he knew that this measure violated the Hague rules" (p 258). Brode, in Casual Slaughters and Accidental Judgements: Canadian War Crimes Prosecutions, 1944–1948 (another source in the article) says in passing of Vokes "Strict adherence to the Geneva Convention was not a high priority." (p 105). Google around and there are numerous examples of Vokes attitude. Specifically, I would like to stay with what the source states - "knew". But Peacemaker wants me to dig a bit to find supporting sources on the breach of the Hague Convention front, so that may through up something extra one way or the other. (I thought that I had cracked it "Vokes admitted that he had acted outside of the rules of war", but it relates to Friesoythe. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:10, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review—pass[edit]

@Fiamh: Thanks for taking this on. My responses below.
  • Quotebox. It doesn't on any of the six screens I have just checked it on. (And no one else has mentioned this.) So it is difficult for me to be sure if I have fixed it, but I have tweaked the dimensions and would be grateful if you could check if it resolves the problem.
  • Yes, one would have thought so. But, strictly, one doesn't. The images are from the Library and Archives Canada which state that the copyright has expired. I wrote to them and got the following response:

Your request for copyright permission for material from our collections has been received by Copyright Services of Library and Archives Canada.

Because the photos are Crown images that were published for over 50 years, the material is now in the public domain. Which means that the copyright protection has expired and there are no other restrictions applicable to this material. Therefore, it may be used freely without seeking permission or paying royalties. We would ask that you kindly acknowledge the source as follows:

Photo: Personnel of The Lake Superior Regiment (Motor) with a captured German flag, Friesoythe, Germany, 16 April 1945 Source: Library and Archives Canada/Department of National Defence fonds/a167250

Photo: Brigadier R.W. Moncel (left) and Major-General Christopher Vokes, General Officer Commanding 4th Canadian Armoured Division,observing a German counter-attack, Sogel, Germany, 10 April 1945 Source: Library and Archives Canada/Department of National Defence fonds/a159242

Please note that identifying our institution “Library and Archives Canada” in the credits will be sufficient when material is being used in video/film format.

Sincerely,

Eric Mineault

Spécialiste des droits et des licenses, Direction générale des services au public

Bibliothèque et Archives Canada / Gouvernement du Canada

The ACR image reviewer commented "I think it is fine regardless, though it would be nice if they give us the real publication date. The email you received was very clear." So I wrote again, asking for a precise publication date and was told, a little tartly:

As these photographs which were taken by Alex Stirton while enlisted in the Canadian Army, they are Government of Canada material. While we don’t know the exact date the photo was published, they generally would have been published (most likely around the date they were created) in Canada to inform the population of the activities of the Canadian forces in Europe.

Canadian Military Photographers:

http://www.bac-lac.gc.ca/eng/discover/military-heritage/second-world-war/faces-second-war/Pages/faces-second-world-war.aspx#e

Government of Canada photos can be used if the Government of Canada approves of the intended use. Government of Canada material does not fall under copyright restrictions of any other country (e.g. the 70 rule of the U.S. and Europe) as the copyright belongs to the Government of Canada.

Therefore, we consider these photos as © Expired (Crown material published for more than 50 years) and, because they are Crown photos, they are expired no matter where they are used. In fact, Wikipedia is full of expired Government of Canada material.

Please let us know if you have any additional questions with this request.

Sincerely,

Eric Mineault

Services des droits d'auteur Bibliothèque et Archives Canada / Gouvernement du Canada

That seems definitive to me. If you would like a copy of the original email thread, drop me an email and I'll copy it to you.

Seperately, I note that what is actually required for the image to be PD in Canada is that it be created prior to the end of 1948. Which these were. (10 and 16 April 1945.) And that they are PD in the US if if they were in the public domain in its home country (Canada) on 1 January 1996, which these were. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:32, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Nick-D[edit]

As noted in the nomination statement, I've added a para or two worth of material to this article and just copy edited it, so I won't vote. I'd like to make the following suggestions though:

  • The sentence starting with "However, SHAEF's manual Combating the Guerrilla" is a bit over-long and over-complex
Removed tangential material to simplify. Better?
  • The "context" section would probably benefit from material about attitudes by this stage of the war. The Allied troops were fed up by the irrational German resistance to inevitable defeat, especially when it led to casualties in the closing weeks of the war. The Germans had also committed retaliatory actions and other war crimes targeted at civilians on a vast scale across Europe. This led to there being very little sympathy for them.
I'll see what I can find.
I'll also try to dig some stuff up here. The last period of the war on the western front was much more brutal than is often recognised. If German troops and towns surrendered, as they usually did, the troops treated them pretty well. If they put up a fight or were associated with concentration or death camps the Allied troops were ruthless. Nick-D (talk) 22:16, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The quote from Vokes in the 'Aftermath' section looks a bit NPOV. The Canadian troops did in fact conduct themselves very well, on the whole.
Well yes. As Vokes says. I am not sure that I see a POV issue in flagging up that Vokes praised the generally good behaviour of his troops and acknowledged Friesoythe and felt, forty years after the event, "[a] feeling of no great remorse over the elimination of Friesoythe." It seems to accurately reflect his views. We may consider them contradictory, but I don't think that I editorialise that in.
Although you and he may have got an argument on your POVs from the 1945 inhabitants of Sogel, Friesoythe and Garrel.
  • " Vokes heard the appeal against his death sentence of convicted German war criminal Kurt Meyer" - should 'his' be 'the' here? It would be odd for Vokes to handle an appeal against a sentence he handed down.
You are correct, and changed. In my defence, Vokes heard the appeal, and confirmed the death sentence. Later, in the bureaucratically different position of the senior Canadian officer (remaining) in theatre, he heard the final appeal and overruled his earlier decision[!] So technically/pedantically he was hearing the appeal against his earlier decision. Which is where "his" crept in from. But a reader doesn't need to know all that.

Nick-D (talk) 22:26, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nick-D. thanks for the copy edit. Your points above addressed. I agree re point two and will have a search around. German units had also committed well-publicised massacres of Canadian prisoners in Normandy less than a year before, and I don't suppose that helped. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:51, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Nick-D: New section inserted as discussed. It could probably do with a fairly hard look over. Let me know what you think? Gog the Mild (talk) 18:39, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Nick: Thanks once again for your help all along with this article. Any more suggestions or comments? Gog the Mild (talk) 19:09, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by PM[edit]

I looked at this at Milhist ACR, and have reviewed the changes since then. I have a few comments:

  • suggest "attacked the German-held town of Friesoythe" also, as they are advancing into north-west Germany, "German" town of Friesoythe is redundant
True. Done.
  • "the 1st Battalion, The Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders (Princess Louise's) captured the town" also in the body when first introducing the battalion
Done.
  • suggest "Forty years afterwardslater"
Done.
  • in the infobox, "Photograph A Stirton, Library and Archives Canada" isn't required in the caption, it just needs to be on the image description page for attribution, same with the later photo
That wasn't how I read it, but so long as you're sure. (You need to tell that to all of the reviewers who insist that I add "from an illuminated manuscript by Froissart" to images from the 14th C.) Done.
  • in the infobox, given this involves the destruction of the town, a result of "Canadian victory" seems incongruous, perhaps "Destruction of the town" would be better?
I'm going for both. OK by you?
  • "Over the following six months they overran much of western Germany"
Done. Although that was deliberate. Surely they overran all of western Germany? (Or near enough. Plus parts of southern and central Germany.)
  • for "although this was in breach of the Hague Conventions" I would expect a more specialised source than Briddiscombe on the legality of reprisals under the law of armed conflict as it applied at the time. Briddiscombe is fine for the description of the manual, but the legal issue needs a legal source
I will see what I can find and get back to you.
  • "than any other Canadian unitformation" in the Commonwealth context a corps, division or brigade is a formation, a battalion is a unit
Done.
  • in general, I think there is an over-reliance on Briddiscombe for discussion of laws of armed conflict issues in the context section, these matters should be cited to specialist law of armed conflict literature, in preference to a book on the Nazi resistance to invasion, regardless of its obviously academic status
Biddiscombe seems a reliable enough source to me - [2] - and this work was his PhD thesis at LSE - [3] - so it will have received a good kicking.
I'm not saying it is unreliable, just that a better source would be preferred on the laws of armed conflict issues. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:47, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Umm. Well I will dig into the sources Biddiscombe uses to support this and see what I can find. Gog the Mild (talk) 02:08, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The big advantage of Biddiscombe is that he is explicitly discussing the laws of armed conflict as they applied to this and similar incidents. It's fairly difficult to apply more general sources here, given that the laws of armed conflict as they applied in World War II were complex and not always at all sensible (for instance, it appears to have perfectly legal to area bomb cities directly targeting civilians as long as the city was protected by any anti-aircraft defences - this wasn't outlawed until after the war). Nick-D (talk) 04:47, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've done a bit of a search for sources, and haven't been able to find anything comprehensive on the state of play in WWII, so I'm dropping this one. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:17, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lake Superior Regiment (Motor)→1st Battalion, The Lake Superior Regiment (Motor)
Done.
  • "The paratroopers repelled an attack by the Lake Superior Regiment"→"The paratroopers repelled an attack by the 1st Battalion, The Lake Superior Regiment (Motor)"
Done.
  • resumption of the attack by the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders→resumption of the attack by the 1st Battalion, The Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders (Princess Louise's)

Done

  • "Vokes' executive officer" generally this would mean his GSO1 (head of the operations staff), I assume we are talking about whomever "Mac" was?
That was my assumption, but I am using the nomenclature of the source.
It's just a bit odd, because XOs weren't a thing in Commonwealth armies (I think they were in the US Army). Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:47, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
We had an edit conflict. I have rephrased and resourced. Hopefully it is now both more accurate and easier to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 02:05, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Algonquin Regiment→1st Battalion, The Algonquin Regiment, also, were these battalions all part of the same brigade, if so, which one?
Done.
I believe so. I will check. Why? Because that should be mentioned if so?
Yes, if they were all part of the one brigade I would say so. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:47, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It turns out that they weren't, but I have included details of the main divisional components, largely via footnotes. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:48, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • who is Mark Zuehlk? historian/author?
Oops. Added
  • "the appeal against histhe death sentence"
Done. (But see above under similar point from Nick.
  • there are a couple of 13-digit ISBNs with missing hyphens
Replaced with what it actually says in the books.

That's all I have. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:53, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Peacemaker67. Thanks, that is great. More sloppiness than usual from me, so thanks for being patient with it. All points addressed; a couple I need to research and come back on. Gog the Mild (talk) 01:21, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've looked for sources on the one outstanding point, and haven't been able to find anything much, so I'm moving to support. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:17, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Reidgreg[edit]

A little copy edit from a fresh set of eyes:

Done. Always something new to learn from the MoS.
There's a lot of style variance on that in English; sometimes the final s is written and not pronounced, sometimes it's pronounced and not written. MOS includes it for consistency.
  • Other soldiers fanned out down side streets, throwing phosphorus grenades or improvised Molotov cocktails made from petrol containers into buildings. Could "made from petrol containers" be parentheisized or struck? Or would it work any better as: throwing phosophorous grenades or petrol containers, improvised into Molotov cocktails, into buildings. Come to think of it, that should probably be and rather than or if the soldiers collectively threw both kinds of devices.
What is the objection? Striking it loses the information that what was being thrown was very considerably nastier than a "standard" Molotov cocktail. Your rephrasing, forgive me, to my eye reads clunkily. Happy to rephrase some other way, but it would be nice to know why. "or" changed to 'and'. Although I and a little unsure that "other soldiers" is collective.
Would 'In the side streets, Canadian soldiers threw petrol containers into buildings and ignited them with phosphorus grenades.' work?
I don't think there's anything grammatically wrong with it, I just felt that it might be a bit much to digest and thought there might be potential to make it simpler or clearer. The object of the dependent clause phosphorus grenades or improvised Molotov cocktails made from petrol containers is a bit long and creates a lot of separation between throwing and into buildings, and some readers might pause at its construction. The alternative you suggested is much better (I might strike Canadian as assumed). From the original phrasing, I'd thought that the petrol containers had their own improvised ignition device and acted on their own as Molotov cocktails; the new phrasing is clearer and makes more sense. – Reidgreg (talk) 16:16, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Reidgreg Apologies if I am getting touchy. Now that you point it out, even a slow-wit such as myself can see the over long dependent clause. And I was certainly assuming more knowledge of the mechanics of mid-century military arson in a reader than was reasonable. Thanks for poking at it. Done. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:45, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No need; it is my obligation to explain why a change would be an improvement. I had a laugh at mechanics of mid-century military arson (nice alliteration). Hope you are feeling better.
Thanks Reidgreg. You should see my actual poetry. I am, I think, fairly phlegmatic about the ACR/FAC process; but as the first article I wrote I suspect that I am overprotective about this one. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:11, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Brockhaus Enzyklopaedie, estimates the destruction to be as high as 90 percent. Lose the comma and change: be → have been.
Grr. Thank you. Done.

That's all I noticed that hasn't already been mentioned, above. Thanks again for this great article! – Reidgreg (talk) 21:42, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Reidgreg. As you know, I always feel happier when you have looked over an article. Your points above addressed, with a query against the second. Gog the Mild (talk) 02:04, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from SnowFire[edit]

This isn't a full review, just two quick grammar nits.

"In the event the village was spared."

Probably caught up in editing, but this is a sentence fragment that got cut off somewhere.

  • No. It has always been like that, and looks fine to me. However, I have changed the preceding full stop to a semi colon. Does that address your concern?
No, it doesn't, but I'm not sure what the sense of the sentence is, so I'm afraid to fix it myself. A semicolon is equivalent to a full stop, so this is still a fragment. This sets up a hypothetical situation but doesn't resolve it (Conditional sentence). It's like saying "If I went to the laundry." It's unfinished; it needs to be something like "If I went to the laundry, I would retrieve my clothes." So - what happened? Was Garrel spared? If so, I would rephrase along the lines of
... the battalion commander, Wigle's brother-in-law, ordered that "every building which did not show a white flag be fired". Regardless, the village was ultimately spared.
"In the event" replaced with 'Regardless,'.
(talk page stalker) FYI, my dictionary says "in the event" is chiefly British in use. I can see someone misreading that as "In the event that the village was spared" and expect more to follow. North Americans might say "as it turned out", which has the potential to be confusing as well. Is "as it transpired/occurred/happened" any better? "Regardless" works but might seem a little dismissive. My initial reading was that, while perhaps not every building showed a white flag (the record being unspecific on this), that no broad punitive action was taken; also, that the soldiers were put on high alert but didn't meet opposition. – Reidgreg (talk) 04:30, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Reidgreg, I was puzzled as to why SnowFire wanted me to change the sentence in a way which didn't seem to change its meaning but seemed to me to be clumsier. As Canadian English is not my strong suit I made the change, but now I understand why. The original is unambiguous in British English, but clearly doesn't travel well. How about 'Before it could be carried out the order was countermanded and the village was spared.'? Gog the Mild (talk) 12:35, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, if that's what the sources say that happened, then yes. I'd hope most Canadians would have understood the original, but for an international readership some would probably have a minor stumble at it. – Reidgreg (talk) 13:10, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It is. I was trying to be succinct, but as you say there is an international audience, so it needs spelling out. Done. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:39, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There was no investigation by Canadian authorities of the damage or the civilian casualties. In 2010, the historian Mark Zuehlke wrote, "No evidence of a deliberate cover up exists."

This isn't responsive to the previous sentence. "Didn't bother to investigate" is different from "investigated, but then buried or modified the report." Needs clarification for what Zuehlke was responding to, or else a comment from a historian on the general lack of interest in investigating, or else actual claims a cover-up happened. SnowFire (talk) 16:57, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Again I am afraid that I am missing your point. The second sentence you quote isn't especially meant to be responsive to the first; no more does the first sentence you quote respond to the one preceding it. I am aware that the two you quote are communicating different things. I could add to the Zuehlke sentence 'In 2010, referring to the Friesoythe incident the historian Mark Zuehlke wrote, "No evidence of a deliberate cover up exists.' but I don't want to as I consider it to be clearly implied. Apologies if I am being slow, but could you elaborate your concern?
  • Nothing in the article even raises the possibility of a cover-up, so it's jarring to see a historian saying there's no evidence of one. Who was alleging this to begin with? What is this responding to in the article? It's as if the sentence was:
In 2010, referring to the Friesoythe incident, the historian Mark Zuehlke wrote, "No evidence that the 4th Canadian Armoured was actually the British Guards Armoured Division wearing Canadian uniforms exists."
Wait, what? Were we supposed to think that was a possibility in the first place? Zuehlke needs some clarification here - either add in who alleged a cover-up, or clarify what Zuehlke meant. (That there was no malice in not investigating the matter, I suppose?) . SnowFire (talk) 19:30, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Understood. (I think.) It is a couple of years since I wrote that, but rereading Zuehlke he is responding directly to the official history's summary. (Much as you had surmised might be the case.) So I have reworded it and moved it to immediately after this in the article. Better?
@SnowFire: Further responses above. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:22, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Anythingyouwant[edit]

  • The lead says, "During the fighting the battalion's commander was killed by a German soldier and it was rumoured that he had been killed by a civilian" (emphasis added). Should this "and" be a "but"? Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:44, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weell. I could argue it both ways, but frankly, I am not sure it is that important. I have changed to "but", and added "incorrectly".
  • The lead says the town was "substantially destroyed." Many readers will assume that means the town's population was substantially destroyed. This is a key point, so the lead ought to be and could be explicit about it without saying much at all. For example, the town's buildings were substantially destroyed leaving X former inhabitants as refugees. Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:44, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but I just don't see how this can be, reasonably, misread. The text reads "it was substantially destroyed"; why might a reader think that that involved any loss of life? If it weren't clear enough, it is in the context of "ordered that the town be razed ... and it was substantially destroyed" which to my reading makes it even clearer. Could you elaborate on how you think "Many readers will assume that means the town's population was substantially destroyed"?
Well, if you raze a house, it's kind of significant whether anyone was inside. Hiroshima and Dresden were razed, and a lot of people got killed as a result. The body of this article says, "During the fighting around Friesoythe and its aftermath, ten civilians from the town" were killed. Presumably that includes both the fight to take the town plus the subsequent action to raze it. This sort of info would be very relevant in the lead regardless of whether it was clearing up any misimpression, in order to help put this incident in proper perspective, and/but I do think it also clears up a potential misimpression because if Godzilla were to step on just about any town in the world, a lot of people would be killed, whereas a lot of people were not killed during this razing (perhaps because the houses were cleared before they were razed or because most inhabitants had already evacuated, or whatever). Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:16, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Anythingyouwant: OK. Adding something on civilian losses to the lead seems reasonable. But bear in mind that it is not known how any of them died. They could have been killed in the first attack; during the second; during the razing; some or all may have been executed by the German paratroopers; some may have died of natural causes. I have tweaked the lead. And tweaked the paragraphing while I was there. See what you think. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:10, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lead says, "There has been no investigation by Canadian authorities of the event." Normally, a lead should avoid saying what has not happened, or what has not been done, or what has not been said, because such things are always infinitely numerous and picking them out requires judgment and opinion. It would be much better to say something like, X called for an investigation by Canadian authorities but to no avail. Otherwise, it just sounds like a Wikipedia editor thinks an investigation might be wise, or should have been done. Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:55, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. Removed.
  • The lead paragraph is kind of long. I would suggest inserting a new sentence after the first sentence, and then breaking off the rest into a new paragraph. The new sentence could briefly say why the event was (or is) noteworthy, e.g. this was one of only X towns known to have been razed by Canadian (or allied) troops during that year.
It is only seven short to medium length sentences long. However, happy to split it, which I have done. I can't add the text you suggest as it is not in the main article. And it's not there because I don't have a source which says that. If you have one then sharing it would be much appreciated.
This isn’t an area in which I have expertise. However, at the article talk page User:Nick-D said “while it was unusually cold-blooded, similar events occured across Germany....” Something like that would be great in the lead paragraph if it can be backed up by a reliable source. Of course, without a reliable source, it should not go in. Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:11, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Anythingyouwant: Sorry, missed this. Yes, the article details at least a couple of others. There was Sogel for a start, the Americans were bad for this, especially Patton (mentioned) and the French worse. So I have added a sentence to the lead. And re-tweaked the paragraphs! Gog the Mild (talk) 23:22, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Anythingyouwant (talk) 07:00, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Anythingyouwant: Many thanks for taking a look at this. Your points above all addressed, a couple with queries. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:27, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
My pleasure, cheers. Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:11, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
My concerns have been persuasively addressed, flaws in the article have been redressed, and the opposite of a dressing-down is appropriate: I support FA status for this article. Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:29, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Query for the coordinators[edit]

@FAC coordinators: Hi all. I was wondering if I could have permission to post another nomination. I am painfully aware that this one hasn't attracted a character's worth of review for a month, so if your view is that I should be scaring up further reviewers for here, rather than thinking about my next one, I would entirely understand. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:55, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gog, I think we're at a stage where it'd be fair for you to start another. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:39, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Nick-D, Reidgreg, and SnowFire:, did you have anything to add? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:54, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing to add from me; my lack of a support vote is to avoid bias as I've advised on this article for a while. – Reidgreg (talk) 16:16, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I was just doing passing grammar nits - as noted that was not a review, and my later silence should not be taken as code for "I disapprove but don't want to say so." If there is a desire from the coordinators for another pair of eyes on some specific aspect I can take a look, but otherwise happy to stand back and let the article presumably be promoted. SnowFire (talk) 02:46, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Ian Rose: note that Nick hasn't edited since 26 December. Gog the Mild (talk) 00:17, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, he's out of town, it was really a courtesy ping. I'll aim to go through this one again sometime tonight my time. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:06, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Looking to promote but I think we can improve the opening...
The Razing of Friesoythe took place on 14 April 1945 during the Western Allies' invasion of Germany towards the end of World War II. -- Bit of a mouthful but gets the key points across so okay.
In mid-April the 4th Canadian (Armoured) Division, advancing into north-west Germany, attacked the German-held town of Friesoythe. -- With this we've mentioned German(y) three times in two sentences, I think we can safely lose "advancing into north-west Germany".
"advancing into north-west Germany" chopped.
The Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders of Canada captured the town. -- Nothing wrong with this per se but then...
During the fighting the battalion's commander was killed by a German soldier; but it was incorrectly rumoured... -- What battalion? According to the link the Argylls is a regiment. Also no need for a semi-colon before the "but" -- a comma would do fine, perhaps even nothing at all.
I'm assuming that the regiment/battalion query is rhetorical. (Let me know if not.) I have amended the opening paragraph to both, I think, flow better and cover this point. If that doesn't work for you, how about if I replace "the battalion's commander" with 'the Argylls' commander'. Would that be comprehensible to a reader without '(the Argylls)' being inserted after the battalions first mention in the previous sentence? (The mini-paragraphed lead happened during FAC.)
Semi colon removed. It accreted during the FAC process.
Tks Gog, yeah we needed to identify the Argylls as a battalion because we hadn't when it was first mentioned (you have now, tks) and anyone hovering over the link would have seen it identified as a regiment ("regiment" means different things in different armies but it's not synonymous with "battalion" in my experience). Anyway it's all good now AFAIC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:06, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:59, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Ian. Your points above all addressed. One with a query. (I hope that my comment re Nick wasn't taken as a nag, it wasn't intended as.) Gog the Mild (talk) 14:33, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all... :-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:06, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Tim riley[edit]

A place-marker. I'll be back with comments shortly if the review is still open. Tim riley talk 20:48, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to support. A few very minor quibbles:

  • Allied tactics
  • You and I, Gog, often agree to differ over what should and shouldn't have Wiki-links, but I really do think linking "Canadian formation" is decidedly WP:OVERLINK; in fact if I were Canadian I'd be a bit miffed to think my country was supposed to need a blue link, when "British" and "German" don't (and they certainly don't).
I am definitely an opponent of overlinking, and if you look at my responses to CPA-5 - the first reviewer, bless them, above - you will see that I was attempting to hold some sort of line. They requested the link for Canadian - the third bullet point of the page. I have unlinked it, and hopefully this will not cause CPA-5 to withdraw their support.
It's non-negotiable, really. The MoS (WP:OL) specifically says don't link major countries. Any editor maintaining that Canada is not a major country (I don't think Donald Trump edits Wikipedia – he's not smart enough) should take it up with Mr Trudeau. Tim riley talk 23:22, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Battle for Sögel
  • "a number of houses in the centre of Sögel" – "a number of" is a woolly phrase, that tells your readers nothing very much. A few? A lot? Some?
I entirely agree Tim, and would urge you to complain to the editors of the Official History of the Canadian Army in the Second World War from which it is quoted. Damn slippery folk these military historians. If you suspect that this is a euphemism for "we blasted the hell out of the centre of the town, but no hard feelings, eh?", then I couldn't possibly comment.
Ah! Point taken. Tim riley talk 23:22, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Destruction of Friesoythe
  • "The author Max Hastings" – second time we've been introduced to him and his job title
The dangers of dynamic editing. Fixed.
  • Civilian casualties and damage
  • I don't feel in the least strongly about it, but "percent" (twice) is, I think, more usually given as "per cent" in BrE.
You are no doubt correct. Changed.
  • Aftermath
  • The Lincoln and Welland Regiment – linked twice in successive sentences.
One can have too much of a good thing? For a total of three in the main article, and I have been inconsistent in capitalising their name. Corrected.
  • "panzerfaust" – surely needs a capital letter?
Opinion is divided, but much to my surprise an initial capitalisation seems to be favoured by scholars. (If not by the source from which I drew the account.) So changed.
  • Post-war
  • "the death sentence of convicted German war criminal Kurt Meyer" – clunky false title.
Ah. Changed to "Kurt Meyer, a convicted German war criminal". Better?
Much. Tim riley talk 23:22, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "an attempt at a cover up" – the OED hyphenates the noun "cover-up"
I swear that the editors of the OED get some sort of thrill out of using hyphens. Dashed.

Nothing of any great consequence there. A sorry tale, scrupulously told. Well referenced and illustrated, carefully balanced and well proportioned. Happy to add my support. Tim riley talk 21:36, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for dropping by Tim. A sad tale indeed. If this was a normal fighting day for a Canadian division, one gets some idea of how dire war is. Your comments addressed. Amazing how much slop gets through to such a late stage. And thank you for your generous words. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:07, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Razing_of_Friesoythe/archive1&oldid=933353062"