Talk:Goodbyeee

Old trivia regarding this episode?

Off the top of my head, I seem to remember seeing a bit a trivia regarding this episode, that mentioned that after filming the final scene (going over the top), Rowan Atkinson proclaimed that he would not be able to do it a second time (the quote was something along the lines: "I'm sorry, but that was terrible". Could anyone with a bit more knowledge on the production of series enlighten me if this was true or not? KDLarsen 06:29, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Just added (with the help of someone else, who I hope I didn't step on too much in edit conflict!) a citation for Tony Robinson recalling the scene in one of those interminable list shows (just on a few minutes ago).

However, there's more: I clearly remember at the time a WWI veteran wrote to Points of View to thank the BBC for such a wonderfully poignant and respectful ending to the series -- and one broadcast so close to Remembrance Sunday as well! Probably can't cite that, but it's interesting to note here... Dave-ros 23:05, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

The splinter, and Baldrick's cunning plan

I've always understood the splinter, which Baldrick sees on the ladder, to be completely unrelated to his final cunning plan. The joke is that Baldrick can be concerned about such a minor and mundane cause of injury, when he is about to face certain death. However, a lot of people seem to associate this with the 'cunning plan' which Baldrick has a moment later. Notably, the laugh for the splinter comes before Baldrick's plan is mentioned, thus indicating it is a joke in its own right. While it is entirely possible that Baldrick could have come up with a plan involving it, it isn't elaborated upon, as Blackadder tells him his plan will have to wait. Therefore I have removed mention of it from that section, and ask that it not be put back without verification. 91.109.189.130 (talk) 00:14, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Cold war quote

When I hear Blackadder's description of war prevention involving "2 super blocs" with "2 vast opposing armies each acting as each-other's deterrent," a plan that "was bollocks," I immediately think that this is, arguably, a similar scenario for the situation in the Cold War and that it was told with a hint of irony, as it is arguable that this description fits the method by which a nuclear war was avoided. I also feel that it is connected quite well because of the fact that it was aired on November 2nd 1989, which was nine days before Armistice Day, but also barely a week before the Fall of the Berlin Wall, which was considered to have been the final stage of the Cold War before its official end. I wondered if anyone has drawn a similar conclusion? Grieferhate (talk) 17:35, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't think there was any specific intent to reference the cold war. There are just superificial similarities between the cold war and the situation before World War I. Both times, war was supposed to be prevented by the threat of mutually assured destruction. Anyway, the main deterrent during the cold war was nuclear weapons rather than the opposing armies. Fricasso (talk) 16:40, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

No entry for the song?

Surely the WWI song "Goodbye-ee" is more significant than an episode of a television series. But it doesn't have a Wikipedia entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.10.198.101 (talk) 20:00, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Title ellipsis

As a recent editor noted, it only seems to be spelt like this on Wikipedia. I've checked episode title screen, plus other web sources, and it doesn't have the ellipsis. I'm going to ask for it to be moved, I think. Bob talk 21:58, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Ending

The production section contained this line:

It is left ambiguous as to whether the protagonists survive, although the part of the script describing how the characters rush over the edge of the trench also states that "They will not get far".

which IMO is (a) unsourced and (b) bollocks. The ending shows (see also the original ending, which was shown in a documentary that is now on Youtube) the protagonists getting up and - after a few feet - falling down under German fire.

I would propose to keep this sentence out.

Cheers, 77.248.187.160 (talk) 18:31, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

References to episode

• Season 4, Episode 5 of That Mitchell and Webb Look ends with David Mitchell reflecting on the last episode of Blackadder Goes Forth, confusing the big push for a joke that the audience didn't find funny. Co-star Robert Webb explains the poignant ending, and the two decide to end their comedy series on a somber tone.

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Goodbyeee/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: TBrandley (talk · contribs) 23:58, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

• Infobox: The non-free rationale needs to be expanded or removed for WP:NFCC, how does it help the reader understand the topic? It doesn't so removed, unless there is a big reason
  • The poppy image is definitely crucial, but I suppose the one in the infobox doesn't explain much. Maybe there is a better frame that could be used, such as Blackadder pretending to be mad. Removed for now.
• Lede: Link sitcom to television comedy instead per WP:OVERLINK
  • Done.
• Lede: Where is the episode plot summary in the lede per WP:LEDE
  • Have expanded a bit.
• Production: Move image to right side for MOS:IMAGELOCATION
  • Done, and moved poppy image to "Themes".
• Themes: "Blackadder, Baldrick and George discuss the futility of war—George mentions the Christmas truce of 1914, in which the belligerents stopped fighting to play football—and their impending fate. Death and bereavement are prominent in the episode: George lists the members of the "Trinity Tiddlers", the group that he signed up with, and realises that he is the only one of them still alive; this is paralleled in Baldrick's pets, who have all died." whole paragraph has no references as such
  • Is this not seen as citing the episode itself, as with the plot summary? It describes, while the next paragraph analyses. I have removed "Death and bereavement are prominent in the episode:", to allow the reader to draw their own conclusions.
• Reception: The episode's airing and ratings need to be mentioned in reception, for info and WP:LEDE
  • Unfortunately, programmes which aired in Britain in the 80s do not have readily available viewing figures from BARB or the BBC. I have added a bit about the broadcast date and time to the beginning.
• References: TV.com and worldwar1.com are not a high-quality sources, and needs to be replaced
  • Both removed.
• References: Don't use mixed date formats
  • Fixed.
• References: Linking problems
  • Have tried to fix, unsure if any remain.

TBrandley 04:08, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Addressed inline. ajmint (talk•edits) 08:57, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Great. Article looks good now. Pass. Well done! TBrandley 16:22, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Lost citation?

In the Production section, citation number 7 is used to support the statement, "Tim McInnerny did not know about these changes before the episode aired, and has said that he found the ending particularly emotional." I can't find anything in the source referring to this. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 08:02, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Today's Featured Article!

Well, huzzah and hurrah! God Save the King, Rule Britannia, and Boo Sucks the Hairy Hun! Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:36, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

One-sided, minority historical view presented in article

The section "Themes" contains a minority, revisionist historical viewpoint about the episode's prominent theme, i.e. the senselessness in a significant number of the war's casualties. The revisionist viewpoint contends that the enormous casualties were largely inevitable ("[Haig] was commanding the largest British army ever. Whatever he did you ended up with lots and lots of casualties."). It is supported in the text by a single historian's work, Gary Sheffield's. (Note that the Wikipedia article on Sheffield himself has been tagged for relying "on references to primary sources.") The entry on "Goodbyeee" should either do away with the the whole section or, preferably, include other historians' viewpoints that support the theme emphasized in Blackadder's last episode. -The Gnome (talk) 09:53, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

• The Blackadder approach to WW1 history has been controversial recently. For example, see:

• Paxman: teaching history through Blackadder is 'stupid'
• Blackadder star Sir Tony Robinson in Michael Gove WW1 row
• Is Blackadder bad for First World War history?

The latter link contains commentary by a variety of historians on the issue including "For at least the past 15 years, no serious military historian (of any political persuasion) has entertained the ‘lions led by donkeys’ caricature...". It doesn't seem that these comments are about the last episode in particular though so the best place for our coverage is Blackadder Goes Forth#Legacy. Andrew (talk) 13:23, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

I suspect "The Gnome" may be disappointed when he suggests finding a historian "that support(s) the theme emphasized in Blackadder". Black Adder is a comedic and satiric piece of fiction that bore very little resemblance to actual events - see below. Philpott's book has a couple of dozen pages devoted to the public consciousness of the Battle of the Somme in particular and the First World War in general - too much to repeat here - but suffice to say Black Adder is a part of it, and has done much to distort understanding of the experience of the front line Tommy. Remarkably so, and thus finding military historians to support the theme may not be an easy chore, though I am sure many historians would endorse the program as entertainment.96.51.198.182 (talk) 13:55, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

I now understand that I made two errors in one go: (1) I edited the day's Featured Article, which is text that every editor and his doberman in Wikipedia focuses on, a state of things not conducive to productive or even fair debate; and (2) I edited an article connected to the First World War on Remembrance Day, a date that tends to amplify emotions across the spectrum of sentiments!

As for the assertion that I may be "disappointed" (a term that is mildly suggestive of bias on my part) in trying to find historians that "support the theme emphasized in Blackadder" in general, and "Goodbyeee" in particular, one has only to look up my edit. The edit was done after a few minutes of looking up a few sources, from my own library, and gangling up the net. It certainly does look like containing more than "one historian." But I'm not making the same mistake twice. Or two mistakes twice! Cheers to all. -The Gnome (talk) 16:08, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

An interesting effort, but ultimately not to the point of this particular show. Other references cited actually list the Blackadder series by name, as pointed out below. Agree that the theme of "purposeless waste" is at odds with historical research of the last many years, but it may be hard to convince other editors of that, or that it belongs in this article without directly linking to other commentary on the program itself.131.137.245.207 (talk) 17:15, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for grading my "effort" as "interesting." -The Gnome (talk) 17:59, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Historical view

I added this yesterday, and it was summarily erased, in contravention of WP policy:

---

Historians of the First World War have taken a different view. William Philpott referred to the series, by name, as "bathetic" and felt it part of a "post-facto generalisation of the nature of their war" which even veterans of the conflict were "sucked in" by. In other words, the First World War soldier had become a "victim" in the public consciousness, a circumstance which was at odds with the perceived historical record. The impact of Black Adder on the public consciousness was so pervasive that Gordon Corrigan referenced it in his book cover copy when he published his book "Mud, Blood, and Poppycock," which was an attempt to "dispel various myths" about the war. According to the book's ad copy: "The popular view of the First World War remains that of BLACKADDER: incompetent generals sending brave soldiers to their deaths...Gordon Corrigan's brilliant, witty history reveals how out of touch we have become with the soldiers of 1914-18. They simply would not recognize the way their generation is depicted on TV..."

---

The material is cited. This is not a "minority view" but only the two historians I could find - mainstream military historians - that happened to mention the series by name. In military historical circles, the series is infamous for setting back the cause of understanding the First World War experience, due to the nature of the presentation (comedic, satiric, entertainment vice education, etc.) It's unfortunate that Wikipedia is using the article as a "Featured Article" on Remembrance Day as this only furthers the confusion as to what Black Adder actually is - an entertainment piece that bears little relation to how First World War soldiers thought about themselves.96.51.198.182 (talk) 13:28, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Further to this, Martin Marix Evans refers to "(t)he facile triviality of Oh What A Lovely War!" in his book Somme 1914-18, calling it "as useless and as patronising as gung-ho nationalism," though he does not refer to the Black Adder series. Philpott's book actually goes into great detail. I get the feeling there is a desire to trivialize this resistance to the series because of comments by British politicians over the matter, but the if one can separate the political element from the history, the latter argument does have merit. I think the lack of documentation (and the appearance of a "minority" view is simply that relatively few historians feel the matter worthy of attention in print. But Corrigan, Philpott and Evans should be at least weighty enough to warrant a mention here.96.51.198.182 (talk) 13:37, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Why is this material being reverted? According to the policy that Ian Rose cited: "Revert an edit if it is not an improvement, and it cannot be immediately fixed by refinement. Consider reverting only when necessary. BRD does not encourage reverting, but recognizes that reverts will happen. When reverting, be specific about your reasons in the edit summary and use links if needed." I don't see any specific reasons for excluding this material. It is clearly pertinent.96.51.198.182 (talk) 13:59, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I was in the middle of responding to The Gnome above when I was edit conflicted by the intervening comments. In a way I'm glad because it seems to emphasise my point, which I'll now present as I first wrote it:

Speaking as a reviewer at the article's FAC, and as someone who has an interest from the historical perspective as well as the media angle, I found it pretty balanced and I can only assume others taking part in the nomination (and the preceding Peer Review) did as well. The article spends a fair bit of time discussing the show's attitude to the war and the generals, and then offers a contrasting view. To follow that with a long spiel re-emphasising the original viewpoint, particularly when, as far as I could see, none of it dealt specifically with the episode or even the show in general, seems to unbalance things. By the way, I'm not sure how highlighting deficiencies in Wikipedia's article on Sheffield is supposed to raise doubts on his standing as an historian, if that indeed was the point of the statement. Anyway, I'd be interested to hear other editors' thoughts... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:05, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Okay, we now have an anonymous editor adding further material that seems to buttress the viewpoint that The Gnome objects to. The upshot is that I would still say we have a reasonable balance in the article as it is. I'd like to spend more time on the discussion now but it's getting late where I am... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:05, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

The problem is with "balance" in the Reception section. Historians hate the series because it skews perception of the war. There is no mention of this at all in the article as it stood before my edit. The fact that this is a featured article, on Remembrance Day, is further proof of how much Blackadder has pushed into the public consciousness as a viable telling of the story of the First World War! The article as you would have it is one of a universally acclaimed television show, which is not the case at all. There are criticisms and it is only fair they be mentioned - that is what a Reception section is for!96.51.198.182 (talk) 14:14, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Ho-hum. Have you read the whole article, my anonymous friend? Of course such criticisms were mentioned in the article before your edit-- in the Themes section, the very part The Gnome was objecting to -- hence it seems like pushing a barrow to go over the same territory again in the Reception section. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:27, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Please use civility on the Talk page. I read the entire article. The Themes section is inaccurate and mis-leading. The "lions led by donkeys" comment was fabricated by Alan Clark, one of many myths perpetuated by shows like Blackadder. I found the article very poorly balanced, and the Themes section does not mention the work of mainstream historians like Corrigan and Philpott at all - these gentlemen mention Blackadded by name. Regardless, it makes no sense not to include them in the Reception section, either in addition to Themes or by moving that material there - because as it was, the Reception section simply gives the uncritical view that Blackadder is without criticism. It most certainly is not, as per the cited examples in the historical community. This may be a bore to you, my learned friend, but among historians, I humbly submit it is indeed something of a point of contention.96.51.198.182 (talk) 14:49, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

I have been gnoming a bit. Thank you, IP, for the edit summary indicating that they are useful. I have had this article on my W/L for over a year so I am not new to the article. I have removed the entire Corrigan quote, because it was very likely not Corrigan who actually wrote it. I think we are all familiar with book jacket blurbs. In any event I feel it can be perfectly easily accessed via the link given. The wording as it now stands gives a taste. I have read all the above comments. What to do? I have attempted to precis it as much as poss, but I am aware that this issue has been touched on earlier in the article, including the Sheffield ref. It really deserves to be placed in a completely new article, discussing this at length, but the present war and culture "article" is but a dreary list of films, plays etc. There has been a dawning awareness among some historians that the strategy and tactics of especially the British and Commonwealth armies evolved strongly, especially during the final offensives in the summer and autumn of 18. The limiting factor was technology, especially communications. This has been noted by the late Richard Holmes in his excellent book Tommy (2004). I am not such a fan of Corrigan. I hope we can resolve this amicably gents. Cheers all! Irondome (talk) 16:46, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Irondomes that we should be able to resolve this amicably -- and without misleading accusations of incivility. Discussion and consensus among several editors is what we want to see. I'd argue that material on its historical accuracy should be kept together, in the Themes section, where it is first mentioned, to keep the flow of the article. This is about a comedy program, not a documentary, and finishing with a further discussion on its representation of history continues, I suggest, to unbalance the article. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 20:55, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Then I would support moving the section in its current form, to "themes". It could do with pruning a bit more too, i'm thinking Irondome (talk) 21:03, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

You keep pushing your point of view, calling for the deletion of comments that run counter to your POV, and calling it 'balancing'. I honestly don't understand what it is you think you are trying to achieve, but perhaps I'm not explaining myself well. William Philpott, Gordon Corrigan, Martin Marix Evans - to name just three historians that have been cited - clearly feel that Blackadder - whom they cite by name - is responsible for a major distortion of the way the public perceives the soldiers of the First World War. This is significant. In fact, it is so significant, editors of WP have showcased this article on Remembrance Day rather than selecting - for example - an article on military history. This piece of satirical comedy, for many, has come to stand in for actual history the same way that Jon Stewart in the United States now substitutes as a source of actual news. Again, this is significant. I'll reiterate - sweeping it all into Themes and out of Reception gives the impression the show has been received uncritically. That is emphatically not the case.96.51.198.182 (talk) 21:10, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Then we need a new section specifically covering this. Published historical criticism? Irondome (talk) 21:29, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) My point of view, as you call it Mr Anon (why not get a user name if you feel that passionate about contributing, by the way?) is in favour of presenting the best article possible on this TV comedy show, per my recommendations above. Perhaps I'm not explaining myself well but that means divorcing myself as much as possible from my perspective on history -- which for all you know might be very similar to your own -- and considering the show primarily, though not exclusively of course, as a show, hence placing historical points together in Themes. Or perhaps, as Irondome suggests, in a Historical Perspectives section or some such, though it did seem to fit well in Themes, and that seemed to be considered reasonable by a good many editors in the article's reviews. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:36, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

The series, and specifically this episode, has morphed into an arena for specific WW1 interpretations to be revisited. I dont think it can be taken in isolation as a mere comedy episode anymore. The Gove/Robinson spat, and its increasing mention in serious historical works, I think requires some kind of re-evaluation of it as a phenomena Irondome (talk) 21:49, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Sure, which is why I say “not exclusively” as a TV show. Again, balance should be the aim. I well remember when I first saw the article on 2001: A Space Odyssey on WP, and found the section on Scientific Accuracy was about as long as the rest of the article put together. The point had been missed, I thought. I’d still say the historical criticism grows naturally out of the Themes section and I’d be concerned about an Historical Criticism section growing out of proportion to the rest of the article, but in the interests of moving forward I wouldn’t object to trying it out if it collected relevant material that’s currently part of Reception and Themes. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:34, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Precisely Ian. It's getting the balance right. I think the material we have is more than adequate. If we limit ourselves to whats already been added, with a concise, maybe 150 word section, that may do the trick. I like the 2001 analogy :) Cheers mate Irondome (talk) 22:49, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

The series, and specifically this episode, has morphed into an arena for specific WW1 interpretations to be revisited. --Yes exactly, thank you.96.51.198.182 (talk) 13:05, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Please note 96, that I was not advocating any particular "side" in this interesting discussion. I was merely stating what appears to be a reality. Again I would echo Ian to strongly urge you to register and become a full member of the community. I'm sure you would be a useful addition. Cheers! Irondome (talk) 19:18, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

References

References

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Goodbyeee. 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/20090901051202/http://clioseye.sfasu.edu/Archives/Student%20Reviews%20Archives/BlackadderGoesForth.htm to http://clioseye.sfasu.edu/Archives/Student%20Reviews%20Archives/BlackadderGoesForth.htm

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 03:14, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

The poppy field

In the caption about the poppy field image, it says 'it was inspired by John McCrae's poem "In Flanders Fields".[22]' The reference for this is an American article, [2]

I have a problem with this. I think virtually every British person will say that the poppy field was shown because for us, the poppy is the symbol of remembrance, which we as a nation wear every 11 November. A lot of Americans I know are unaware of this tradition and the deep, deep place the poppy and poppy fields hold in our national psyche. Conversely, I don't think may people in the UK are aware of the poem that originally started the idea of the poppy as the symbol of remembrance. So I would guess that the scene was inspired by our use of the poppy as a symbol, not by the poem.

The thing is, I can't find a source for the creators saying this. The other thing is, what is the evidence the American author, Sara Baker, has for her assertion? She gives none, she just makes the bold statement. Why is it given credence here? As an American, she will know of the poem and perhaps she assumed that it was the inspiration. I don't believe it was, but unless she has proof that it was, her assertion should be given no more weight than mine and should be discarded. Maybe she is ignorant of the poppy symbolism here.

Here's a piece about the ending: [3]. It says

"“Someone then suggested taking out the colour, draining it out to black and white. And the production secretary said, ‘I know. We could have some poppies. I know where there’s a slide of poppies.’” Boden had always hoped to end on a poppy motif, and helped to select just the right still of bucolic peace, while someone from sound selected birdsong to complete the effect. Wadsworth recalls the first time he mixed between the drained battlefield and the poppy field, and says, “It was a Yes immediately – this was a moment.” So, Lloyd proudly says, “There were about five or six people contributing bits and when you put it all together, blow me down, it’s the most moving thing you’ve ever seen. It’s extraordinary and to this day I feel a fantastic privilege that I was allowed, as it were, in the room where something as wonderful as that happened.”"

No mention of the poem, because there was the unspoken language of the poppy with everyone involved. Please remove the unproven assertion that the poem was the inspiration. It was the inspiration for the adoption of the poppy as a symbol of remembrance, but it was not the inspiration for this choice of end shot. Indirectly, at several removes, yes, but not directly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.136.225.240 (talk) 20:38, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Goodbyeee. 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/20130226055055/http://www.radiotimes.com/episode/vc746/blackadder-goes-forth--series-4---6-plan-f---goodbyeee to http://www.radiotimes.com/episode/vc746/blackadder-goes-forth--series-4---6-plan-f---goodbyeee

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 07:23, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Goodbyeee. 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/20141031183111/http://newhistories.group.shef.ac.uk/wordpress/wordpress/haig-is-about-to-make-yet-another-gargantuan-effort-to-move-his-drinks-cabinet-six-inches-closer-to-berlin%E2%80%99-blackadder-goes-forth/ to http://newhistories.group.shef.ac.uk/wordpress/wordpress/haig-is-about-to-make-yet-another-gargantuan-effort-to-move-his-drinks-cabinet-six-inches-closer-to-berlin%E2%80%99-blackadder-goes-forth/

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 08:21, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

The causes of the First World War

I'm surprised the article doesn't mention this conversation: [4], which is one of the most famous Blackadder routines ever. Aren't FAs supposed to be complete and thorough? Could someone add mention of it to the article? Softlavender (talk) 11:40, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Is there a reputable book or website which specifically mentions that conversation? The "Themes" section is quite thorough on the anti-war themes of the programme. Bob talk 19:14, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

I haven't Googled for other mentions, but that link I posted is from a GCSE Modern World History site [5] by a much-published history scholar [6]. -- Softlavender (talk) 00:58, 22 July 2019 (UTC)