This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Military history: Technology / British / European / German / World War I This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces: /  Military science, technology, and theory task force British military history task force European military history task force German military history task force World War I task force New Zealand Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject New Zealand, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New Zealand and New Zealand-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New ZealandWikipedia:WikiProject New ZealandTemplate:WikiProject New ZealandNew Zealand articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Page in progress

fill in the first two headings. Keith-264 ( talk) 16:15, 15 March 2012 (UTC) reply

Added bibliography. Keith-264 ( talk) 12:46, 18 March 2012 (UTC) reply

• Lupfer,, T. (1981). The Dynamics of Doctrine: The Change in German Tactical Doctrine During the First World War. Fort Leavenworth: U. S. Army Command and General Staff College.{{ cite book}}: CS1 maint: extra punctuation ( link)

Also realised that using document titles has created headings with capitalisations where there shouldn't be any so will think about alterations to the other ones too. Keith-264 ( talk) 18:03, 2 December 2012 (UTC) reply

Your changes are an improvement on mine. I have just reworded "open warfare" in the lead to maneuver warfare - please adjust that if I have the wrong end of the stick. ( Hohum  ^@) 22:29, 6 December 2012 (UTC) reply

Just a slight change ("manoeuvre").;O) Keith-264 ( talk) 00:59, 7 December 2012 (UTC) reply

Fair enough. I think "another bloodbath like 1916" should be changed to less flowery prose. ( Hohum  ^@) 13:36, 8 December 2012 (UTC) reply

OK. Keith-264 ( talk) 16:06, 8 December 2012 (UTC) reply

Put a map in but buggered up the formatting. I think it's OK now. Keith-264 ( talk) 15:15, 29 January 2013 (UTC) reply

I've changed all the http's from http to https but notice that sometimes the address fails with https, if that happens, changing it back to http might help. Regards Keith-264 ( talk) 14:57, 12 September 2016 (UTC) reply

I would never normally even comment on grammar on Wikipedia but the wild misuse of commas in this article, often randomly interspersed in sentences with no pattern or reason, makes this long and otherwise excellent article extremely hard to read. I might tackle it myself, but it seems a gargantuan task and I don't understand how it was ever this bad. They literally seem to be included at random. I include one example:

'The first days of the British Arras offensive, saw another German defensive debacle similar to that at Verdun on 15 December 1916, despite an analysis of that failure being issued swiftly, which concluded that deep dug-outs in the front line and an absence of reserves for immediate counter-attacks, were the cause of the defeat.'

This is two sentences that have been joined together and sprinkled with commas, making it juddering and laborious to read. Its not just that there are too many commas, its that they are included in the middle of phrases. Its throughout the entire article. the example above should be something like: 'The first days of the British Arras offensive saw another German defensive debacle similar to that at Verdun on 15 December 1916. This was despite an analysis of that failure being issued swiftly, which concluded that deep dug-outs in the front line and an absence of reserves for immediate counter-attacks were the cause of the defeat.'— Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.21.177.242 ( talk) 10:59, 9 December 2021 (UTC) reply

Well, that's just your opinion, man (with thanks to the Dude). Wiki doesn't like brackets so some sentence parts (like subordinate clauses) get comma'd instead. I think that there's nothing wrong with your alternative, that a few more commas, wouldn't put right. If you are interested, I'll go through the article with you word-for-word because my prose style has developed quite a bit since I wrote it. Regards Keith-264 ( talk) 12:30, 9 December 2021 (UTC) reply

The whole article lacked of neutrality. Except for one there are only British or American authors. The article should also include the works of German and French authors Mr.Lovecraft ( talk) 09:02, 18 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Are British and US authors biased? Keith-264 ( talk) 09:15, 18 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Biased is perhaps the wrong word, but to focus only on British and American literature and ignore the French and German point of view is not neutral but one-sided.

So please stop removing the template or I`ll report you. Mr.Lovecraft ( talk) 10:06, 18 June 2024 (UTC) reply

This is English Wiki, many of the sources are derived from German and French writing and to assume that French and German authors have different views is ignorant, the definition of NNPOV. I suggest that you take the banner down unless you can find the bias you claim. Keith-264 ( talk) 10:12, 18 June 2024 (UTC) reply

First of all, it is up to you to prove that the references you used are derived from German or French sources. You must design the article so that it is neutral. If I were to write an article about a battle between Germany and France based solely on German sources, I can't say it's completely neutral. I and every other reader can only see that you used English-language literature.

Of course, German, French and Anglo-American authors have different points of view. If they all agreed on this, the research could be stopped. If you consider the article to be neutral, then it should be easy to substantiate it with German and French references that go d'accord with the reference you used. If you don't agree with me, we can always get a third opinion. Mr.Lovecraft ( talk) 11:03, 18 June 2024 (UTC) reply

I think that you're sticking your Wiki neck out; to assume that historians from one country come to different conclusions because of it is naive and I'm an Anglophone, hence writing on English wiki. I won't waste my time on you beyond predicting that the banner will linger for a decade then get removed. Keith-264 ( talk) 11:23, 18 June 2024 (UTC) reply

There is no need to feel being offended. I´m German, hence I´m writing on German wikipedia, but that does not mean that I only use and rely on German-speaking literature. Mr.Lovecraft ( talk) 11:55, 18 June 2024 (UTC) reply

How would you feel about promiscuous allegations of bias? I refer you to my earlier prediction. Keith-264 ( talk) 15:51, 18 June 2024 (UTC) reply

I didn´t blame you for anything. It was simply a statement. I told you if you don´t agree with me we can ask for a third opinion. And if it turns out that I was wrong, I'll be the first to accept it. Mr.Lovecraft ( talk) 12:42, 19 June 2024 (UTC) reply