Talk:Battle of France/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Maginot Line redux

I have pulled the below conversation out of the archive, as it still seems relevant.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 01:54, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Archived material

I recently made the same observation on the Dunkirk evacuation article; the French understood that the Maginot Line would be outflanked, the whole point of it was to force and funnel a German attack to the north into Belgium. Currently, the lede states the line was outflanked, but provides little context to that statement. The rest of the article does not really explain it either, other than stating that Gamelin recognised the Germans could not breakthrough there (something he had considered several years earlier).

As on the above article's talkpage, for the consideration of editors involved (as well as additional sources provided during the discussion), a sourced para wrote up for another article to provide background; something that could possibly be pulled apart and partially inserted, where needed.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 01:44, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

"During the 1930s, the French had constructed a series of fortifications—the Maginot Line—along their border with Germany. This line had been designed to deter a German invasion across the Franco-German border and funnel an attack into Belgium, which could then be met by the best divisions of the French Army. Thus, any future war would take place outside of French territory avoiding a repeat of the First World War. The main section of the Maginot Line ran from the Swiss border and ended at Longwy. The area immediately to the north, was covered by the heavily wooded Ardennes region. General Philippe Pétain declared the Ardennes to be "impenetrable" as long as "special provisions" were taken. If so, he believed that any enemy force emerging from the forest would be vulnerable to a pincer attack and destroyed. The French commander-in-chief, Maurice Gamelin, likewise believed the area to be of a limited threat, noting that it "never favoured large operations". French war games held in 1938, with the scenario of a German armoured attack through the Ardennes, left the military with the impression that the region was still largely impenetrable and that this, along with the obstacle of the Meuse River, would allow the French time to bring up troops into the area and thus counter such an attack. With this in mind, the area was left lightly defended. The German strategy, which became known as the Manstein Plan, was to concentrate large armoured forces in the Ardennes, who would then push towards the English Channel encircling the Allied armies in Belgium, cutting them off from supplies and reinforcements from France.

(above edited slightly) Not bad but I'd add something about it being a response to the demographic consequences of the Great War too, that economising on the defence on the common border was necessary to make it possible to concentrate a large part of the modern French forces in the north.Keith-264 (talk) 09:33, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

I think that is an excellent point. The above, prior to your edit, was wrote up only as a brief summary so was not aiming to go into mega detail, but this is the article where that kind of info should be. Outside of the Maginot Line, should the article discuss the fractured political state the French nation found itself in, of the low morale among the military (having sat around for the Phoney War) or of the civilians? I have to say Jackson's book is an eye opener on what France was like at the time.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 12:57, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

@KevinNinja: Pinging Kevin, as the one of the main contributors to the article and the one taking it through GA at the moment; your inout is very much welcomed. Thus far, kept this more as a sidebar than adding the GA review so not to derail somewhat although this discussion does touch on the broad coverage part of the GA spectrum and can only serve to further the article by providing some background context.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 18:13, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

References

• Jackson, Julian (2003). The Fall of France: The Nazi Invasion of 1940. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-192-80550-8. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• Kaufmann, J. E.; Kaufmann, H. W. (2007). Fortress France: The Maginot Line and French Defenses in World War II. Stackpole Military History Series. Stackpole Books. ISBN 978-0-811-73395-3. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• Roth, Ariel Ilan (2010). Leadership in International Relations: The Balance of Power and the Origins of World War II. Palgrave Macmillan. ISBN 978-0-230-10690-1. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• May, Ernest R. (2000). Strange Victory: Hitler's Conquest of France. London: I.B.Tauris. ISBN 978-1-85043-329-3.
• Roskill, S. W. (1957) [1954]. Butler, J. R. M (ed.). War at Sea. History of the Second World War United Kingdom Military Series. Vol. I (4th impr. ed.). London: HMSO. OCLC 881709135.

Template:Infobox military conflict

result – optional – this parameter may use one of two standard terms: "X victory" or "Inconclusive". The term used is for the "immediate" outcome of the "subject" conflict and should reflect what the sources say. In cases where the standard terms do not accurately describe the outcome, a link or note should be made to the section of the article where the result is discussed in detail (such as "See the Aftermath section"). Such a note can also be used in conjunction with the standard terms but should not be used to conceal an ambiguity in the "immediate" result. Do not introduce non-standard terms like "decisive", "marginal" or "tactical", or contradictory statements like "decisive tactical victory but strategic defeat". Omit this parameter altogether rather than engage in speculation about which side won or by how much.

• May I suggest that the page watchers read the new version of the result criteria; note that Decisive is as gone as Secretary Green. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 09:07, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Inferior German Army

The introduction/prelude suggests that the battle was almost unwinnable for the Germans, who were matched or out matched in every department, and had the disadvantage of having to attack fortified positions. I know that that is the narrative of the story -- the French only lost though incompetence of the highest order -- but I do wonder whether this material has been written from a very pro-German view point. I would suggest that those more knowledgeable review this material. Tuntable (talk) 06:09, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

No, the French did not lose through extreme incompetence but because of, at the time very reasonable, strategic decisions — in hindsight grave errors — which allowed a small group of German armour generals to fully exploit those area's in which they had a very real material advantage, such as a superior airforce and a superior training of elite infantry units. Indeed, those generals had to be pretty brilliant but there is an almost complete consensus that Guderian and Rommel were just that :o).--MWAK (talk) 20:47, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure that Frieser put it like that; the breakthrough at Sedan took everyone by surprise and it was several days before OKH and OKW were able to re-assert their authority, by when it was in the bag. The French preparations for war were logical reactions to objective reality and everything worked except for being wrongfooted at Sedan. Moltke the Elder had written that "A mistake in the original concentration of the army can hardly be rectified during the entire course of the campaign"; a pretty good explanation for the Allied defeat methinks. RegardsKeith-264 (talk) 22:45, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Good discussion. Much history written from one side or the other's viewpoint. OnBeyondZebrax • TALK 12:12, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

German tanks not tank vs tank capable ... this claim unrefd and dubious

The text says of Germans: "Although their tanks were not designed for tank-versus-tank combat". Panzer IV had 75 mm msin cannon. Seems like a tank vs tank main gun...Would agree if Germans only had lightweight Panzer Is with small calibre cannon, but 75 mm was big cannon in that era.OnBeyondZebrax • TALK 12:09, 6 January 2018 (UTC) OnBeyondZebrax • TALK 12:09, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

The 75 mm gun carried by 1940 vintage Pz IV was a low velocity howitzer.Keith-264 (talk) 13:13, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

True, but the PzKpfw III and the Czech tanks were specialised anti-tank vehicles. Perhaps "most of their tanks" is more accurate. Or "primarily designed".--MWAK (talk) 14:30, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes but the German and Skoda 37 mm guns were less effective than the 40 mm and 47 mm guns on British and French tanks.Keith-264 (talk) 14:56, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Still, those 37 mm guns were designed to defeat enemy armour.--MWAK (talk) 17:40, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Result

result – optional – this parameter may use one of two standard terms: "X victory" or "Inconclusive". The term used is for the "immediate" outcome of the "subject" conflict and should reflect what the sources say. In cases where the standard terms do not accurately describe the outcome, a link or note should be made to the section of the article where the result is discussed in detail (such as "See the Aftermath section"). Such a note can also be used in conjunction with the standard terms but should not be used to conceal an ambiguity in the "immediate" result. Do not introduce non-standard terms like "decisive", "marginal" or "tactical", or contradictory statements like "decisive tactical victory but strategic defeat". Omit this parameter altogether rather than engage in speculation about which side won or by how much.

• Decisive is as gone as Secretary Green. Keith-264 (talk) 22:46, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Oh and the otiose bullet points must go too. Keith-264 (talk) 22:49, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

No-one's objected to the revised Template:Infobox military conflict so any objections to removing the bullet points? Keith-264 (talk) 14:41, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

@KevinNinja: It's hardly vandalism to post the new criteria and give everyone weeks of notice.

Do not introduce non-standard terms like "decisive", "marginal" or "tactical", or contradictory statements like "decisive tactical victory but strategic defeat".'

Which bit of this is ambiguous?Keith-264 (talk) 09:38, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

You have no legitimacy with this topic anymore. No one objects the inclusion of "decisive" except for you. This time you literally reached a consensus with yourself. Comical. I believe you are just doing this to create tension, perhaps you like it or something. There have been essay-long discussions about this topic. You are the ONLY editor who has this view. There have been multiple consensuses reached, with you always being against. Any further vandalism should be forwarded to an admin discussion. KevinNinja (talk) 16:36, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

I also noticed that you waited a few months before everyone forgot about this non-issue, after the consensus was reached to include "decisive". If you believe that waiting for people to forget about the discussions the community had so you can assert your nonsensical historical biases will work, then I am afraid you are mistaken. KevinNinja (talk) 16:42, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

You are out of order; circumstances have changed with the revision of the Result criterion and this isn't a beauty contest. The criteria allowed are one of two standard terms: "X victory" or "Inconclusive"; which do you want? Please stop your disruptive editing and juvenile inferences about my motives, you are making yourself look silly. If you want this matter aired elsewhere, then with the greatest respect and deference I suggest that you do it yourself, don't try to cop out on me. Keith-264 (talk) 16:50, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Don't play the victim. You know exactly what you're trying to do here. You thought no one would notice your vandalism after a few months of inactivity, but I always keep a close eye. I wish the admins implemented the BOOMERANG ban 3 months break that was suggested for you here, would have served as a good reminder that you are perpetrating vandalism and are unwilling to drop the stick. KevinNinja (talk) 00:19, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Can't you read?

Do not introduce non-standard terms like "decisive", "marginal" or "tactical", or contradictory statements like "decisive tactical victory but strategic defeat".'

I suggest that you stop the threats and incitements to other editors and address the procedural point that "Decisive". is. out. Anyone who wanted to could comment on the proposed change, see here Module talk:Infobox military conflict. You are free to propose another amendment but you are not free to equate following Module:Infobox military conflict with vandalism or a rather fatuous conspiracy theory.

Consensus can change [1]

Editors may propose a change to current consensus, especially to raise previously unconsidered arguments or circumstances. On the other hand, proposing to change a recent consensus can be disruptive. Editors may propose a consensus change by discussion or editing. That said, in most cases, an editor who knows a proposed change will modify a matter resolved by past discussion should propose that change by discussion. Editors who revert a change proposed by an edit should generally avoid terse explanations (such as "against consensus") which provide little guidance to the proposing editor (or, if you do use such terse explanations, it is helpful to also include a link to the discussion where the consensus was formed).

I discussed here several times and then edited; you are the only objector. You wrote "I always keep a close eye" which looks to me like you have infringed WP:own. I advise you to stop digging. Keith-264 (talk) 08:23, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

To define keeping a close eye -- I will not let you vandalize the article after there have been many consensuses reached against your historical biases. You are actually the one infringing WP:own, because it is only you who wants "decisive" removed. And after reaching agreements time and time again to let "decisive" remain (because it should obviously be there), you are the only one who is unwilling to drop the stick.

Also "Do not introduce non-standard terms like "decisive", "marginal" or "tactical", or contradictory statements like "decisive tactical victory but strategic defeat"." is only introduced into articles with contradictory statements... as is stated. There is nothing contradictory about a decisive victory. Please take your historical biases elsewhere, its getting quite annoying now. KevinNinja (talk) 15:01, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

"Do not introduce non-standard terms like "decisive", "marginal" or "tactical", or contradictory statements....." (My emphasis) You don't have a leg to stand on. You are failing on WP:AGF, WP:OWN and WP:hysteria. I haven't noticed anyone else chipping in, you're in a minority of one. Keith-264 (talk) 16:18, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Full protection

There is an edit war going on regarding "decisive", so I've full protected the WP:WRONGVERSION until you can work it out. The template clearly says to not use the word decisive, but I'm not sure how authoritative the template is. That is what you need to discuss. The full protection will expire in two days. If you go back to edit warring then, I will instead be generous with the block button, so work it out. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:03, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Please view discussions around Archive 4, there are also admin infraction discussions (particularly https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive936#Battle_of_France). You will find that Keith-264 has always been the one unwilling to work with other editors, starting edit wars, in order to impose his biased historical views. Here is a statement I made last time when I was reported to the admins by Keith for "edit warring":

Keith is just trying to do something that will win over some sort of edit superiority over the article so he can assert his biased and irrational views. Keith, how about instead of undoing all my edits without replying to the thread for reason (and going directly here to complain to the admins), you actually provide reason for why what stood for years in the past and what stands in hundreds of other GA's cannot be used in this article. Maybe you're the one to read WP:BRD, since you keep undoing my stuff without reason. Because, as I remember correctly, you were the one accused of edit warring by the admins last time, not me. And you're doing it again. KevinNinja (talk) 17:13, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

After my statement, User:Jbhunley, an admin, said:

From reviewing the talk page it seems to me that Keith-264 is unwilling to accept the talk page consensus. Edits like "The RS are against you 12:5 so prepare to be reverted if you do.Keith-264 (talk) 11:13 am, 21 September 2016, Wednesday (25 days ago) (UTC−4)") when all of the other editors seem to have come to agreement shows an inability to drops the stick. The reverts today seem to be a follow on of the consensus to come up with Aftermath bullet points established in the same thread this quote was taken from. If this behavior continues I would suggest a BOOMERANG and a break of three months from Battle of France for Keith-264. JbhTalk 17:36, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

I believe that in bold should now be enforced. KevinNinja (talk) 15:22, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

As it regards your view of decisive, there have been multiple consensuses reached against Keith (as the archives show). Even more comical, the article Decisive victory literally uses Battle of France as an example of a decisive victory. I honestly cannot think of a battle in WW2 that was more decisive than BOF. The template you are referring to only applies to battles where contradictory terms could be introduced, like Operation Barbarossa. For instance, one might say it was a strategic victory for USSR but a tactical one for Germany. In this case, alternative words are used. What Kieth is trying to do is change the record of history itself. KevinNinja (talk) 15:30, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

I would go further and earnestly suggest a topic ban from WWII-related articles, and that of at least six months, given the long-term pattern the disruptive conduct exhibits. Iirc we've seen it on other articles as well. -- Director (talk) 15:42, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

I agree 100% with KevinNinja here, the victory was a Decisive Victory as it "definitively resolves the objective being fought over, ending one stage of the conflict and beginning another stage." It ended the stage of Blitzkrieg against France on the Western Front and opened up the Battle of Britain. As KevinNinja said, it's even an example on the article. - Gabe1e (talk) 18:13, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

As the criteria in Template:Infobox military conflict have changed, the majority opinion, contrary to the RS quoted extensively on the talk page has been ruled against in general. No-one can get away with claiming that I haven't mentioned this here several times going back quite a while. I would request that any admins looking at this take note of the personal nature of the criticism of my initial edit to bring the article insider the result criterion by Kevininja and now by Director. Notice also that the archive for the discussions of the result contains more than the selective quotations above and the claim that everyone agrees bar me is contrary to the evidence. No-one commented on my comment of 14 November 2017 and given the history, any reasonable person would have done the same. I'm very disappointed.Keith-264 (talk) 16:31, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

PS Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a reliable source. "The RS are against you 12:5" has this changed? Keith-264 (talk) 16:35, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

• Is there any reason you haven't been blocked yet? The same admin had to protect this article in September 2016 because you edit-warred over precisely the same thing. So: you didn't get your way then, you think everyone's forgotten less than 18 months later? >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 16:43, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Read the talk page, the admin ruling and (with respect) lay off the abuse.Keith-264 (talk) 16:45, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

I didn't "rule" on anything. I started an RFC. Once it decides what the consensus is, if any of the participants edit against it, I will know positively that they knew the consensus, and they will be blocked. I'm hoping that everyone will simply vote, accept the outcome, and move on. Personally, I don't care what the outcome is, I just want to tamp down the drama here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:53, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes you did, last year.Keith-264 (talk) 20:02, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

You did it again the other day too.Keith-264 (talk) 20:36, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Whilst there's obviously some history about the nature of the victory, the issues now raised here concern the appropriate use of the template and the authority of the guideline in prescribing that use. In terms of the latter, whilst it clearly states a choice of only two options may be used, it's a guideline, not a policy. Nevertheless, the spirit of the guideline seems quite clear; adding any qualification to the result parameter, much less the bulleted list of consequences that follow in this case, has no place in the infobox. It's nothing more than template bloat; a case of trying to cram nuanced information into a space that was designed only to paint the broadest of brushstrokes. Factotem (talk) 17:52, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

It clearly follows the definition of a decisive victory, and other articles use the word "decisive." As for the guideline, it's been ignored many times in other articles. For example, the Battle of Stalingrad, Battle of Leipzig, Battle of Midway, etc. - Gabe1e (talk) 18:13, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a reliable source appealing to the erroneous use of decisive elsewhere as a precedent is a bit flat earth. The point about all this is that other editors amended the result criterion, which rendered obsolete the old usage. This article should be brought up to date along with any other article that fails to comply. Considering that I pointed this out last year, and addressed it to the page watchers, I can hardly be accused in good faith of bad faith. Ask Secretary Green.Keith-264 (talk) 18:49, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Again Keith, the template is a recommendation, not a declaration of war against all articles that don't abide by it. And so far as I can tell, everyone in this thread agrees that decisive should remain. Once again you are the only one who disagrees with its use. Your inability to drop the stick and create conflict in articles (disabling us from actually getting real work done on the article) should be warrant for a ban at this point (as previous admins that have described your behavior have pointed out).

You do not own this article. Once again a consensus has been reached to have "decisive" remain. You have lost the consensus once again. Now move on and stop creating conflict that disables other editors from contributing to this article. KevinNinja (talk) 20:19, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

You have obviously not understood my previous comment. Neither "decisive" nor the subsequent bullet points should remain. That level of detail is not what the infobox is for. Factotem (talk) 23:01, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

If anyone wants to discuss this matter rather than resort to personal ranting, I'll be happy to oblige.Keith-264 (talk) 22:19, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

I actually agree that the bullet points should be removed as there are far too many options to be put there (the bullet points seem to change month-by-month entirely). All that should remain is "Decisive German Victory", as that summaries the battle nicely. Nothing further is needed. KevinNinja (talk) 00:07, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

That's ORKeith-264 (talk) 00:26, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

If we're going to be agreeable, then I agree that "decisive victory" is a valid description for this battle, but not in the infobox. The only difference between inserting into the infobox the word "decisive" and the bullet points that come after is the number of characters. It's all "fluff", and fairly arbitrary at that. Why not say "Lightning German victory" instead? It was after all one of the first instances of Blitzkrieg. Or "Humiliating French defeat"? At this point in the article, the reader only needs to know which side won. The nature of that victory is a nuance, the infobox is not the place for nuance, and attempts to insert nuance are, as we have seen, more likely to result in endless (and ill-tempered, it would seem) debate than any significantly improved insight for the reader. The main body of the article is the appropriate place to discuss the nature of the victory. Factotem (talk) 08:37, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

4p? That rate of inflation reminds me of the dark days of the 1070s. :O) Quite agree

result – optional – this parameter may use one of two standard terms: "X victory" or "Inconclusive". The term used is for the "immediate" outcome of the "subject" conflict and should reflect what the sources say. In cases where the standard terms do not accurately describe the outcome, a link or note should be made to the section of the article where the result is discussed in detail (such as "See the Aftermath section"). Such a note can also be used in conjunction with the standard terms but should not be used to conceal an ambiguity in the "immediate" result. Do not introduce non-standard terms like "decisive", "marginal" or "tactical", or contradictory statements like "decisive tactical victory but strategic defeat". Omit this parameter altogether rather than engage in speculation about which side won or by how much.

(my emphasis)

There is a school of thought that consensus can override this but mysteriously other matters can be dictated by reference to wikipolicy, which is inconsistent to say the least. It occurred to me that one way forward would be to improve the article until it's fit for A class review, where a higher quality of scrutiny can be expected. Trouble is, the article has far too much exposition in the Battle section; moving it to the specific articles is the answer but some of the receiving articles are even less complete. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 09:20, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes. At this rate I'm not going to be able to afford to contribute much longer. Sorry Keith, I don't fully understand the point you are trying to make before your ACR suggestion, but I'm concerned about your emphasis above. I know in the past, on this article and one other where we've crossed paths, that you've proposed a "See aftermath" link as a compromise solution. If that's what you are suggesting then I would strongly oppose this. I might even stray into vehement opposition. That it was a German victory is beyond doubt. Representing it as anything else simply because there is some debate about the exact nature of that victory is simply a different way of trying to accommodate nuance, and only succeeds in throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Also, I'm not convinced an ACR would settle this, and certainly not in the near future, but what do I know? Factotem (talk) 09:48, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Erm, I think you know quite a lot and I was agreeing with you; your comments echoed the result criteria, which is why I repeated them. These criteria allow the addition of see aftermath but I wasn't advocating it. Of course the Germans won in France but the victory wasn't decisive according to the RS and the criteria rule it out now anyway. (My other point was that some editors want to treat the result criteria as of lesser significance than their opinion but suddenly get literal with criteria when it comes to threatening me.) It also occurred to me that when the article is good enough for ACR the reviewers might form their own opinions about the infobox but that's by the by. Hope this clears up any misunderstanding.Keith-264 (talk) 12:09, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Just make sure to stop pushing your edit... -- Director (talk) 12:13, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Reminder: If anyone wants to discuss this matter rather than resort to personal ranting, I'll be happy to oblige.Keith-264 (talk) 12:24, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

The reason why I was appealing to the other articles is because it raises a question. Why is this the only WW2 article that has been edit-warred over the word "decisive"? If you want to enforce the template on this article, why haven't you done it on others? Gabe1e (talk) 13:06, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

That's a leading question and here's mine: how may articles with the mil infobox don't have "decisive victory" in them? Circumstances changed when the infobox criteria were altered. The only reason that the term decisive is in the BofF infobox is the caprice of some individuals. I pointed the change out weeks ago and no-one complained.Keith-264 (talk) 15:06, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

From Websters Dictionary: Decisive: having the power or quality of deciding; putting an end to controversy; crucial or most important.

You will notice that the word decisive is only mentioned in articles where the outcome of the entire campaign was decided by the battle. In this instance, the Battle of France ended the war against France. Similarly, the Battle of Stalingrad reversed the tide of war against Germany, the Battle of Kursk allowed the Soviets to initiate the first large-scale offensive against Germany, and the Battle of Leipzig reversed the tide of war against Napoleon. I agree that there is an element of nuance here; the inclusion of "decisive" should be decided by a consensus of editors.

But what I don't understand, Keith, is why you keep coming back to this issue when the majority editors are in agreement against your case. You really need to learn to work with other people and understand that when time and time again, a consensus is reached against your case, that you shouldn't keep coming back to the issue. This is why no one wants to work with you. It's because editors feel as if you are trying to force your point of view onto other people even when agreements have been made, not stopping until you get your way. That is not how Wikipedia works. KevinNinja (talk) 18:13, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm not going over old ground and I'll ignore the personal abuse. Times have changed, circumstances have changed and your reason is as OR as ever; we aren't RS. The result criteria were never in your favour and are now explicitly against you. Keith-264 (talk) 20:57, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

(Responding to KevinNinja) That's progress. All I have to do now is get you to agree that the infobox is no place for nuance, and we're there. :) I'd be interested to hear your case for why, in this instance, the template guideline should be ignored. And, in the hope that you'll drop the consensus line of argument you are pursuing and focus on that question, I'd like to point out that the last RfC on this issue, nearly a year ago now, was closed with no consensus and a !vote which, at 5:4 (in favour of keep, I'll grant you), did "not lead to any clear result", so, at least in terms of the 'recent' history of this debate, I don't think that's a very valid or productive line of reasoning. Factotem (talk) 21:49, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Factotem I'm not quite sure who you are. You have never made an edit to Battle of France. Why should I respect your opinion if you've never been a part of this conversation before? (with all due respect)

To respond to your claims Kieth, not sure how I'm "abusing" you. I've actually been very reasonable and been willing to work with you many times. You need to realize you are the one being unreasonable here. Again Keith, to quote the admin who almost banned you: From reviewing the talk page it seems to me that Keith-264 is unwilling to accept the talk page consensus. Edits like "The RS are against you 12:5 so prepare to be reverted if you do.Keith-264 (talk) 11:13 am, 21 September 2016, Wednesday (25 days ago) (UTC−4)") when all of the other editors seem to have come to agreement shows an inability to drops the stick. KevinNinja (talk) 23:26, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Times have changed, circumstances have changed and your reason is as OR as ever; we aren't RS. The result criteria were never in your favour and are now explicitly against you. It's Keith by the way.Keith-264 (talk) 23:48, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Apologies, Keith. For some weird reason I tend to mix up the i and e. KevinNinja (talk) 00:08, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

• Not "decisive". I don't think anything has changed since the last discussion. I agree that "the word decisive is only mentioned in articles where the outcome of the entire campaign was decided by the battle"; that "the infobox is no place for nuance" (it's why we eliminated the ethnicity and religion/denomination parameters from bio infoboxes); that "decisive" in this case is original research; that just omitting the result parameter entirely would be preferable to inserting such OR into it; and that the template's own documentation says to avoid wording like that (while it's not a policy, it's still a consensus and should be respected). It's patently silly to call this a "decisive" German victory when it was later undone and the Germans lost the damned war.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:11, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

This is just about the most decisive battle of WWII... -- Director (talk) 11:15, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

ORKeith-264 (talk) 11:45, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

• Please see RFC below. This is the only way to settle this issue in a way that has lasting impact. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:05, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Reluctance of Reynaud to surrender

I found a citation for that; it's a newspaper clipping: http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=950&dat=19660921&id=AtoLAAAAIBAJ&sjid=QlcDAAAAIBAJ&pg=5224,3352623 I am horrible at editing wiki pages, so please add.

Thanks for finding reference. Wikipedia is a great collaboratIvely-written encyclopedia....but we need more references! OnBeyondZebrax • TALK 12:16, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

There's a fair bit of detail on this in Reynaud's biog which I wrote up last year, drawing heavily on Julian Jackson's early 2000s short study of the French campaign. I have stacks of notes on Pétain so there may be some more detail to come.Paulturtle (talk) 04:53, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Bullet Points Pre-Discussion

As the RfC for the inclusion of "decisive" is on-going, I feel that it is best we have a separate discussion about the inclusion/editing/removal of bullet points in the info-box. My personal opinion (which has changed on this subject) is that they can either be removed or edited but then not changed again unless a new consensuses is reached. This is due to the fact that the bullet points tend to change month-by-month, day-by-day as editing continues.

Would like to hear the opinions of other contributors. KevinNinja (talk) 04:11, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

• WP:BRD is the gold standard, as this article isn't under Discretionary Sanctions or General Sanctions. I don't think you can form a local consensus to change editing policy for this one article. ie: Even if you had a consensus to limit the infobox to 1RR (just an example), no admin would enforce it as their is no basis in policy for the rule. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:59, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Looking back at it, you're right - it seems the bullet points have been removed and nothing has been reverted or changed. All good. KevinNinja (talk) 18:37, 7 February 2018 (UTC)