Talk:Canadian National Vimy Memorial

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Featured article Canadian National Vimy Memorial is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on April 9, 2017.

Ownership[edit]

Well it technically isn't in France as it's Canadian soil. It's surrounded by France, used to be part of France but is Canadian. - JVG 09:31, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

The UN is in New York, even though it is international territory. Seems like splitting hairs to me, especially as its political status is mentioned in the next sentences. But I defer. - Randwicked 13:10, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

The Vimy Memorial Site is Canadian owned but it is not Canadian territory in the same sense as an embassy. French laws still apply to the site, of which there are a specific set for conduct of the memorial site. For instance, the ban on dogs at the site is in fact a french law. --Labattblueboy 05:16, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, it is owned by Canada, but that is totally a different issue from it being under the sovereignty of Canada. I have added a fact tag to a statement that it is "Canadian territory" and will remove it unless a strong legal source is provided to back up this claim, which will not be forthcoming. Lexicon (talk) 18:38, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Working Statues[edit]

Added section saying that the working copies of the statues at Vimy are now on display in Canada. Burtonpe 16:10, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

trivia and the railway car[edit]

Although Hitler may have ordered the destruction of various memorials, is it not the case that these orders were not necessarily carried out? For example, wasn't the armistice railway car used again in WW2? 203.198.237.30 05:10, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Who said the orders were carried out? Paris is still there, right? The article clearly says "ordered", nowhere does it indicate all those orders were carried out. And no, the original railway car is not there, it was destroyed in WW II - AFTER Hitler made them [France] sign the surrender to Germany in it, in a touch of deliberate historical irony.Michael Dorosh 06:02, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Mike(Michael is the name given above, please do not assume familiarity, especially in the absence of any self identification on your partMichael Dorosh 17:41, 7 March 2006 (UTC)), I hope your first comment isn't an accurate reflection of your character. This kind of reaction is so over the top and against the very essence of WP that the decent thing would be to apologise. Leaving the ironic unpleasantness of your comment to one side, do I really need to point out that regardless of what actually happened, your earlier wording implied they were carried out: "While other monuments in France were ordered destroyed by Hitler (ranging from the rail car in which the Armistice had been signed in 1918 to the entire city of Paris)...". Mentioning the railway car (destroyed) and Paris (obviously not destroyed) together would be potentially confusing to some readers. So yes, obviously not all orders were carried out and I will reinstate mention of the railway car. We could also reinstate Paris but only if we removed any possibility of confusion by including a bit on how area commanders did not follow through. 203.198.237.30 11:43, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
    • The railway car was not destroyed by Hitler himself, but was transported to a museum in Germany, where it was promptly destroyed by an American or British bomb in the later years of the war. See Shirer. User:Gerolsteiner 16:10, 23 April 2006

My understanding is that Hitler never any intention at all of razing the Vimy Memorial. While it commemorated the defeat of German forces, he greatly respected the fact that there was no hint of triumphalism at all in the artwork. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Consulzephyr (talkcontribs) 00:01, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Getting back to the comment, The information provided by the guides at the Memorial was that Hitler specifically ordered that WWI memorials not be touched. So I believe the posted information to be incorrect and should be removed. My understanding, There were only 2 WWI memorials destoryed between 1940-1944 one was an Austrailian that had the German eagle getting stomped on by a solider - in a fashion common in propoganda posters, and another memorial that referred to the Germans as "barbarians". This Triva might be interesting for the Talk section but should be removed from the main article. Wakemp 15:41, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the "anonymous" user's edit completely changed the nature of the comments. It was not meant to imply that Vimy was ever in danger of being destroyed - it clearly wasn't. I did want to introduce the notion that while Hitler had no qualms about destroying culturally significant landmarks (he did order Paris burned, and he did destroy the railcar, which did not need such a lengthy rewording) he both visited Vimy and had respect for the soldiers that fought there - since he considered himself one of them. I'm not happy with the rewording by "anonymous" and will change the wording to reflect Wakemp's comments.Michael Dorosh 17:40, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
  • MD, great maturity and integrity in your characterisations. My edits were based entirely on your material. The necessary elaborations we now have resulted from that. Nice way to conduct the genuine synthesis which we all usually attempt to strive for here. 203.198.237.30 05:40, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Added in the pic of Hitler at the Memorial....not sure about copyright status of this pic, can anyone help with this? Burtonpe 14:43, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
It's fair dinkum, mate, but I can't edit the licensing. Reupload it and identify it as public domain.Michael Dorosh 15:11, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
I'll take care of it. – ugen64 05:02, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Just for future reference, the image isn't old enough to be public domain (specifically, the creator can't have died more than 70 years ago as per German copyright law because the picture's not that old). But it is fair use so I have tagged it that way. (I could have sworn there was a specific Nazi Germany copyright tag...) – ugen64 05:10, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Interesting info; is there a listing somewhere of all the copyright laws as they might pertain to WP listed in a central place somewhere I wonder?Michael DoroshTalk 19:34, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

the area[edit]

how big is the park? Jackzhp 18:12, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

pre-restoration photo[edit]

I added three more photos, perhaps too many, but was going to replace the pre-restoration photo thinking it should be clearly labelled pre-restoration if it were left, which would be too awkward. I thought better of replacing it though and left it since it is a useful shot. But perhaps it should go on the grounds that the Memorial does not look that run down anymore.Bdell555 19:53, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Images[edit]

It's a good probem to have, but the article contained too many images. Too many photos had been crammed into the article, given the relatively short size of the article. This isn't necessarily a bad thing -- not too long ago, we didn't have any real images of the memorial. However, the layout looked terrible. What I have done is I left the better images in the article, taken all the images and placed them in a Commons category, and then linked the Commons category in the article. Therefore, the article looks better, and the full selection of images remains available to the reader through the Commons.--Skeezix1000 (talk) 16:57, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Reorganization & Improvement[edit]

I have begun a significant edit & improvement of the information in this article. Is there anything in particular that is being requested?Labattblueboy (talk) 21:10, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Cemeteries[edit]

I have created a page for each of the cemeteries on the site. Picture contributions would be appreciated.Labattblueboy (talk) 21:59, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Merger with Canada Mourning[edit]

Merger Completed --Labattblueboy (talk) 21:50, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Infobox image[edit]

We have a number of pretty good images of the memorial as a whole. Surely we can figure out a better one to use than the one that is currently in the infobox, which is way too dark. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 20:19, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Which image would you suggest? --Labattblueboy (talk) 21:50, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
This one is probably best for an infobox -- not the world's greatest image, but clearer and better than the one currently in use. My favourite image is yours, but I am not sure that it would work for this purpose. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 22:02, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
File:Memorial Vimy face.jpg is old and before the monument and landscaping restoration (which included the removal of the steps to the tomb) making it inaccurate. With regards to my File:Vimy Ridge Memorial - West side before a storm.jpg you're completely right. Beautiful photo but it doesn't work for our purposes. For our purposes we need a quality front shot of the monument. Were stuck between a wall and a hard place on this one. Do you think the photo can be effectively lightened?--Labattblueboy (talk) 23:06, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
I overlooked your question about lightening the photo earlier. I dunno. Maybe. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 18:25, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure whether it is any good, but there is also this photo which I took on my trip to Vimy and was previously used in the article for a good amount of time. Just another option to consider. MelicansMatkin (talk) 23:22, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
I agree that the fact that the image is old is a factor to consider, but I still think it's preferable to the one in use now. Lesser of two evils. Simply make sure the caption states "Canadian National Vimy Memorial in 2003" - we can even add the words "prior to the restoration" if you want. I'm also happy with the image suggested by MelicansMatkin, although the problem with that one is that it doesn't show the whole memorial. Perhaps the solution to this problem, given that all of the choices have drawbacks, is to look to Flickr. There are no decent images of the memorial with licenses acceptable for the Commons on Flickr; however, if we can find one (or a handful) of good ones (without the right license), we can always flickrmail the creator and ask if they would be prepared to change the license so it can be used on Wikipedia. I have had a lot of luck doing that lately. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 14:29, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
  1. I did some trolling on flickr today and have sent a couple messages to see if they are willing to modify their license requirements so that they could be uploaded to the Commons (That was a good suggestion).
  2. I'm not personally comfortable with the pre-restoration image. It's low resolution, grainy and was actually removed from the Battle of Vimy Ridge article as part of that article' A-level review, in favour of the current one. The current image is dark but certainly an improvement over the 2003 image.
  3. For the infobox image, it should be an image of the memorial as a whole. The sub-section on the memorial itself is best used for partial images. If we keep looking and asking I am certain we can find a new image that will meet all our needs, so lets make that the goal for now. --Labattblueboy (talk) 17:07, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for #1, I'll defer to you on #2, and agree with #3. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 18:19, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Vmy memorial sub-section[edit]

HELP!: I need some help trying to format the Vimy memorial sub-section to incorporate all the images of the memorial. Tango7174 uploaded a number of beautiful images that I feel should be incorporated. The issue is I'm not sure how to physically incorporate a lot of these images, there just isn't the next space but the statues themselves are each a piece of art. I was thinking a vertical image sticking template or a form or gallery at the bottom of the section. Thoughts? --Labattblueboy (talk) 02:05, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I quite like the idea of the gallery. Other articles such as Gold Beach have or have had them in the past, and I think it would be an excellent way to display the images. Though whether the gallery should be placed in the sub-section or at the bottom of the article (above the Notes) is up for discussion. MelicansMatkin (talk) 02:27, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Melicans, I undid your edit until we can come to a consensus as to what we do on these images. They won't be forgotten, they are too good. We just need to figure out how we are going to do the section to a GAN quality level and still include them. I think the gallery should be sub-section of vimy memorial, not towards the bottom of the article. Any GAN quality articles using galleries though? I am going to seek some help from project admin on this one --Labattblueboy (talk) 07:02, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
If you guys decide to go with a gallery, make sure it's consistent with WP:IG. Galleries need to be more than just a tool to accommodate additional images - they need to be encyclopedic in and of themselves. A gallery showing the various aspects of the memorial, with appropriate and informative captions, would strike me as being consistent with WP:IG. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 13:09, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
High on my list of concern is WP:IG given I want to work towards GAN. If we go with a gallery at the bottom of the section to showcase the individual statues which images (or type of images) would be most appropriate to accompany the article text? There is currently the nice shot of the model and there is, for instance, a map detailing the name locations, ideas? --Labattblueboy (talk) 06:18, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Further sources for expanding this article[edit]

I happened to be researching elements of this topic a few years ago and came across some further information that might be useful. First, in contemporary sources, the name given for the “Mother Canada” statue is usually “The Spirit of Canada”, with “Mother Canada” being a later popular evolution. I cannot recall seeing “Canada Bereft” – although quite the most fitting appellation given Allward’s expressed intent – in the early sources I found. The model was Edna Jennings, née Moynihan, (1902-1995). She modelled for Allward between 1927 and 1930 at Allward’s Maida Vale studio, during the course of which she met and married Charles Bertram Jennings in 1928. She was not able to attend the 1936 dedication (which was King George VIII’s last official public engagement before abdicating) and ironically never did visit the Vimy site. Some information can be found in Suzanne Evans’ recent book Mothers of heroes, mothers of martyrs: World War I and the politics of grief (2007).

The runner up design, The Brooding Soldier, was created by Frederick Chapman Clemesha, who was himself wounded during the war, and was built at Vancouver Corner near Ypres, Belgium.

The Maple Leaf Legacy Project used to have an article with a motley collection of background information, including details on the dedication ceremony itself. Unfortunately, it’s only to be found on Wayback, but it mentions a number of sources that could be mined. It also had some images which are now lost, including a picture of Edna Jennings. I gleaned an image for my files, but I don't know its provenance (probably a family portrait the author obtained from her daughter Drusilla). That's all I really have to offer, I'm afraid. Askari Mark (Talk) 05:03, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Possibly useful sources[edit]

Some sources I found that might be useful for the article:

Already mentioned in the site section. No reliable source data available on the history of it though. --Labattblueboy (talk) 02:02, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Apologies if some of those sources or information are already in the article. It isn't possible to cover all the news and history of a memorial like this, but hopefully some sort of flavour is possible. There is one article that had lots and lots of information, so I'm posting that one separately. Carcharoth (talk) 08:35, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Informative article (2005)[edit]

  • It's sublime and deadly - a 2005 article with some fascinating snippets of information and some support for some of the claims that could be made: "Ottawa, flush with postwar pride, uncharacteristically chose the boldest, most expensive proposal" (was it really the most expensive?); "Allward laboured 14 years -- long past the point where his task had become a torment to him" (was the project late and over budget and did it put strain on Allward?); "the greatest monumental work of art ever created by a Canadian" (do other sources agree? If so, this could be added); "Many consider it the most beautiful of the combatant nations' memorials" (again, do other sources say this? If so, this could be added); "a tree replanting program" (I read this somewhere else - is it worth mentioning? The description of the memorial park as a landscape of shell craters is also something that doesn't come across in the article at the moment - a picture would be good there); "Vimy's on-site operations director [lives] about 200 m from the memorial in an incongruously pretty Arts and Crafts-style cottage designed by Allward" (that is something that could go in the article as well); "Seven of the 10-tonne Canadian mines failed to go off in 1917" (wow... could easily be mentioned as well); "Only three per cent of the 750,000 annual visitors to the site of Canada's greatest military triumph are Canadian. The rest are British and French, mostly schoolchildren" (that is definitely worth saying); "Allward expected most people to arrive via the rail station" (but it is now accessed by road - that would be a perfect way to bring in Devloo and the lifts from the train station); "nothing much is done there on Vimy or Remembrance days. Instead [the caretakers] attend a local ceremony. "Last year we had a single Canadian couple here on Nov. 11. [We] asked if they wanted to come to town with us. The mayor lays a wreath at the town cenotaph, I lay a wreath, the band plays the Marseillaise and the French sing it, the band plays O Canada and the four of us sing it." (ah, so that answers the question of whether there are annual ceremonies to mark Remembrance Day and Vimy Day, but it doesn't explain why some sources say there are annual ceremonies - maybe the ceremonies are the Sunday before the days themselves? Or maybe things have changed since 2005?).

Wonder how much of the above can be incorporated into the article without affecting the balance too much? Carcharoth (talk) 08:35, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

It also repeats something else I've heard before, that "For the first time, all four divisions of the Corps, men from every part of Canada, fought together...", which is something worth mentioning with regard to the "national identity" theme raised at the end of the Battle of Vimy section. Askari Mark (Talk) 23:45, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
The Historic Sites statement, which I think is the bit at the bottom here, is explicit about that as well. Among the seven points made were these two: "the site of Vimy Ridge and its associations with the awakening of Canadian identity" and "the first occasion on which the Canadian Corps fought as a unit, composed of men from every part of Canada, and the welding together of an efficient fighting organization". The definitive source there is by searching here to get this, which confusingly says "designated in 1996" and "plaqued in 1997", and give a much truncated citation. I will have to search by "Statement of Commemorative Integrity" instead... Here is an explanation of Statement of Commemorative Integrity. The one for the Beaumont-Hamel Memorial is here (VAC are responsible for both memorials). Looks like the VAC are the only sources, as the Historic Sites website doesn't seem to go into that level of detail. Carcharoth (talk) 04:48, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Latin inscription on the tomb and "served as" on name walls[edit]

I got lost in that VAC website (they have lots and lots of pages - the "Honour the Legacy" bit is particularly good), but found the tomb page again here. I've been trying to find a source for the Latin inscription there:

"IN MEMORIAM SEXIGINTA MILLIUM CANADENSIUM QUI ANNO DOMINI MCMXIV MCMXVIII IN ARMIS ULTRA MARE VITUM PRO PATRIA ULTRO DEDIDERUNT"

Google Translate tells me "We are not yet able to translate from Latin into English." Er, so I make that "In memory of 60 million Canadians who in the years 1914-1918 took arms and gave their lives for their country". (Dediderunt is presumably from "dedere" which means to give up or to render unto someone else). But without a source, this is a bit of a dead end, so I'm just popping it here in case someone else finds a source for this. Oh, hang on, I found this: "The Latin inscription on the sarcophagus tells: "In memory of the 60.000 Canadian soldiers, who in 1914-1918 were travelling overseas, and died far away for their fatherland"." Looks like I need to go back to school for Latin lessons... It isn't a reliable source, but knowing what that inscription says does satisfy my curiosity. Anyway, one further point is the "served as" bits on the walls of names. That had puzzled me until I read an explanation on that page I just linked to: "The phrase "served as" indicates the soldier's real name. Canada was a place for escape, a safe haven, and a place to hide. Soldiers were using other names also to enlist for several other reasons." Do any of the reliable sources mention or go into detail on this? All I've found so far is this. Carcharoth (talk) 05:39, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Canada had a particular problem in recruiting throughout the war and took in quite a number of American volunteers from the very beginning; in fact Americans also joined British and other Commonwealth armies. Since the US was a neutral, it was an illegal activity, so often these volunteers joined up under noms de guerre. This explains some "served as" cases, although I do not know how many, if any, may be represented at Vimy. One place to begin looking for some information is the book mentioned in the first posting in Military Photos forum on this topic. Askari Mark (Talk) 20:51, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

British-Pathé footage of the memorial and its unveiling[edit]

I found some footage of the unveiling ceremony on the British-Pathé website. The main website is here, and a search for "Vimy" produces 18 hits. There is the unveiling in 1936 (27/07/1936), and in addition to that, there is a memorial service by Canadian soldiers in 1940 (25/04/1940, during World War II), and also a visit by Vincent Massey (some time in 1939, precise date unknown). The details of the unveiling ceremony are well-known. The memorial service in 1940 and the 1939 visit by Vincent Massey, the Canadian High Commissioner to London, is something that could be looked at if they are a big part of the history of the memorial. I found an account of Massey's visit to the memorial on page 292 of Vimy Ridge: a Canadian reassessment (the Durflinger chapter: 'Safeguarding Sanctity'). It seems the date was 1 May 1940, unless there were other visits as well (the reference to it being misty seems to indicate that this footage is of the 1 May 1940 visit, just before the Germans invaded and over-ran northern France). There is nice footage of them touring the preserved battlefields and trenches. Other people in that party seem to have been Norman Rogers (who died in a plane crash a few weeks later), H. D. G. Crerar and George Stubbs (the caretaker and custodian of the memorial). The other clip doesn't seem anything more than just a normal commemoration service, but is notable for being held in April 1940 just before the German invasion (May and June of that year). As an aside, the stuff in the 'Safeguarding Sanctity' chapter of Vimy Ridge: a Canadian reassessment is fascinating and goes into a bit more detail than the article does at the moment. Anyway, I hope the links to this footage help. I'm off to see how many clips of unveilings of memorials they have - quite a few by the looks of it! Carcharoth (talk) 05:56, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

The clips are all really nice, they certainly add additional perspective. I personally like now you in the 1939 and 1940 films you can see that the memorial has been covered and sandbagged, in anticipation of conflict. Unfortunately, none of these films are in the public domain, so they can't be included on wikipedia.--Labattblueboy (talk) 12:31, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
I hadn't noticed the sandbags! It is unfortunate that the dates are wrong here in terms of public domain, and very lucky that you managed to find the home-made film donated to a museum (or library) with no restrictions on its use (will that go in the article?). For other articles, I will be adding external links to let readers know that these news clips exist (there is a discussion about that on the external links noticeboard here). For this article, I'll leave the matter of external links for you to consider. I am also about to go to the reliable sources noticeboard and ask if the Pathe title cards (these are silent news reels, remember) count as reliable sources! :-) The one on the Delville Wood memorial unveiling is 27 minutes long! Carcharoth (talk) 07:18, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
I was actually thinking a video could go in an article on the 1936 pilgrimage. There isn't much space here and the ceremony photo that is currently in the article is a fairly good one. I'm not sure when I could get around to working on such an article, but hte more it comes up the more it seams that it might be appropriate.--Labattblueboy (talk) 16:51, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Philip in uniform[edit]

The fact that Prince Philip wore the Royal Canadian Regiment uniform is linked to the rededication of the memorial; the day prior to the rededication, 6 members of the RCR were killed in Afghanistan, and, in her speech, the Queen specifically mentioned the fallen in that conflict. For what reason should this detail (or even both details) not be mentioned in the article? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 05:15, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

The focus of the article is not Prince Philip. I am not extensively opposed to noting that he was dressed as Colonel-in-chief of the regiment although I personally believe its most appropriate for that information to be on the Royal Canadian Regiment page than here. IMO, the dress of the royals is not central to the details of the rededication. If the information is to be included it should be done in a manner that does not require parentheses, as they are generally discouraged and will certainly become a copy-editing issue when the article goes up for feature article again.--Labattblueboy (talk) 05:44, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
No, of course that is not the focus of the article. However, the rededication ceremony of a monument to fallen Canadian soldiers is a germane part of this page, and a part of that event was Philip's attendance in an RCR uniform the day after 6 RCR personnel were killed in action. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 05:16, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Book and film and another painting and more[edit]

I found a bit here (Rediscovering the British world - 2005) about the Canadian Legion and it's role in the Vimy Pilgrimage. What is also mentioned is a 225-page souvenir book published by the Legion, called The Epic of Vimy (Google Books hits, catalogue entry here), which may have more on the Pilgrimage and the memorial. There was also a film of the pilgrimage, Salute to Valour (several Google Books hits), that came out in 1937. Might be worth mentioning both of those in this article somewhere. While looking up a catalgue entry for the book, I found this! That's a really good summary of the pilgrimage and the unveiling - worth putting in the external links at least, I think, and using as a source if considered reliable enough - it looks like a version got published in a journal here. The web page of that paper starts off with an impressive painting: CWM 20020045-425: Unveiling Vimy Ridge Monument (1937) by Georges Bertin Scott (a French war artist). It is mentioned here, and a jpeg of the painting is here. Finally, some Vimy photographs are on this page. And something on the Silver Cross Mothers here. Carcharoth (talk) 14:48, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Article in Canadian Military Journal[edit]

Came across this while compiling a list of sources: The Use and Abuse of Battle: Vimy Ridge and the Great War over the History of the First World War. Thought it might be of interest for this article (couldn't find it referenced here). It looks like a reliable source. It is from volume 10, number 1, of the CMJ, which is the "current issue" (it is a quarterly journal), but I can't work out when that issue actually came out - going by the back issues, they missed a year of publication if Volume 10 number 1 is the "current issue", unless they delay online publication by a year. It seems that article was published around a year ago, but you might want to find some definition confirmation of when it was published. Carcharoth (talk) 02:13, 22 February 2010 (UTC) Hang on - that article is about the battle, not the memorial... I was fooled by the big photo of the memorial at the top of the article. Sorry! Carcharoth (talk) 02:16, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Infobox image nominated for deletion[edit]

This is a notice to the editors of this article that there is a deletion request on Commons for the current infobox image and two others.--Rockfang (talk) 05:45, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Status of land[edit]

The topic of whether the park land is Canadian enclave (e.g. Canadian national territory) has recently come up. So I thought it best to discuss the issue. My understanding has always been that the land was purchased from the landowners by France and then ceded to Canada in perpetuity. The issue was handled through accord because foreign countries were not allowed to own French land. The French exempted the land from tax but that no mention is made of the land being extraterritorial. Can anyone provide sources that this land is anything other than French sovereign territory?--Labattblueboy (talk) 03:25, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

This theory about the memorial being Canadian territory is a bit of an urban legend. Similar to the widespread (and mistaken) that embassies are extraterritorial their host countries. The issue was most recently discussed over at Wikipedia Commons, as there was a question as to whether photographs of the memorial are covered by Canadian or French law.

It's hard to prove a negative, but I think the best evidence that the land remains French territory (albeit owned by Canada) is the fact that couples have in recent years been charged under French law and in French courts for having sex and for exhibitionism on the memorial. Just in case this Globe and Mail link stops functioning at some future date, some quote from the January 22, 2008 article ("Swingers make love, not war, at Vimy Ridge"):


"Monday, a French couple appeared at the courthouse in nearby Arras on charges of sexual exhibitionism at the First World War memorial."
"A spokesman for Veterans Affairs Minister Greg Thompson said the Canadian government hopes Monday's court appearance will send a message. “At this point, our participation in the French legal system will be enough of a deterrent,” said Richard Roik. “Inappropriate behaviour will not be tolerated.”"

There are other newspaper accounts from the period. If the memorial had been Canadian territory, these couples would have to have been charged under Canadian law. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 23:37, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, that may be done by treaty. It's kind of silly to have someone prosecuted for a minor, if not ridiculous, crime 5000 miles away. The treated states that the land was "ceded in perpetuity" which, unless ceded has some different meaning in the Canadian language, appears to have given the land to Canada. Gibraltar was "ceded in perpetuity" to Great Britain. Though Spain seems to have another definition, most international law supports GB's claim. However, Gibraltar has strategic importance (well in the past), so that's probably different than the Vimy Memorial. The conditions of the ceding included that it would be only used for a memorial, and that one be built. It is legally Canada. SkepticalRaptor (talk) 00:41, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
If it was done by treaty, then you would have no problem providing the details of that arrangement. It isn't enough to say it must be kind of like Gibraltar, so it is legally Canada. If French law applies, it's France unless someone can show evidence to the contrary. Skeezix1000 (talk) 12:39, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
Appendix III of the treaty lays out the explanation of the process. In essence, its the same process that was followed for the Commonwealth War Graves cemeteries; "the land is to be acquired by the French Government at the cost of the French nation, and held in perpetuity by it for use by the Canadian Government for a specific purpose, namely the erection of a monument and the creation of a park." In essence, granted free use, not sovereignty. This being said, if we have a reliable source, peer reviewed would likely be good in this case, than lays out that the land is "legally Canada" than I would defer to that.--Labattblueboy (talk) 10:14, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

The status of the land is an irrelevant technicality here as far as copyright is concerned. The issue is what usages of the land and the fixtures upon it are restricted. If French FOP restrictions constrain Canadian Freedom of Panorama the point of the "cession" disappears, does it not? The whole point of French FOP restrictions is to protect the commercial interests of the original creators/artists which in this case are not French, and we've got an intergovernmental treaty restricting the application of French jurisdiction to at least some degree. The fact that Canadian officials were involved at all in the French couple doing their deed indicates that Canadian policy objectives are a factor here, and Canadian policy is to not restrict FOP.--Brian Dell (talk) 18:04, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Canadian National Vimy Memorial. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

YesY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:59, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Lt. Jones[edit]

I am curious as to why there is a photo of Lieutenant Richard Jones and a link to him. As far as I can determine, he was a British officer who had no link to the Battle Vimy Ridge or to Canada.

Lt Jones won a VC at a previous battle on the same site. His photo is located to the section about previous battles, in which a link to his name is included. Llammakey (talk) 01:20, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Moving article to FA[edit]

@Skeezix1000:, @Carcharoth:, @Miesianiacal: I was looking at the article a couple days ago an remarked that it seemed rather close to FA. I've made some edits to addressed concerns raised back in 2010 but would appreciate a copy edit or feedback before I put it forward.--Labattblueboy (talk) 13:19, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

I've done a little copy editing concerning issues I saw during a quick skim of the article. I'll give it more glances over the next little while. -- MIESIANIACAL 17:04, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
No immediate feedback. It does seem close to FA (and probably was last time around as well). If I am around, will try and weigh in at the discussion/nomination. Carcharoth (talk) 00:19, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Is one of the, if not the, highest circulation newspaper in Canada not a "proper" source? It seems to easily meet WP:RS. -- MIESIANIACAL 19:24, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

This source has bad news written all over it and is highly questionable or untrue. It's really rather embarrassing that it was ever in the article. None of the statements in the article are verifiable, which is pretty dangerous given it's the only source making them. Not a single source of the rather extensive list already in the article support any of the statements.
1.The statement "all Australian World War I graves in France were destroyed during the war" is flagrantly untrue and completely preposterous. There are no recorded events of any graves being purposefully damaged, let alone every single Australian grave. Some memorials like the Mont Saint-Quentin Australian war memorial were destroyed (hardly surprising, even at the time, given its an Australian soldier thrusting a bayonet through a German eagle).
2.The statement about there being Waffen SS guards posted at Vimy are nor supported by an other sources. Given that the article writer is not a historian or significant contributor in the field such a statement needs far more reliable source support than a passing statement, given none of the rather impressively long list of sources listed in this article support this statement. Durflinger is likely the source that most covers the Second World War period, in particular the propaganda on both sides and even there no mention Waffen-SS or any guards exist.
3. No less than two discussions([1] [2]) threads at the Great War Forum have lambasted this article for it's historical inaccuracies and being effectively make believe.--Labattblueboy (talk) 23:02, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
I went through Durflinger last night just to ensure I wasn't missing something and came up empty. If a good source comes up re-insertion is obviously appropriate.--Labattblueboy (talk) 22:20, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
Added a section to cover the history between end of WWII and the re-dedication. Likewise added an image to Hitler touring the memorial, uploaded a bunch of architectural drawing the to commons, and expanded the socio-influence section. I'll do a copy edit tomorrow and that I'll post to FA unless someone sees some glaring issues.--Labattblueboy (talk) 00:56, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Mother Canada[edit]

I wanted to see if there was an article on the recently cancelled "Mother Canada" monument but I see that Mother Canada redirercts here. I'm wondering if there should be a short section on the planned, but scrapped, companion monument that was to have been built in Cape Breton or if that merits a separate article? Alexander's Hood (talk) 17:38, 8 February 2016 (UTC) 12:35, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

I've created a short article at Mother Canada and listed it in the Vimy article in the "see also" section. I'll leave it to others to decide if more of a mention is required. Alexander's Hood (talk) 17:38, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
I've pointed the link towards Never Forgotten National Memorial given that was the planned memorial's name. It might be worth mentioning only because this is not the first time making a duplicate or inspiration version has come up. If I remember correctly, Roméo Dallaire argued sometime around 2014 that a replica should be built across from the Canadian Parliament. A one-line mention might work. --Labattblueboy (talk) 19:14, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
re-jigged the last section and included a mention within the general theme of artistic inspiration.--Labattblueboy (talk) 21:35, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Canadian National Vimy Memorial. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:35, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

This will be a Featured Article, April 9[edit]

This article will appear on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on April 9, 2017.

It seems to be in good shape as is but if anyone sees even small errors, it would be worth fixing them. Peter K Burian (talk) 12:59, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

  • Indeed it will. It when through the Feature Article approval in August and I recently went over it to double check existing citations. The only issue I came across was clarifying that the Busch citation was in fact a chapter by Laura Brandon on a book edited by Busch. Really it will be edits that pop up between now and the 9th which will be a concern.--Labattblueboy (talk) 17:22, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
Not an issue per se, but I wonder if some of the new content about stamps in the commemoration section is necessary. Peter K Burian (talk) 21:00, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
OK, I see you have already condensed that; looks good now. Peter K Burian (talk) 21:01, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

@Labattblueboy How many War veterans attended the unveiling: Apparently not 50,000; should revise that in the lead. Most sources suggest 6000-7000 "Canadian veterans and their families"; no mention of French veterans.

The War Museum says this, The Vimy Memorial was unveiled in July 1936 to a crowd of more than '100,000, including 6,000 Canadian veterans' who had traveled overseas for the ceremony. http://www.warmuseum.ca/firstworldwar/history/after-the-war/remembrance/vimy-memorial/ Other sites have other estimates.

Search with google books:

One book says this: With an estimated 50,000 to 100,000 French civilians arriving at the site, the pilgrims were escorted forward ...(but how many veterans??) http://www.canadianmilitaryhistory.ca/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/5-Brown-and-Cook-Vimy-Pilgrimage-v-2.pdf

Another book: The seven thousand Vimy pilgrims (veterans and their families) https://books.google.ca/books?id=X589DQAAQBAJ&pg=PA243&dq=canada+vimy+memorial+dedication+1936+attended+by+veterans&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjqp4HA3IvTAhXj1IMKHTb_Bd8Q6AEIMzAE#v=onepage&q=canada%20vimy%20memorial%20dedication%201936%20attended%20by%20veterans&f=false

Another book At the ceremonies the young King Edward was joined by 3,000 or more Canadian veterans; a sea of spectators. https://books.google.ca/books?id=hB9Wn8LjK9IC&pg=PT80&dq=canada+vimy+memorial+dedication+1936+attended+by+veterans&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiJhZ_33IvTAhXj6oMKHRY-Bcw4ChDoAQgZMAA#v=onepage&q=canada%20vimy%20memorial%20dedication%201936%20attended%20by%20veterans&f=false

Another book In 1936, 6000 Canadian veterans and their families travelled to France to attend the dedication by Edward VIII of the https://books.google.ca/books?id=gPAWAQAAIAAJ&q=canada+vimy+memorial+dedication+1936+attended+by+veterans&dq=canada+vimy+memorial+dedication+1936+attended+by+veterans&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiJhZ_33IvTAhXj6oMKHRY-Bcw4ChDoAQgfMAE

Another: When the Canadian National Memorial on Vimy Ridge was unveiled in 1936, more than 6,000 Canadian veterans and ...https://books.google.ca/books?id=a2sAAwAAQBAJ&pg=PA147&dq=canada+vimy+memorial+dedication+1936+attended+by+veterans&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiJhZ_33IvTAhXj6oMKHRY-Bcw4ChDoAQgjMAI#v=onepage&q=canada%20vimy%20memorial%20dedication%201936%20attended%20by%20veterans&f=false Peter K Burian (talk) 21:22, 4 April 2017 (UTC)


-In 1936 6,200 Canadian pilgrims each paid $160 (at a time when annual salaries averaged around $1,200) to the Canadian Legion to attend the monument's dedication. Western Front Association (8 May 2003). Canada and the Great War: Western Front Association Papers. McGill-Queen's Press - MQUP. p. 12. ISBN 978-0-7735-2546-7. .

W.W. Murray, who compiled and edited the 1936 pilgrimage commemorative book, The Epic of Vimy, estimated that 100,000 people attended the ceremony, ... The Winnipeg Free Press was not so grand in its estimation of approximately 50,000 Suzanne Evans (2007). Mothers of Heroes, Mothers of Martyrs: World War I and the Politics of Grief. McGill-Queen's Press - MQUP. p. 126. ISBN 978-0-7735-6023-9. . --Moxy (talk) 22:09, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

  • Simple answer, no idea on number of Canadian veterans. The key is to remember the present statistics do not distinguish between nationalities or whether an individual was a veteran or not because its not broken down as such in the sources. We know 6,200 people sailed on the trans Atlantic pilgrimage from Montreal (this is mentioned), we don't know how many of British/Canadians travelled from the UK separately. No stats exist for veterans alone, they are all grouped together with families and other bystanders. Same for Canadians as there was a sizable community of Canadians and those that fought in the CEF living in the UK and we know people travelled from the UK. The crowd figures themselves were largely a guess as there were many people (veterans and families) who travelled independently and no official measurement (there were no gates for instance) took place.--Labattblueboy (talk) 22:13, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
OK, I revised it. I wonder what other Users believe is the most reliable info that we should provide in the lead? Peter K Burian (talk) 22:19, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
@Labattblueboy I just realized that the Pilgrimage and unveiling section includes the info below. Is that reliable info? I searched for a long time and did not find a single source suggesting so many veterans.
Senior Canadian, British, and European officials, including French President Albert Lebrun, and over 50,000 Canadian, British, and French veterans and their families attended the event.[53] Absent, though, was Canadian Prime Minister William Lyon Mackenzie King, it being well understood that he was generally not comfortable around veterans and felt it more appropriate for a war veteran in Cabinet to act as minister in attendance.[61] Citations: ref name="Fast Facts"/ Peter K Burian (talk) 22:28, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
No source is suggesting 50K veterans, its veterans (Canadian, British and French) AND their families. We can always simplify the text to read as it does in the lead.--Labattblueboy (talk) 22:40, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Commemoration section of the text ... do readers need this much info?[edit]

Is this not more than most readers want to know about the logistics?

 Legion was responsible for the more challenging task of organizing the pilgrimage. For the Legion this included planning meals, accommodations and transportation for what was at the time the largest single peacetime movement of people from Canada to Europe.[62] The Legion took the position that the pilgrimage would be funded by its members without subsidies or financial aid from Canadian taxpayers, and by early 1935 they had established that the price of the 3½-week trip, inclusive of all meals, accommodation, health insurance, and sea and land transportation would be CA$160 per person ($2,779.18 as of 2016). Indirect assistance came in a number of forms. The government waived passport fees and made a special Vimy passport available to pilgrims at no extra cost.[63] The government and private sector also provided paid leave for their participating employees.[61] It was not until April 1936 that the government was prepared to publicly commit to an unveiling date, 26 July 1936.[61] On 16 July 1936, the five transatlantic liners, escorted by HMCS Champlain and HMCS Saguenay, departed the Port of Montreal with approximately 6,200 passengers and arrived in Le Havre on 24 and 25 July.[Note 8][64][65] The limited accommodation made it necessary for the Legion to lodge pilgrims in nine cities throughout northern France and Belgium and employ 235 buses to move the pilgrims between various locations.[64]

My suggestion is that we condense it, but we should have some Consensus to do so. Peter K Burian (talk) 22:23, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

It was previously requested in one of the Feature Article Candidate discussions for this article that the pilgrimage should be more thoroughly documented. That being said, certainly no opposition to further summarizing. Keep in mind this was the "largest single peacetime movement of people from Canada to Europe" so the logistics are certainly notable. What would you propose be trimmed?--Labattblueboy (talk) 23:03, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Centennial commemoration section[edit]

The centennial commemoration section is obviously on flux as the centennial approaches. As the article is TFA for 9 April is there any opposition to first coming to a consensus here before making large edits to this section, at least for the next couple day. In terms of stamps, there is no reliable source stating six stamps; they states two. If a reliable source does not explicitly state six stamps the statement should not be included. For coins, only mention of those concerning the memorial itself should be included.--Labattblueboy (talk) 09:40, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

The six stamps are shown on this page: https://www.canadapost.ca/web/en/blogs/collecting/details.page?article=2017/03/28/battle_of_vimy_ridge&cattype=collecting&cat=stamps It can be added as a reference. The issue includes two from Canada at $2.50, one 'P' stamp, and from France, one 0.85 and two 1.30 euro stamps (the one on the souvenir sheet has a different inscription from the one featured on the first day cover). All are based on two designs, but there are six total variations, which will likely be assigned different catalog numbers, as has been done in the past.
It would be a fine thing to add images of these stamps. I believe there are copyright issues with doing this for Canada, but perhaps not for the French issues. If so, we could add not only this year's stamps, but France's 1936 issues as well. That would go some way in showcasing the importance of the event and site.
As far as coins, it's appropriate to include issues from the mint that mark the centennial, picturing an artist's interpretation of what happened at the site during the battle. Neither of these are large edits to the section. Yoho2001 (talk) 10:04, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
  1. There is no mention of six stamps; even the link provided states two as does the Ottawa Citizen article. no sources are referring to any "variations" as separate stamps and I don't see any citation for six. Consequently the article can't make that claim.
  2. Coins that feature the battle, but not the memorial, could likely be included in the battle article. However, the catalogue site is not a reliable source. If the mint catalogue is the only site covering the topic than it wouldn't be considered notable and thus does not really have a place for inclusion. I did look to see if there was any reliable sources noting the coins and I didn't see anything so I would question whether inclusion is appropriate.--Labattblueboy (talk) 10:19, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

How many[edit]

How many War veterans attended the unveiling: Apparently not 50,000; should revise that in the lead. Most sources suggest 6000-7000 "Canadian veterans and their families"; no mention of French veterans.

The War Museum says this, The Vimy Memorial was unveiled in July 1936 to a crowd of more than '100,000, including 6,000 Canadian veterans' who had traveled overseas for the ceremony. http://www.warmuseum.ca/firstworldwar/history/after-the-war/remembrance/vimy-memorial/ Other sites have other estimates.

Search with google books:

One book says this: With an estimated 50,000 to 100,000 French civilians arriving at the site, the pilgrims were escorted forward ...(but how many veterans??) http://www.canadianmilitaryhistory.ca/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/5-Brown-and-Cook-Vimy-Pilgrimage-v-2.pdf

Another book: The seven thousand Vimy pilgrims (veterans and their families) https://books.google.ca/books?id=X589DQAAQBAJ&pg=PA243&dq=canada+vimy+memorial+dedication+1936+attended+by+veterans&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjqp4HA3IvTAhXj1IMKHTb_Bd8Q6AEIMzAE#v=onepage&q=canada%20vimy%20memorial%20dedication%201936%20attended%20by%20veterans&f=false

Another book At the ceremonies the young King Edward was joined by 3,000 or more Canadian veterans; a sea of spectators. https://books.google.ca/books?id=hB9Wn8LjK9IC&pg=PT80&dq=canada+vimy+memorial+dedication+1936+attended+by+veterans&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiJhZ_33IvTAhXj6oMKHRY-Bcw4ChDoAQgZMAA#v=onepage&q=canada%20vimy%20memorial%20dedication%201936%20attended%20by%20veterans&f=false

Another book In 1936, 6000 Canadian veterans and their families travelled to France to attend the dedication by Edward VIII of the https://books.google.ca/books?id=gPAWAQAAIAAJ&q=canada+vimy+memorial+dedication+1936+attended+by+veterans&dq=canada+vimy+memorial+dedication+1936+attended+by+veterans&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiJhZ_33IvTAhXj6oMKHRY-Bcw4ChDoAQgfMAE

Another: When the Canadian National Memorial on Vimy Ridge was unveiled in 1936, more than 6,000 Canadian veterans and ...https://books.google.ca/books?id=a2sAAwAAQBAJ&pg=PA147&dq=canada+vimy+memorial+dedication+1936+attended+by+veterans&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiJhZ_33IvTAhXj6oMKHRY-Bcw4ChDoAQgjMAI#v=onepage&q=canada%20vimy%20memorial%20dedication%201936%20attended%20by%20veterans&f=false Peter K Burian (talk) 21:22, 4 April 2017 (UTC)


-In 1936 6,200 Canadian pilgrims each paid $160 (at a time when annual salaries averaged around $1,200) to the Canadian Legion to attend the monument's dedication. Western Front Association (8 May 2003). Canada and the Great War: Western Front Association Papers. McGill-Queen's Press - MQUP. p. 12. ISBN 978-0-7735-2546-7. .

W.W. Murray, who compiled and edited the 1936 pilgrimage commemorative book, The Epic of Vimy, estimated that 100,000 people attended the ceremony, ... The Winnipeg Free Press was not so grand in its estimation of approximately 50,000 Suzanne Evans (2007). Mothers of Heroes, Mothers of Martyrs: World War I and the Politics of Grief. McGill-Queen's Press - MQUP. p. 126. ISBN 978-0-7735-6023-9. . --Moxy (talk) 22:09, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

  • Simple answer, no idea on number of Canadian veterans. The key is to remember the present statistics do not distinguish between nationalities or whether an individual was a veteran or not because its not broken down as such in the sources. We know 6,200 people sailed on the trans Atlantic pilgrimage from Montreal (this is mentioned), we don't know how many of British/Canadians travelled from the UK separately. No stats exist for veterans alone, they are all grouped together with families and other bystanders. Same for Canadians as there was a sizable community of Canadians and those that fought in the CEF living in the UK and we know people travelled from the UK. The crowd figures themselves were largely a guess as there were many people (veterans and families) who travelled independently and no official measurement (there were no gates for instance) took place.--Labattblueboy (talk) 22:13, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
OK, I revised it. I wonder what other Users believe is the most reliable info that we should provide in the lead? Peter K Burian (talk) 22:19, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
@Labattblueboy I just realized that the Pilgrimage and unveiling section includes the info below. Is that reliable info? I searched for a long time and did not find a single source suggesting so many veterans.
Senior Canadian, British, and European officials, including French President Albert Lebrun, and over 50,000 Canadian, British, and French veterans and their families attended the event.[53] Absent, though, was Canadian Prime Minister William Lyon Mackenzie King, it being well understood that he was generally not comfortable around veterans and felt it more appropriate for a war veteran in Cabinet to act as minister in attendance.[61] Citations: ref name="Fast Facts"/ Peter K Burian (talk) 22:28, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
No source is suggesting 50K veterans, its veterans (Canadian, British and French) AND their families. We can always simplify the text to read as it does in the lead.--Labattblueboy (talk) 22:40, 4 Apri

How many war veterans attended??[edit]

There was a discussion about this in another thread; I have copied it here. The Pilgrimage and unveiling section claims 50,000 war veterans and their families.

   Senior Canadian, British, and European officials, including French President Albert Lebrun, and over 50,000 Canadian, British, and French veterans and their families attended the event.[53] Absent, though, was Canadian Prime Minister William Lyon Mackenzie King, it being well understood that he was generally not comfortable around veterans and felt it more appropriate for a war veteran in Cabinet to act as minister in attendance.[61]

That is clearly wrong. We corrected the lead but this section is still wrong. I have now corrected it.

PREVIOUS COMMENTS IN ANNOTHER THREAD:

Most sources suggest 6000-7000 "Canadian veterans and their families"; no mention of French veterans.

The War Museum says this, The Vimy Memorial was unveiled in July 1936 to a crowd of more than '100,000, including 6,000 Canadian veterans' who had traveled overseas for the ceremony. http://www.warmuseum.ca/firstworldwar/history/after-the-war/remembrance/vimy-memorial/ Other sites have other estimates.

Search with google books:

One book says this: With an estimated 50,000 to 100,000 French civilians arriving at the site, the pilgrims were escorted forward ...(but how many veterans??) http://www.canadianmilitaryhistory.ca/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/5-Brown-and-Cook-Vimy-Pilgrimage-v-2.pdf

Another book: The seven thousand Vimy pilgrims (veterans and their families) https://books.google.ca/books?id=X589DQAAQBAJ&pg=PA243&dq=canada+vimy+memorial+dedication+1936+attended+by+veterans&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjqp4HA3IvTAhXj1IMKHTb_Bd8Q6AEIMzAE#v=onepage&q=canada%20vimy%20memorial%20dedication%201936%20attended%20by%20veterans&f=false

Another book At the ceremonies the young King Edward was joined by 3,000 or more Canadian veterans; a sea of spectators. https://books.google.ca/books?id=hB9Wn8LjK9IC&pg=PT80&dq=canada+vimy+memorial+dedication+1936+attended+by+veterans&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiJhZ_33IvTAhXj6oMKHRY-Bcw4ChDoAQgZMAA#v=onepage&q=canada%20vimy%20memorial%20dedication%201936%20attended%20by%20veterans&f=false

Another book In 1936, 6000 Canadian veterans and their families travelled to France to attend the dedication by Edward VIII of the https://books.google.ca/books?id=gPAWAQAAIAAJ&q=canada+vimy+memorial+dedication+1936+attended+by+veterans&dq=canada+vimy+memorial+dedication+1936+attended+by+veterans&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiJhZ_33IvTAhXj6oMKHRY-Bcw4ChDoAQgfMAE

Another: When the Canadian National Memorial on Vimy Ridge was unveiled in 1936, more than 6,000 Canadian veterans and ...https://books.google.ca/books?id=a2sAAwAAQBAJ&pg=PA147&dq=canada+vimy+memorial+dedication+1936+attended+by+veterans&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiJhZ_33IvTAhXj6oMKHRY-Bcw4ChDoAQgjMAI#v=onepage&q=canada%20vimy%20memorial%20dedication%201936%20attended%20by%20veterans&f=false Peter K Burian (talk) 21:22, 4 April 2017 (UTC)


-In 1936 6,200 Canadian pilgrims each paid $160 (at a time when annual salaries averaged around $1,200) to the Canadian Legion to attend the monument's dedication. Western Front Association (8 May 2003). Canada and the Great War: Western Front Association Papers. McGill-Queen's Press - MQUP. p. 12. ISBN 978-0-7735-2546-7. .

W.W. Murray, who compiled and edited the 1936 pilgrimage commemorative book, The Epic of Vimy, estimated that 100,000 people attended the ceremony, ... The Winnipeg Free Press was not so grand in its estimation of approximately 50,000 Suzanne Evans (2007). Mothers of Heroes, Mothers of Martyrs: World War I and the Politics of Grief. McGill-Queen's Press - MQUP. p. 126. ISBN 978-0-7735-6023-9. . --Moxy (talk) 22:09, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

  • Simple answer, no idea on number of Canadian veterans. The key is to remember the present statistics do not distinguish between nationalities or whether an individual was a veteran or not because its not broken down as such in the sources. We know 6,200 people sailed on the trans Atlantic pilgrimage from Montreal (this is mentioned), we don't know how many of British/Canadians travelled from the UK separately. No stats exist for veterans alone, they are all grouped together with families and other bystanders. Same for Canadians as there was a sizable community of Canadians and those that fought in the CEF living in the UK and we know people travelled from the UK. The crowd figures themselves were largely a guess as there were many people (veterans and families) who travelled independently and no official measurement (there were no gates for instance) took place.--Labattblueboy (talk) 22:13, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
OK, I revised it. I wonder what other Users believe is the most reliable info that we should provide in the lead? Peter K Burian (talk) 22:19, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
@Labattblueboy I just realized that the Pilgrimage and unveiling section includes the info below. Is that reliable info? I searched for a long time and did not find a single source suggesting so many veterans.
Senior Canadian, British, and European officials, including French President Albert Lebrun, and over 50,000 Canadian, British, and French veterans and their families attended the event.[53] Absent, though, was Canadian Prime Minister William Lyon Mackenzie King, it being well understood that he was generally not comfortable around veterans and felt it more appropriate for a war veteran in Cabinet to act as minister in attendance.[61] Citations: ref name="Fast Facts"/ Peter K Burian (talk) 22:28, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
No source is suggesting 50K veterans, its veterans (Canadian, British and French) AND their families. We can always simplify the text to read as it does in the lead.--Labattblueboy (talk) 22:40, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

END OF COPIED CONTENT Peter K Burian (talk) 13:20, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

@User:Labattblueboy ... you fixed the citation but now ]{{sfn|Evans|2007|p=126} is visible in the text of the article. Peter K Burian (talk) 14:54, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

OK, the citations are fine now. Peter K Burian (talk) 15:00, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
Corrected. Btw I've removed one image out of the WWII section on the basis of MOS:IMAGELOCATION (avoid sandwiching text between two images that face each other;).--Labattblueboy (talk) 15:11, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Yeah; the Hitler photo is more important in any event. Peter K Burian (talk) 15:46, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Actually, one source did say 50,000 veterans and their families (and that was the one cited originally) http://www.veterans.gc.ca/eng/remembrance/memorials/overseas/first-world-war/france/vimy/fast-facts . Of course, the other numerous sources did not estimate how many veterans, just how many people.
Peter K Burian (talk) 23:20, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
I think it was the right call to amend it to it's present iteration. Much easier to so simply state 50K and be done with it.--Labattblueboy (talk) 00:12, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Lead - mention of cemeteries and memorials[edit]

The memorial park contains no less than 5 memorial (Canadian Memorial, Moroccan memorial, Watkins memorial, Lion's club memorial and a divisional memorial in the forest - Lion's Club and divisional memorial don't have citations or mention in the article because no sources speak of them) and two cemeteries. Determining which has precedence for any mention in the lead would be problematic. In term of prominence the Moroccan memorial is more notable than the cemeteries, at least in terms of literature. The present text: "Along with preserved trench lines, several other memorials and cemeteries are contained within the park" seem to be the most concise presentation of material but we can certainly discuss revisions.--Labattblueboy (talk) 22:32, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

OK, makes sense. Peter K Burian (talk) 23:15, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Same paragraph all over[edit]

I am not sure spamming the same paragraph on the recent ceremony on all related articles is helpful. Thinking of reverting paragraph spam.--Moxy (talk) 15:46, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

You're quite right and now Peter K Burian is fighting to keep the (inaccurate) information where it isn't relevant. -- MIESIANIACAL 16:00, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

How do you figure it is SPAM??? It is important to all of those towns near the Battle and the Memorial. Peter K Burian (talk) 16:03, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

AND it is acceptable to use the same few sentences, FULLY CITED, about the Battle and the Memorial in the articles about the nearby towns. What is inaccurate about the content?? Peter K Burian (talk) 16:06, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

The ceremony and especially who attended it on behalf of what is relevant to two things: The memorial where the ceremony took place and the battle itself. The onus is upon you, the person wanting to include the information elsewhere, to explain why attendees at an anniversary are important to that article. -- MIESIANIACAL 16:08, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
The ceremony is relevant since so many world leaders attended and spoke. The Battle of Vimy Ridge is relevant so the location where it occurred is significant. Peter K Burian (talk) 16:11, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
I need to explain why these people are relevant????: Governor General David Johnston; Prince Charles; Prince William, Duke of Cambridge; Prince Harry; and Prime Minister Justin Trudeau. President François Hollande and Prime Minister Bernard Cazeneuve represented France.

::::Peter K Burian (talk) 16:13, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

It's interesting that I had written much of the content about today's ceremony in Canadian National Vimy Memorial; I moved some sentences around an hour ago, and that was Reverted. Why? Spite, I suppose. Peter K Burian (talk) 16:11, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Fully cited with zero information about the towns themselves...so useless. Pls don't spam town pages with news and links that lead 2 zero info on the towns themselves. No need to regurgitate the same thing all over people can come to this article to read it..... it's why we have the links. As for recent changed. ....this is an FA article on the main page....thus just went though a comminuty review.....lots of changes on GameDay is always going to be scrutinized. .--Moxy (talk) 16:15, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
I've fixed the sentence move. It was undone by accident. -- MIESIANIACAL 16:21, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I know it is a featured article. Check the History as to who did 90% of the edits on this in the past week or so, User:Labattblueboy and I. Peter K Burian (talk) 16:19, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes User:Labattblueboy did a great job fixing the recent changes....as have many others...again... every edit will be scrutinized corrected and copy edited this is a feature article on the main page today. This is how Wikipedia works you add something somebody else fixes a typo somebody else makes a correction.--Moxy (talk) 16:26, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I understand the concept. What I don't understand is why User:Miesianiacal arbitrarily deletes everything I write, even though it is fully cited. Peter K Burian (talk) 16:31, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

He can reply to that inquiry....but can say User:Miesianiacal has a stellar reputation here for great copy editing and representing the sources accurately.--Moxy (talk) 16:34, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
e.g. Neuville-Saint-Vaast is a stub. The single most important battle in this area is the Battle of Vimy Ridge. The single most important architecture is the Canadian Memorial. The single most newsworthy event recently was the attendance of world leaders at the Memorial ceremony. After his edit, there is no longer a word about the Battle or about the Memorial. Does that make sense to you Moxy?
The addition does not metion or even link to info about the town....just a news story..does not help readers understand the town.--Moxy (talk) 16:45, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
I added that. User:Miesianiacal deleted every word of the fully cited content. How is that collaborative editing? Peter K Burian (talk) 16:39, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, he is an excellent editor but deleting every word of content added by another editor (e.g. Neuville-Saint-Vaast) is surely not in the spirit of collaboration. Peter K Burian (talk) 16:39, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

How is this not relevant in the STUB article about the village of Neuville-St Vaast?
     It is located 3.2 kilometres from the Canadian National Vimy Memorial dedicated to the Battle of Vimy Ridge assault (part of the Battle of Arras) and the Expeditionary Force members killed during the First World War. The Memorial was built on Hill 145, the highest point of the ridge.http://www.veterans.gc.ca/eng/remembrance/memorials/overseas/first-world-war/france/vimy/fast-facts It commemorates the battle and the Canadian soldiers who lost their lives during the First World War. The Memorial is also the site of the Canadian Cemetery No. 2, Neuville-St.-Vaast and Givenchy Road Canadian Cemetery, Neuville-St.-Vaast."Canadian National Vimy Memorial, France". The Great War UK. The Great War UK. 2015. Retrieved 31 March 2017. The ridge runs in a direction from Givenchy-en-Gohelle in the north-west to Farbus in the south-east. http://www.greatwar.co.uk/french-flanders-artois/memorial-canadian-national-vimy-memorial.htm"Canadian National Vimy Memorial, France". The Great War UK. The Great War UK. 2015. Retrieved 31 March 2017. The ridge runs in a direction from Givenchy-en-Gohelle in the north-west to Farbus in the south-east. 
     The Neuville-St Vaast German war cemetery (also called Maison Blanche) is the largest in France from WWI, with 44,833 buried here.http://www.greatwar.co.uk/french-flanders-artois/cemetery-neuville-st-vaast-german.htm
     The centennial commemoration of the Battle of Vimy Ridge was held at the Canadian National Vimy Memorial near the village on 9 April 2017. Estimates before the event indicated that up to 30,000 would attend.Siekierska, Alicja (31 March 2017), Toronto photographer to open exhibition to commemorate battle of Vimy Ridge, Toronto Star, retrieved 1 April 2017 The official ceremony included comments from Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, Governor General David Johnston as representative of the Monarchy of Canada, Prince Charles as representative of the Monarchy of the United Kingdom, Prince William, Duke of Cambridge, Prince Harry, the President of France François Hollande, and the Prime Minister of France Bernard Cazeneuve. "Vimy Ridge: Royals commemorate defining WW1 battle". BBC. BBC. 9 April 2017. Retrieved 9 April 2017. François Hollande et Bernard Cazeneuve confirment leur venue à Vimy le 9 avril, Le Voix du Nord, 25 March 2017, retrieved 1 April 2017 

Peter K Burian (talk) 16:51, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

In my view all but what is bellow talks about a place and ceremony miles away from the town. And list people that have never even been to the town or are relevant to the town. That said you can start a discussion on the talk page see what others say.--Moxy (talk) 16:57, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
" The Neuville-St Vaast German war cemetery (also called Maison Blanche) is the largest in France from WWI, with 44,833 buried here."
I already asked this, but, let me put it more simply: How is an event not in or focused on the town, the estimated attendance at an event not in or focused on the town, the officials at an event not in or focused on the town, or remarks made by someone who's mayor of another town relevant to the article about the town? Please answer concisely. -- MIESIANIACAL 17:59, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
Peter, it's about proportionality (or "due weight" in wikispeak); remember the conversation we had at Talk:World War I memorials? You felt that that article should contain more detail about the Vimy memorial, and other editors explained that such detail would be out of place in an article that was supposed to be an overview of all WWI memorials. Similarly, we don't want to bog down a stub about a small town in France that probably has a thousand years of history with an abundance of information about a war memorial that's nearby. It's probably worth a sentence and a link to Battle of Vimy Ridge, keeping the focus on how the battle is relevant to the town, and another sentence about the memorial and a link here. Then anyone who reads the article about the town will know that there was a battle and there is a memorial, but can click the links of they want to read more. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:02, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
Neuville-St Vaast: The comments by the Mayor of Arras -- 11 kilometers from the Memorial -- are not relevant to However, Neuville-St Vaast is only 3km from the Memorial so the attendance of major world figures so close to it is relevant to Neuville-St Vaast.
Arras (11km from the Memorial): Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and French President Francois Hollande speak with Mayor of Arras Frederic Leturque following an official welcoming ceremony at city hall in Arras, France on Sunday April 9.

Peter K Burian (talk) 18:42, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

@User:HJ Mitchell You are probably correct. When User talk:Miesianiacal deleted every word I had added to the STUB article about Neuville-St Vaast I was very unhappy. Since then, he did add back the content, except for the coverage of the Ceremony at the memorial. A Stub does not get bogged down with content, IMHO.

He also reverted most of what I had added to several other articles at the same time, and claimed it was Spam. A logical note such as yours would have gone a long way to making me understand the rationale.

Question: are the attendees at the Ceremony relevant in the article about the village of Vimy, which is 5 kilometers from the Memorial? He did not delete it from that one; perhaps he did not notice that I had added it there too.

Peter K Burian (talk) 18:47, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Interesting. The village of Givenchy-en-Gohelle is about 10km from the Memorial and yet, a CTV article about this village discusses the Centennial Ceremony.
A ceremony to mark the 100th anniversary of the Battle at Vimy Ridge will be held on Sunday. Prime Minister Justin Trudeau will attend the event in France alongside Gov.-Gen. David Johnston, French President Francois Hollande and Princes Charles, William and Harry.        http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/french-village-decked-out-in-canadiana-to-mark-vimy-ridge-centennial-1.3356814 Peter K Burian (talk) 19:34, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Canadian National Vimy Memorial. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:25, 20 May 2017 (UTC)