Talk:Dunkirk evacuation

correct formatting is either X Victory or Inclusive for the results

Operation Dynamo was an evacuation, it was successful so it should be Allied Victory

also this is specifically on the evacuation of Dunkirk not the battle of Dunkirk HCPM (talk) 13:49, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

also to add i just think Allied Victory is best fitting because dynamo was a success however i would understand if inconclusive was a better option but "allied retreat" wouldnt be correct formatting, and would be more so an "Axis Victory"

idk the formatting rules are a bit finnicky but again this is the evac specifically, Axis Victory would be more accurate for the Battle of Dunkirk which resulted in the retreat but this was just the name of the retreat so saying retreat here would say they retreated from a retreat? sorry if im explaining this bad but i just dont think "allied retreat" really makes sense in this context (and in the rules of formatting isnt allowed) HCPM (talk) 13:56, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Please don't revert to your preferred version. Two people have objected to your edit so you should not reinstate it. It's not a victory; a successful retreat is not the same as winning. I have restored the previous version but changed it to "successful retreat". — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 03:20, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

It was not a battle but an evacuation so the word "victory" is not appropriate in my opinion. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 03:25, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

i do for the most part agree, i dont think dunkirk was so massive victory over the germans, i personally think that a term like "Allied Success" would be better term overall however technically speaking "Victory" and "Success" have the same meaning

but this is not really my point, im mostly confused on how the formatting works as per Wikipedia it says it must say "X Victory" so just for future reference why does that not apply here? is that just written in American English (in which victory and success are much closer words then in british english) or is that outdated or something? like i genuinely just want to know

either way I (as much as i dislike calling the outcome of a retreat a retreat) can agree with your verdict as i do understand your point, i apologise for any inconvenience caused HCPM (talk) 07:42, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

If you had an issue with the formatting options you should have started a discussion about that, on the appropriate page, rather than trying for edit war nonsense into this article. In no sense was Dunkirk an allied victory; it was a defeat that was saved from being a whole lot worse. MapReader (talk) 09:40, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

But the wikipedia page is not about the battle of dunkirk, its about operation dynamo which started afterwards and was specifically the evacuation of Dunkirk, this was a success... and victory can be a synonym of success

Operation Dynamo was literally just the name of the retreat/evacuation of Dunkirk which.. last i checked roughly 330,000 out of 380,000 troops got out? i think? this is off the top of my head i apologise, but is that not a success? id bring up articles calling it a success but lets be honest its rather hard to sort through the ones that are and aren't propaganda but if you wish i can get you some sources

Point being the Battle of Dunkirk and Operation Dynamo were two different operations/battles, and i wont change it for now but just.. id recommended learning more about dunkirk because there's a bit more to learn and you'd probably find it interesting like genuinely just being kind, like this isnt a snide comment. youre into British history and its a rather interesting chapter (again i apologise if this comes off as rude i dont mean it as such) HCPM (talk) 10:55, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

Victory and success are not synonyms. My Webster's dictionary defines it as "final and complete supremacy in a battle or war". My Oxford dictionary defines it as "an act of defeating an enemy or opponent in a battle, game, or other competition." So by these definitions, victory is the wrong word; they only got some of the men out, leaving a rear guard of 35,000 behind, and had to abandon all of their equipment.

The result field is optional. There's also another template we could use: Template:Infobox military operation. There's a suggestion to this effect at Template talk:Infobox military conflict#rules for Result parameter. In that discussion Hohum implies it's more important to provide accurate information to our readers than it is to follow the arcane rules hidden in template documentation that our readers will never see. Also if the local consensus for this article is to use more accurate terminology than that provided in the template documentation, that's okay too.

At Talk:Dunkirk evacuation/Archive 2#Infobox "result" there's a previous comment supporting using an accurate wording rather than sticking strictly to the rule for this template. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:06, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

I have just had a closer look at Template:Infobox military operation and it does not work as well for this article, as there's no fields for combatants and commanders. There's fields for "commanded by" and "executed by" but that only gives the opportunity to list the participants on one side rather than both sides. So I am not in favor of switching to Template:Infobox military operation. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:16, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

I do understand that there were comparably very, very few British victories in WW2, but to call the disaster that was Dunkirk, or any aspect of it, an "Allied Victory" is beyond joke!

If anything, on the contrary -- civilians rescuing their humiliated, rallied army, or whatever was left of it. If there is such a thing as a "Civic victory" (and there should be, in my view), this is one of those. WxAxNxDxExRxExR (talk) 23:24, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

ignoring the frankly insulting nature of your words, i personally believe, though others have disagreed so we ended with a agree to disagree and kept the wikipedia as is, that its an allied victory as... it was an evacuation and if we just check the wikipedia page.. it was a success. HCPM (talk) 17:21, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

HMS Grafton

I edited the entry for HMS Grafton because it read as though she was sunk by friendly fire and this was not the case. The Ivanhoe scuttled her after everyone was evacuated.— Preceding unsigned comment added by RoyalBlueStuey (talk • contribs) 10:29, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

"Evacuation"?!

Frankly, it was more of a skedaddle... Where does the term 'evacuation' originate, really, in this context and should it not be changes? (Must admit i LOL-ed, when I saw this! Totally inappropriate term being used to name the article) WxAxNxDxExRxExR (talk) 23:11, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

do you not understand this wikipedia article? or the conflict? this wikipedia article is about the evacuation at dunkirk, which it.. was? what else would you call this? its literally one of the most famous evacuations ever

as for the actual battle of dunkirk.. it has its own wikipedia page called (shocker) Battle of Dunkirk HCPM (talk) 17:18, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

didn't Churchill himself refer to it as an evacuation, as well as his famous line in connection with Dunkirk that "wars are not won by evacuations"?Cloptonson (talk) 16:16, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

Yes he did, he said it in a speech to the House of Commons. See Their Finest Hour, Churchill 1949, p. 115. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 16:38, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

And we should trust this psychopathic drunk rather than our own eyes, because... ~2026-13391-16 (talk) 18:35, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

lets not use propaganda please. Churchill was described as a drunk by his political enemies in the house of commons, its been proven that his speech was due to a speech impediment, lets not insult people over impediments please.

I know that at least one person who lived through the war on home front publicly said on TV that he thought from the sound of speeches broadcast that Churchill was "pissed" (his word), and Alan Brooke the CIGS retrospectively described Churchill's "characteristic, whisky-soaked growl" but the speech he made to the Commons was not broadcast in his own voice on radio at the time - but retrospectively years after the war, when he was commissioned by the BBC to broadcast them on a scheduled programme, so let's not allege he was drunk when in the House.Cloptonson (talk) 08:45, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

also for the record every historian I know calls it an evacuation because thats not only the correct descriptor its the only one? should we call this the "Dunkirk Skeddadle" or what? HCPM (talk) 07:47, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Lead sentence redundancy

@MapReader, "you must be new to Wikipedia" is a bit condescending. You can tell whether I am new with a single click. I have directed you to the parts of MOS saying that we should not be shoving article titles into lead sentences when that results in a redundancy (or tautology). Is there a particular reason why you are ignoring that? Surtsicna (talk) 19:24, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

This is the place where you build consensus for your proposed edit, not where you launch attacks on other editors. I admit I didn’t check your profile, but that you were new seemed a reasonable assumption since you were edit-warring, seem unaware of Mos:first, BRD and STATUSQUO. The helpful thing would be for you to propose your amended lead first sentence here and see if there is support for it - meanwhile, per BRD and SQ, I will restore the article’s stable long-standing wording. Thanks in anticipation MapReader (talk) 07:36, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

Criticizing your offensive remark is not attacking you, @MapReader. The sensible thing to do would be to apologize for it, not to cry wolf. I do not understand how it can seem to you that I am unaware of MOS:FIRST when I cited or quoted that same guideline in each of my edit summaries. Will you please tell me why this article should contravene MOS, namely MOS:REDUNDANCY and MOS:AVOIDBOLD? Surtsicna (talk) 18:30, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

Certainly I apologise for suggesting you are a new editor, when very clearly you are not, but I would maintain that your editing behaviour was rather suggestive of a newbie. Anyhow, this is the point at which you need to propose your edit, with reasoning, to provide something with which editors other than you and me can engage. MapReader (talk) 18:58, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

Thank you. I have proposed the edit. You reverted it citing the Manual of Style. I have quoted the Manual of Style as supporting the said edit. You are now ignoring the Manual of Style after citing it. I am not sure that that is constructive. Surtsicna (talk) 19:19, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

You’re at the D stage of BRD. So far, despite multiple posts here, I don’t think any other editor reading this conversation is going to have much idea how or why you want to completely rewrite the long-standing and stable opening sentences of the lead. MapReader (talk) 06:24, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

I want to slightly edit the lead sentence so that it complies with the Manual of Style, namely MOS:REDUNDANCY and MOS:AVOIDBOLD. Why do you not want it to comply with the Manual of Style? Surtsicna (talk) 07:48, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

The key issue here is MOS:LEADTITLE, particularly It is nevertheless preferable to include the title if this can be accommodated in a natural way. The issue that I see in this discussion is for User:Surtsicna to explain how their proposal complies with MOS:LEADSENTENCE. I cannot perceive any way in which their suggested text does this, so in absence of a convincing explanation, this discussion has an obvious conclusion. ThoughtIdRetired _TIR 07:18, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

Yes, MOS:LEADTITLE emphasizes "natural way". It is not natural to define Dunkirk evacuations as evacuations from Dunkirk. That is tautological and poor prose. Hence later in that guideline we have MOS:REDUNDANCY, which says Keep redundancy to a minimum in the first sentence. and cites the example:

Iraq–Pakistan relations are the relations between Iraq and Pakistan.

Iraq and Pakistan established diplomatic relations in 1947.

MOS:AVOIDBOLD then goes on to say ... describe the subject in normal English, avoiding unnecessary redundancy, giving the following example:

The 2011 Mississippi River floods were a series of floods affecting the Mississippi River in April and May 2011, which were among the largest and most damaging recorded along the U.S. waterway in the past century.

Major floods along the Mississippi River in April and May 2011 were among the largest and most damaging recorded along the U.S. waterway in the past century.

Just as it is unnecessarily redundant to state that 2011 Mississippi River floods were floods affecting the Mississippi River in 2011, so it is unnecessarily redundant to state that Dunkirk evacuations were evacuations from Dunkirk. In fact, "Dunkirk" is named four times in the lead sentence. Surtsicna (talk) 07:53, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

We seem to have to balance ...preferable to include the title... against ...redundancy to a minimum.... Neither is absolute, with the price of one being tautology, against absence of the article title in the first sentence (which, in practical terms, is the expectation of a Wikipedia reader). Am I missing any other major considerations on the matter?
There are, of course, minor considerations, such as getting a link to Dunkirk in early (not everyone knows that it is a French port).
Also, there may be a rephrased first paragraph of the lead that resolves all of the problems under discussion. Perhaps we should all try to find such a solution as an option. ThoughtIdRetired _TIR 09:11, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

That’s not, however, a fair comparison, is it? The article about Iraq-Pakistan relations is about their relations in general; the article about Dunkirk evacuation isn’t about evacuations from Dunkirk in general, but about one specific historical event, which needs definition in the opening sentence of the lead as per MOS:FIRST. The Mississippi flood example also isn’t a fair comparison since the date is in the article title. Reading ‘2011 Mississippi River floods’, the uninformed reader can already deduce that the article is about floods in that river during 2011. Reading ‘Dunkirk evacuation’ the uninformed reader doesn’t have any information about when or what sort of evacuation this was, hence it needs defining at the outset. MapReader (talk) 13:46, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

I support starting the opening paragraph with "In the Dunkirk evacuation, codenamed Operation Dynamo ..." We could more accurately say "evacuation from northern France and Belgium" (De Panne is in Belgium) rather than "from the beaches and harbour of Dunkirk". There is a benefit from having Dunkirk wikilinked (when not in bold) somewhere in the lede. The "... also known as the 'Miracle of Dunkirk', or just 'Dunkirk' ... " could happily be moved to later in the lede.

I propose this as the opening paragraph

"In the Dunkirk evacuation, codenamed Operation Dynamo, more than 338,000 Allied soldiers were evacuated during the Second World War from northern France and Belgium, between 26 May and 4 June 1940. The operation began after large numbers of Belgian, British, and French troops were cut off by German troops during the six-week Battle of France." Nedrutland (talk) 09:19, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

I’m happy with the general line you are advancing, which reflects my concerns with the original edit. Assuming that the ‘also known as’ element within the existing opening is notable (and certainly, being British I know myself that ‘Dunkirk’ in casual conversation would be taken as a reference to the evacuation - my own subjective view is that the ‘miracle of…’ was a more contemporaneous descriptor and its use nowadays would be archaic), we do need to work them in naturally, early in the lead, if they don’t figure in the opening sentence? It’s also worth noting that this article has been through GA so one would normally not expecting to be significantly redrafting the lead. MapReader (talk) 13:51, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

I oppose your suggested edit, because it removes the fact that the troops were evacuated "from the beaches and harbour of Dunkirk", and implies that some people left directly from Belgium, which did not happen.

The way the lead looked when the article passed GA can be viewed here. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:02, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

While the majority of troops rescued left from the harbour, others were rescued from the beaches to the east of the town, including De Panne in Belgium. The article has "In addition to ferrying out on boats, soldiers at De Panne and Bray-Dunes constructed improvised jetties by driving rows of abandoned vehicles onto the beach at low tide, anchoring them with sandbags, and connecting them with wooden walkways." Nedrutland (talk) 16:14, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

We could therefore say "primarily from the beaches and harbour of Dunkirk" — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 18:07, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

I think that would introduce an unnecessary complexity for the lead, especially since early in the evacuation the intent was for II Corps to leave from La Panne, whilst I and III would leave from France. The improvised piers came into service on the day (30th) when more men left from the beaches than the harbour. ThoughtIdRetired _TIR 20:13, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

That leaves readers without a link to Dunkirk. A prompt link to an essential topic is useful to readers. Boldface is not useful; it is just cosmetics. Surtsicna (talk) 18:17, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

I support the suggestion by Nedrutland, or at least something based on that. It would be easy to provide a link to Dunkirk in the third sentence of the lead, which I think is early enough (any reader impatient enough not to read beyond the second sentence is unlikely to follow a link.) ThoughtIdRetired _TIR 20:22, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

That's still prioritizing boldface over something actually useful to readers. This whole project pretty much rests on hyperlinks. Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Linking, a term should be linked at first occurence. Not to mention the redundancy in saying that people were evacuated in an evacuation. Surtsicna (talk) 21:04, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

Looking elsewhere, we have American Quarter Horse (B rated, but seems well written) repeating "horse" in the first sentence; featured articles: Shorwell helmet repeating "helmet", Cefnllys Castle with "castle", and very many more examples. (It took just moments to find the few examples given here.) In the suggested text that we are discussing, a change to "...were evacuated by sea during..." may dilute out the redundancy that seems to be your main problem, whilst introducing a key fact that, though obvious to those editing the article, may be less so for a reader who has no familiarity with the subject.
I think we need to recognise that, rightly or wrongly, most Wikipedia articles follow the suggested methodology, so generating a reader expectation of boldface to identify the topic, immediately followed by its definition. In your example Assassination of John F. Kennedy, I suggest that the priority is different, in that few of those who search for this article will need it defined, so the formula of Article-title-in-boldface followed by definition is not necessary and would not be the reader expectation. ThoughtIdRetired _TIR 08:08, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

I agree, and that was the thinking behind my revert of the original bold edit. There will be far more people unfamiliar with the history and clicking on ‘Dunkirk evacuation’ to find out what it actually was, than are going to be worried that the first sentence starts off with the article title, this being the format for the majority of WP articles. It’s not likely to have featured in school history lessons anywhere outside Britain and even in Britain I’d wager that saying ‘Dunkirk evacuation’ to many younger folk would just get a blank look. MapReader (talk) 14:47, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

MOS:AVOIDBOLD acknowledges that "sometimes a little redundancy is unavoidable"; "Cefnllys Castle " is a proper name, and the castle cannot be defined without naming it a castle. That is not the case here. Readers do not expect boldface, @ThoughtIdRetired; editors do. Wikipedia:Superfluous bolding explained essay explains it as editors mimicing "structures seen in other articles without understanding the purpose of those structures". Yes, bolding the article title in the lead is suggested by MOS, but that same MOS page suggests that we do not bold article titles in cases like this.

The unfamiliarity of the name "Dunkirk evacuation" is not a reason to repeat it in the lead sentence. Doing so does not aid the reader. On the contrary, it delays the actual definition for the sake of fluff. "In the Dunkirk evacuation, people were evacuated from Dunkirk" is not helpful and not good prose. Surtsicna (talk) 07:20, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

Nevertheless, the opening sentence has been stable for very many years, and is substantially the same in format to that when the article was approved as GA; of the five editors who have contributed so far, I am not seeing anyone else sharing your view. The discussion remains open and other editors are most welcome to contribute. MapReader (talk) 07:46, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

Suggesting that only Wikipedia editors look for boldface in the first sentence of the lead is rather analogous to engineers presuming that non-engineers do not understand basic principles like leverage. There are plenty of people who consult Wikipedia often enough to know the normal offering, but without ever having edited here. I made a statistically deficient survey of such people (3 of them), and they all were familiar with the title in boldface, followed by the definition. None of them was concerned about the repetition of words when it was pointed out to them in a follow-up question.

I note that Britannica have no qualms about the repetition of "evacuation". The Imperial War Museum is a bit more clever: a heading including "evacuation", followed by the main text "Operation Dynamo, the evacuation from Dunkirk, involved the rescue of more than...". ThoughtIdRetired _TIR 09:17, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

That’s not, however, a fair comparison, is it? The article about Iraq-Pakistan relations is about their relations in general; the article about Dunkirk evacuation isn’t about evacuations from Dunkirk in general, but about one specific historical event, which needs definition in the opening sentence of the lead as per MOS:FIRST. The article about Iraq-Pakistan relations has a very specific topic too (as does every article). And what of the 2011 Mississipi floods example? It is about a specific flood.

Every article should have the topic defined in the lead sentence, but defining it does not have to involve superfluous boldface or having the article title as the subject of the sentence. In the article Assassination of John F. Kennedy, the topic is clearly defined in the lead sentence by saying what happened, when, and who was involved; it does not start with "the assassination of John F. Kennedy was..." And it is certainly not a circular definition such as saying that the Dunkirk evacuations were evacuations from Dunkirk. Surtsicna (talk) 18:46, 29 May 2026 (UTC)