text:
Battle of the Ancre

The Battle of the Ancre (13–18 November 1916), was fought by the British Fifth Army (Lieutenant-General Hubert Gough), against the German 1st Army (General Fritz von Below). The Reserve Army had been renamed the Fifth Army on 30 October. The battle was the last of the big British attacks of the Battle of the Somme. After the Battle of Flers–Courcelette (15–22 September) the Anglo-French armies tried to press their advantage with smaller attacks in quick succession, rather than pausing to regroup and give the Germans time to recover. Subsequent writers gave discrete dates for the Anglo-French battles but there were considerable overlaps and continuities of operations until the weather and supply difficulties in mid-November ended the battle until the new-year.

The British attack was to fulfil complementary objectives. Political discontent in London would be muted by a big victory, as would doubts of British commitment by its allies and British loyalty to the Chantilly strategy of 1915 would be upheld. The capture of Beaumont Hamel and Serre would go some way to redeem the failure of 1 July and obtain ground on which the British would have a tactical advantage. The attack was the largest in the British sector since September and had a seven-day preliminary bombardment, which was twice as heavy as that of 1 July. The capture of Beaumont Hamel, St Pierre Divion and Beaucourt threatened the German hold on Serre further north. Edmund Blunden called the battle "a feat of arms vieing [sic] with any recorded. The enemy was surprised and beaten". Four German divisions had to be relieved due to the number of casualties they suffered and over 7,000 German troops were taken prisoner.

Tactical developments
After meeting on 17 October between Lieutenant-General Sir Henry Rawlinson the Fourth Army commander and Gough, General Sir Douglas Haig, the commander of the British Expeditionary Force (BEF) cancelled the Third Army operation planned in September and on 23 October, the Reserve Army attack was reduced from a converging attack towards the Ancre river, to an attack up the valley. The failure of the Fourth Army attack of 18 October, caused another revision of the plan. The Reserve Army was to capture the rest of Thiepval Ridge with II Corps on 21 October, the Fourth and French Sixth armies were to attack on 23 October and the reduced Reserve Army attack on both sides of the Ancre was to begin on 25 October. Gough issued a new operation order on 15 October and began another reorganisation on the north side of the Ancre. The II Corps operation on 21 October succeeded but the rains returned on 24 October. The main attack was postponed until 25 October and then cancelled; Gough was given discretion to continue with postponements by Haig. On 27 October, Gough set 1 November as the provisional date, postponed it again on 29 October to 5 November and on 3 November, Haig gave Gough the choice of cancelling the attack and resuming operations when the weather improved. On 5 November, Haig suggested a subsidiary attack, if the state of the ground justified the effort. Gough proposed an attack on 9 November but preferred to delay the main effort. Haig agreed that there should be no attack until the ground was dry enough for infantry to move freely and there was a forecast of two days of fair weather; another postponement followed.

On 3 November, Major-General Rudolph Cavan the XIV Corps commander, wrote to Rawlinson, objecting to the renewal of attacks on Le Transloy, having already lost 5,320 casualties. Rawlinson informed Haig that he was going to limit the next attack, which led to a conference at Fourth Army headquarters on 4 November, attended by Haig and General Ferdinand Foch. Haig explained that the Fourth Army would be attacking at other points on 5 November and Cavan agreed to make certain that the French left flank was protected. On 6 November, Rawlinson announced that the Fifth Army operation due in the Ancre valley had been reduced and that the Fourth Army would conduct "modified operations", intended to stop the Germans moving troops from France. Apart from attacks near Saillisel, the French Sixth Army began to consolidate for the winter. After another discussion on 8 November, at the Fifth Army headquarters by Lieutenant-General Launcelot Kiggell, Haig's Chief of the General Staff and Gough, a meeting between Gough and the corps commanders, decided that the attack should begin on 13 November, if the weather stayed dry. Opinion among divisional and brigade commanders varied on the possibility of an attack and that it should go ahead or be cancelled rather than be postponed again; patrols were sent out frequently to report on the state of the ground. On 10 November, Gough set the attack for 5:45 a.m. on 13 November. After studying the Fifth Army plans, Haig allowed the attack to go ahead and Gough later arranged with the corps commanders, that operations towards Pys and Irles would begin if the attack on 13 November went well but avoided detail, due to the uncertain weather.

British preparations
To be ready for the big attack intended for 12 October, Gough began to concentrate more troops in the area north of the Ancre. In early October the north bank was held by the 39th Division of V Corps up to the boundary with the Third Army at Hébuterne. On 1 October, the 2nd Division was moved in on the left of the 39th Division to hold the ground from Redan Ridge to the army boundary. On 4 October the XIII Corps headquarters was brought out of reserve, to control 1500 yd of the front line up to the junction with the Third Army and the 2nd Division was relieved on the left by the 51st Division. The 39th Division was transferred to the command of II Corps on 2 October and then took over the area south of the Ancre on 5 October, by extending its right boundary to relieve the 18th Division at Thiepval. By 7 October XIII Corps had the 51st and 19th Divisions in line and on 8 October, V Corps relieved the 2nd Division with the 3rd and 63rd divisions. Gough issued instructions for the attack on the north bank from 4 to 12 October and arranged for the 1st and 3rd Cavalry divisions to move close to the front line. The artillery of V Corps and XIII Corps steadily bombarded the German defences on the south bank where II Corps operations against Staufen Riegel (Regina Trench to the Canadians at the east end and Stuff Trench to the British at the western end, north of Thiepval) and conducted a simulated offensive with artillery bombardments, wire-cutting and smoke screens.

The British front line north of the Ancre had been moved forward across no-man's-land, until the average width was less than 250 yd. It was intended to isolate the battlefield with artillery and bombard Pys, Irles, Miraumont and Puisieux and the main trenches leading to the battlefield. On the II Corps front, artillery fire was to simulate an attack on the ground east of the old German second line (Grandcourt line) as would XIII Corps artillery on the German approaches to the northern flank. Slow progress on the south bank by II Corps, attempting to occupy Regina Trench, caused by a serious deterioration in the weather and determined defence by the Germans of the remainder of their positions on the ridge north of Courcelette and Thiepval, caused numerous postponements of the general attack on both sides of the Ancre. Haig's plans of late September were reduced to achieving as much as could be done in periods of better weather. Conditions on the battlefield by mid-October, were "so bad as to make mere existence a severe trial of body and spirit". On 12 November, Beaumont Hamel was subjected to a gas bombardment, similar to one on 28 October, when "sk" (lachrymatory) mortar bombs were fired into the village at midday, to wear out the German garrison's respirators and then in the evening Phosgene was fired by Livens Projector to kill them.

British plan
Gough planned to attack on 13 November, with five divisions from II and V Corps astride the Ancre river, which flowed between Thiepval and Beaumont Hamel. Gough intended to reduce the head of the German salient between Thiepval and Serre, the main effort coming from V Corps with the 63rd, 51st, 2nd and 3rd divisions, against positions north of the Ancre, which had not been seriously attacked since 1 July. It was hoped that the intervening nineteen weeks of trench warfare, had substantially reduced German fighting power. Three objective lines were set, the first running from Beaucourt Station (opposite St Pierre Divion)–up Beaumont Hamel valley–eastern outskirts of Beaumont Hamel–Redan Ridge–west of Serre, requiring an advance of 800 yd over three German trench lines and four trench lines in places. The second line was 600 – further forward, running west of Beaucourt–east slope of Redan Ridge–east of Serre–west to the boundary of V and XIII Corps, which would be advanced towards Star Wood. The final objective (third line) was set at Beaucourt–the Puisieux road valley–second line. II Corps with the 4th Canadian, 18th, 19th and 39th divisions was to advance from Stuff trench and Schwaben Redoubt to the Hansa line to force the Germans out of their defences, from Schwaben Redoubt–St Pierre Divion, as far back as Beaucourt, securing the road bridges by Beaucourt station and Beaucourt mill by 7:25 a.m.

The V Corps bombardment was intended to create tactical surprise, by the heavy artillery firing on the German front line thirty minutes before dawn each morning, for an hour of intense fire joined by the field artillery. It was hoped that the German garrisons would become accustomed to the routine and not react, when the opening bombardment for the attack began at 5:45 a.m. No man's land 50 yd back from the front trench was to be bombarded by 25 percent of the 18-pounders, to cover the infantry as it advanced from the British line. After six minutes the bombardment would creep forward at 100 yd in five minutes, pausing on the reserve line of the German front trench system before moving on. The infantry had 56 minutes to reach the first objective and then move on after a pause of an hour. After five minutes of silence a lifting bombardment, beginning with intense fire, would signal the infantry to begin their advance. The attack by the 63rd Division on Beaucourt was to begin 200 minutes after zero, preceded by a bombardment from all available artillery. A few tanks were available and the bombardment was twice the weight of that before 1 July. A machine-gun barrage (first tried at the Battle of Thiepval Ridge, 26–30 September) was to be laid on the German machine-guns dug in along the ridge behind Beaumont Hamel.

Air reconnaissance reports late in the afternoon of 17 November, indicated that the Germans had abandoned Puisieux Trench and the Grandcourt line south of the river. Gough ordered both corps commanders to send patrols and occupy the trenches if possible. New orders were issued, extending the objectives for the attack planned for 18 November. The new plan for 18 November allowed II Corps a halt of 90 minutes on the first objective and the 19th Division would then attack Grandcourt and Baillescourt Farm. The 4th Canadian and 18th divisions would then advance and take Grandcourt Trench to link with the 19th Division at the east end of Grandcourt. II Corps was then to cross the Ancre to take Baillescourt Farm. V Corps was to synchronise its advance to Pusieux Trench and River Trench up to Artillery Alley on the north bank of the Ancre. Lieutenant-General Claud Jacob the II Corps commander protested against the plan and was over-ruled, despite patrols from the 19th Division finding Germans repairing the wire of the Grandcourt line.

German preparations
Agents had warned the German command by 12 October, that an offensive was looming on the Ancre and in diary entries for 18 and 28 October, the army group commander, Field Marshal Rupprecht, Crown Prince of Bavaria anticipated the British attack. On 2 November, General Fritz von Below, commander of the 1st Army, reported that he expected an attack between the Ancre and Gommecourt and that there were signs that British attacks further east were over for the year. On 21 October, Rupprecht favoured withdrawal from St Pierre Divion and Beaumont Hamel but the 1st Army commander took a tactical view, pointing out that withdrawal would forfeit observation from the high ground and that no positions behind the line were better placed. The 12th Division was brought in between the 38th Division at Beaucourt and the 52nd Division at Serre on 22 October. The French attack at Verdun on 24 October, dislocated reliefs on the Somme but British pressure forced the replacement of the seven divisions from Le Transloy to the Ancre from 24 October to 10 November, then the relief of one of the replacement divisions.

On 22 October, Below ordered that on the south side of the Ancre, Gruppe Fuchs was to fight for every piece of ground and where there were enough men, ground was to be recaptured and fortified. Work was ordered to build new defensive strongpoints to shelter troops in reserve and then connect them into lines, the rear of the 5th Ersatz Division to be strengthened to make a possible British attack from Miraumont to Pys a slow and costly advance. Below also ordered an unyielding defence of the German positions north of the Ancre, even in positions enfiladed from the south. After the German recapture of La Maisonette on 29 October, counter-attacks against the French at Sailly-Saillisel and elsewhere were cancelled, yet there were no reinforcements for the 12th Division in the Ancre sector. A "fresh" regiment of the 12th Division took over at Beaumont Hamel from 26 to 27 October despite being under strength, its companies only having 80–90 men; by 10 November it had suffered another 175 casualties. Constant shelling and wet weather exhausted the German troops and cut off the flow of supplies until 11 November, when the British shellfire eased. On 6 November, Below and Lossberg the 1st Army Chief of Staff, concluded that the Ancre–Serre salient was too dangerous to hold, due to artillery fire from the flank and rear and Below contemplated a withdrawal to Lesbœufs.

13–15 November
The seven-day bombardment cut the wire on most of the attack front and destroyed many German defensive positions, except the dugouts built deep below the villages near the front-line. The rain stopped on the night of 11/12 November and a full moon illuminated the landscape. Towards dawn on 13 November, a mist developed which reduced visibility to nil. The mist helped the British advance by reducing visibility but caused many units to lose the barrage as they struggled through mud. II Corps attacked on the right with 19th Division. A battalion from the 58th Brigade made no progress against Stump Road; the 56th Brigade attacked on the right by assembling in no man's land before Stuff Trench, with a machine-gun company attached and followed up by Engineer and Pioneer parties, ready to help consolidate captured ground. The mist helped conceal the British troops, who by 8:15 a.m. had reached their objective, partly along Lucky Way, a sunken road leading into Grandcourt. No German counter-attacks were encountered.

The 39th Division attacked to the west of the 19th Division, with the 118th Brigade on its right flank. The brigade formed up on tapes laid without the German sentries noticing and one battalion advanced north about 1100 yd to the Hansa line by 7:30 a.m., while three battalions attacked north-west to Mill Trench and then reached the station crossing and Beaucourt Mill by 10:00 a.m.; the other two battalions got lost in the fog. At 6:15 a.m. the 117th Brigade attacked from Mill Road up the Ancre valley next to the river, with one battalion and achieved surprise, despite a special barrage from twelve 18-pounders. The battalion cleared dugouts in the side of the river bank and along the top, then met some of the troops of 118th Brigade who were lost and combined to attack St Pierre Divion, which was captured around 7:40 a.m. Three tanks were to advance from Thiepval to assist but one was bogged on the drive to the village, the second broke down and the third reached the German front line at 7:00 a.m. then fell into a dug-out, where it was attacked by the Germans. A messenger pigeon was sent by the tank crew for help but infantry arrived at 9:00 a.m. and the Germans withdrew.

In V Corps, two 63rd Division brigades advanced with all four battalions forward and with two in support from the reserve brigade. On the right, the advance met much German machine-gun fire from the start but captured the German front trenches, then advanced on time to capture Beaucourt Station and Station Road, taking 400 prisoners by 6:45 a.m. The two battalions on the left were severely depleted by machine-gun fire, as was the left brigade although about 100 men reached the first objective. On the extreme left, only isolated groups managed to advance, where they met troops from the 51st Division. The left brigade began bombing attacks and the reserve brigade was sent forward. By 7:40 a.m., troops were digging in along the German reserve line in the south, while three battalions were held up along the German front line, although some of their troops appeared on the Beaumont Hamel spur. At 7:45 a.m., about 450 men advanced to the edge of Beaucourt, before withdrawing slightly and digging-in under artillery fire, before gaining touch with troops from the 39th Division from across the river. The German strong point on Beaumont Hamel spur was attacked many times but little ground was gained. As night fell, the division had linked with the 51st Division on the left, in the German support trench. Reinforcements from the reserve brigade and an extra battalion reached Beaucourt and extended the position to the left as far as Beaucourt Alley by 9:30 p.m. Two battalions reached the first objective by midnight and a battalion took over the British front line.

Both brigades of the 51st Division attacked the first objective (green line) at Station Road and Beaumont Hamel and then the final objective (yellow line) at Frankfort Trench with three battalions, while the fourth provided carrying parties. Six minutes before zero, the leading battalion of the right brigade moved beyond the British wire and advanced when the new 30000 lb mine at Hawthorn Crater was blown, passed the east end of Y Ravine and reached the first objective at 6:45 a.m., with a stray party from the 63rd Division. The battalion pushed on then withdrew slightly to Station Road. On the left, fire from Y Ravine held up the advance and at 7:00 a.m. another battalion reinforced the attack. Troops skirted the ravine to the north and early in the afternoon a battalion from the reserve brigade attacked Beaumont Hamel from the south, joined by troops in the vicinity. The left brigade was held up in places by uncut wire, south of Hawthorn Crater and massed machine-gun fire north of the Auchonvillers–Beaumont Hamel road. Two tanks were sent up, one bogging between the German front and support lines and the other north of the village. Consolidation began and three battalions were withdrawn to the German reserve line and reinforced at 9:00 p.m., while one battalion formed a defensive flank to the south, as the positions reached by the 63rd Division were unknown.

The 2nd Division advanced along Redan Ridge. The 5th Brigade on the right formed up in no man's land, hugged the barrage and got into the German front line easily. Two battalions reached Beaumont Trench on schedule and the other two formed a defensive flank facing north and repelled bombing attacks from the 6th Brigade area, where the advance had been held up by fog and mud, then fire from "The Quadrilateral" in the middle of the 6th Brigade area, where some troops on the right managed to reach the first objective. The junction of Beaumont Trench and Lager Alley was blocked; some troops veered north-east after finding stray troops from the 3rd Division and assuming that they had lost direction. By 7:30 a.m. the 5th Brigade was ready to advance on the second objective and reached Frankfort Trench so depleted, that the troops fell back to Munich trench, Wagon Road then Crater Lane in the German front line. The reserve brigade moved forward at the same time and two battalions were sent to reinforce the 5th Brigade at the first objective. At 9:00 a.m. the remainder of the 6th Brigade was ordered back to the British front line to reorganise and two attacks by the reserve brigade were ordered then cancelled. Overnight the ground was consolidated and two 37th Division battalions were sent up from corps reserve next morning. The 3rd Division attacked Serre with two brigades, the 8th Brigade on the right using all four battalions and the 76th Brigade on the left attacking with two battalions and two in support, with 36 machine-guns. Waist-deep mud caused a fiasco; some troops from the 8th Brigade reached the German support line, then fell back and some lost direction. The 76th Brigade had the same trouble and at 6:30 a.m. an attempt was made to collect exhausted men scattered around in shell-holes. At 4:30 p.m. all operations were cancelled.

In XIII Corps, the 31st Division was to attack with the 92nd Brigade on a 500 yd front to form a defensive flank. Two battalions advanced at midnight with snipers and Lewis gunners in support. The main attack began at 5:45 a.m. and the German first line was easily occupied. The advance to the support trench was contested all morning, with German bombers counter-attacking towards Star Wood. Carrying parties were held up in no man's land by German artillery fire and at 9:30 a.m.a German attack from Star Wood in the open was "destroyed" by British machine-gun fire from the flank. Due to the failure of the 3rd Division attack, the brigade was ordered to retire at 5:25 p.m. which was carried out by 9:30 p.m.

In II Corps, the 19th Division raided Stump Road and Lucky Way and began the relief of the 39th Division by extending its front to the Ancre, which was completed in the early hours of 15 November. In V Corps the 63rd Division continued an attack on Beaucourt Trench at 6:20 a.m. advancing from Station Road and losing direction in the mist. Some troops got to within 200 yd of Beaucourt Trench and waited for the attack due at 7:45 a.m. The 190th Brigade advanced on time, linked with the troops near the objective and entered Beaucourt, taking 500 prisoners and digging in around the eastern outskirts. Beaucourt Trench was captured on the left and troops began to bomb down it towards Leave Avenue but no troops of the 51st Division were found. Two tanks were sent forward to help mop up German troops holding out in the front line, one bogged but the other helped take The Strongpoint, where 400 Germans surrendered. Dugouts towards Station Road yielded another 200 prisoners. At 1:00 p.m. German troops were seen massing near Baillescourt Farm and dispersed by artillery; the captured ground was consolidated overnight.

The 51st Division was supposed to have attacked at 6:20 a.m. when the 37th Division brigade, attached to the 63rd Division advanced but the orders were late and only strong patrols could be organised in time, which were forced back by the Germans. At 8:30 a.m. Munich Trench was occupied but British artillery began to bombard it at 11:00 a.m. forcing the infantry out into shell-holes. A company tried to bomb down Leave Avenue with no effect and during the night the digging of New Munich Trench began, in ignorance of the German evacuation of Munich Trench. The 2nd Division attacked Munich Trench at 6:20 a.m. by advancing an hour before zero but had many casualties from an inaccurate British barrage. Many troops got lost in the mist and some strayed into Leave Avenue in the 51st Division area, thinking that it was Munich Trench, where they were pinned down. Troops which did reach Munich Trench were severely depleted and confusion reigned when some German troops wanted to surrender and others refused. On the left flank, Lager Alley was crossed unrecognised, because of the bombardment and the troops extended the British hold on Serre Trench. Troops withdrew from Munich Trench later in the morning to Wagon Road where they were joined by part of a reserve battalion. On the left flank of the attack, a battalion took over the defensive flank south of the Quadrilateral–Lager Alley, which was linked to the British trench by Cat Street tunnel. Believing that Munich Trench had been captured, two battalions were ordered to attack Frankfort Trench at 2:45 p.m. and were surprised by German machine-gun fire from Munich Trench; the survivors withdrew to Wagon Road.

Air operations
Air observation for the infantry attack which began on 13 November was not possible, because of dense white fog during the day. On the morning of 14 November the mist cleared and 4 and 15 Squadrons flew contact patrols, which revealed the capture of Beaucourt and ground to the north-west. Artillery observation flights gave the positions of 157 German batteries, many of which were silenced by counter-battery fire. German infantry were harassed from the air; 300 German troops spotted in a ravine north of Beaucourt were heavily bombarded by British heavy artillery after a "zone call". Another observer directing fire from a siege battery saw approximately 250 German infantry sheltering in trenches, brought immediate artillery fire on them and then the crew strafed them. Two battalions of infantry were caught on the road near Achiet le Petit and heavily bombarded. During the night ten aircraft from 18 Squadron made low attacks on railway stations, trains and road transport with bombs and machine-guns. A German aircraft followed two of the British aircraft to their base and bombed the aerodrome, leaving craters in the landing-ground. A dummy landing-ground was illuminated as a ruse and was machine-gunned by a German aircraft later that night.

There was good flying weather from 16 to 17 November and frost which improved the going for the infantry. Artillery co-operation worked well on 16 November when area calls from 4, 7 and 15 Squadron aircraft led to "devastating" fire on trenches full of German infantry. An artillery battery was destroyed, seven gun-pits were demolished and 19 damaged, many of the 57 German batteries firing in the area being silenced. Contact patrols found the location of British troops easily, although one aircraft was shot down and two observers returned wounded. The railway junction at Hirson 90 mi away, was bombed by 27 Squadron, attacking from 1000 ft, hitting coaches, wagons in sidings and two station buildings. Other squadrons raided supply dumps at Courselles and Logeast Wood. Air fighting on 16 November began when six British aircraft intercepted three German two-seaters, which had been sent to attack British artillery observation aircraft and shot them down. A new Albatros was captured and four more German aircraft were shot down by offensive patrols, which lost two aircraft. During the night bombing and machine-gun attacks resumed on German railheads, supply dumps and an airfield near Flesquières, while German night bombers raided a French airfield at Cachy and hit 21 aircraft. On 17 November fewer combats with German aircraft occurred, three aircraft being lost and three German aircraft being shot down. On 18 November, the final day of the ground operation, a thaw set in and rain and snow reduced visibility, making it impossible for British troops to be seen, even at low level.

15–17 November
On 15 November, the 39th Division of II Corps completed the capture of Schwaben Redoubt, which took until 11:00 p.m. In V Corps, the 37th Division relieved the 63rd Division and linked with the 51st Division to the north. Bombing attacks began up Beaucourt Trench towards Munich Trench, which reached the 51st Division around 10:00 a.m. Patrols to Muck and Railway trenches found them empty (except for mud). Companies of the 51st and 2nd divisions attacked at 9:00 a.m. and were caught in their barrage, some troops reaching Frankfort Trench then returning to New Munich Trench. A 2nd Division attack with two battalions of the 37th Division lost direction in the mist and fell back to Wagon Road with many casualties, while a third battalion strengthened the left flank by bombing forward and building a strong point in the Quadrilateral, near the top of Redan Ridge, as two tanks in support bogged down early. After dark, the 37th Division in the V Corps area, pushed up Ancre Trench and set up posts in Bois d'Hollande and at Railway and Muck trenches. The 32nd Division, from II Corps reserve, took over from the 2nd Division on the northern defensive flank, where there was considerable confusion over the location of the front line. During the night the right linked up with the 51st Division at New Munich Trench and Leave Avenue. During 17 November, the 32nd Division extended to the right to relieve the 51st Division.

18 November
On 15 November, Gough was visited again by Kiggell to discuss the end of the offensive. After consultations with his subordinates, Gough asked for permission to continue for two more days, weather permitting, which was given that evening. By the morning of 16 November, Gough had heard that Munich and Frankfort Trenches were still held by the Germans and that casualties had been more severe than hoped. Attacks against Serre were abandoned and the main effort was made on 18 November by II Corps pushing down towards the south bank of the Ancre. V Corps, on the north bank, was to provide flank support by capturing Frankfort Trench, advancing along Ancre Trench and taking Bois d'Hollande. The attack was delayed until 18 November, to be certain that preparations were complete.

The first snow fell on the night of 17/18 November and the attack at 6:10 a.m. began in sleet, which later turned to rain, visibility being nil. In II Corps the 4th Canadian Division was to attack Desire and Desire Support trenches south of Grandcourt, roughly parallel to the Ancre. On the extreme right of the attack, east of the road towards Pys the 10th Brigade attacked to form the eastern flank of the attack and was obstructed by a new German trench; on the far right the brigade was hampered by a British smoke barrage. Fire from numerous machine-guns, forced survivors from the 46th Battalion to retire. The 50th Battalion companies found little German resistance, lost touch with the 11th Brigade to the left, took 100 prisoners and began digging in behind Desire Support Trench, before losses from flanking fire forced them to retreat to Regina Trench. The 11th Brigade attacked in "blinding sleet"; the 75th Battalion lost direction and veered west, crossing the Courcelette–Pys road but the brigade reached the rest of its objectives, taking most of Desire Support Trench. Patrols went forward to Grandcourt Trench, found a few Germans, then took prisoner a German detachment near Coulee Trench, 620 Germans being captured in all.

West of the Canadians the 18th Division attacked with the 55th Brigade, which assembled in no man's land on the snow. By 8:10 a.m. Desire Trench on the right flank next to the Canadians was captured and a gap between the two right-hand battalions was closed by converging grenade attacks. The two battalions on the left flank disappeared into a gap where the 19th Division had lost direction and veered to the left. German machine-gunners moved into the gap and annihilated two companies and seven runners sent towards the missing battalions were killed. The battalions had been badly hit by German shellfire and the Germans held on to Point 66 on the Courcelette–Grandcourt road, before bombing attacks westwards along Desire Trench until night fell, which allowed the left flanking battalion to reach part of its objective. Posts west of Point 66 were withdrawn and Point 66 was connected to Regina Trench. Next morning more patrols moved west along the trench and by last light it was found that the Germans had withdrawn from the trench as far as Stump Road.

The 19th Division attacked with two brigades. On the right the 57th Brigade advance reached German positions west of Stump road on the boundary of the 18th Division and pressed on before being cut off and taken prisoner; 70 British troops managing to escape much later on. Further west, the British lost direction in the snow, then found it again but were stopped by uncut wire on the right, with many casualties. On the left, troops got into the Grandcourt line and pushed across Battery Valley on a front of 300 yd, into the south-west part of Grandcourt. The 56th Brigade advanced on the St Pierre Divion–Grandcourt road and along the railway to meet V Corps at Beaucourt. On the right, where the ground to the right of Hansa Road was firm, the attack reached the west end of Grandcourt and the attackers bombed their way to the 57th Brigade troops already there. The left battalions moved forward up the embankment (which was on the north bank of the Ancre where the advance began but was on the south bank between Beaucourt and Grandcourt) parallel to a platoon across the river at Beaucourt Mill and passed north around the west end of Grandcourt. The ground on the railway and the road at the edge of Grandcourt was consolidated by Royal Engineers. The left battalion of the division was to capture Baillescourt Farm on the north bank of the Ancre but one company was stopped by machine-gun fire from Grandcourt, as the other advanced along the railway embankment and sent out a patrol which met one from V Corps.

V Corps attacked with two divisions north of the Ancre river. The 37th Division moved on its right through Beaucourt and at about 1:00 a.m., established posts from Bois d'Hollonde west to the Puisieux road and south to Ancre Trench. At dawn both brigades held Muck Trench and were ready to advance, once the 32nd Division on the left captured Frankfort Trench. At zero hour, patrols found German troops in Railway Trench; further to the left British troops bombed their way to the junction of Leave Avenue and Frankfort Trench, where the meeting with the 32nd Division was expected. Puisieux Trench was entered with difficulty and captured down to the Ancre and a patrol met the 19th Division troops on the railway.

The 32nd Division was to attack Munich and Frankfort trenches, between Leave Avenue and Lager Alley. On the right the 97th Brigade advanced with all four battalions at 6:10 a.m., through sleet and the right-hand battalion was soon stopped by machine-gun fire. The right flank of the centre right battalion was also stopped but further left the advance reached Munich and Frankfort trenches, where the British were cut off and captured. Troops on the left were stopped at a strongpoint in Munich Trench and held on in no-man's-land until dark. Further left the junction of Lager Alley was captured and down the hill, touch was gained with the 14th Brigade. The 14th Brigade was to capture Ten Tree Alley 500 yd forward and form a defensive flank. One battalion began early, advanced down Lager Alley, with its left on Serre Trench and descended the valley towards the village which some troops reached, although most were captured or killed during the day. The next battalion on the left was quickly stopped by German machine-gun fire, after the British barrage fell 600 yd too far forward and attempts to bomb forward failed, the battalions of 97th Brigade rallying in Wagon Road and New Munich Trench. German artillery fire was more effective, cutting communication apart from pigeons and runners. The only gain for the brigade was on the left flank near the Quadrilateral where a slight advance was made and consolidated. Ninety men of the 16th Battalion, Highland Light Infantry (the "Glasgow Boys Brigade" Pals battalion) were cut off in Frankfort Trench, where they held out until 21 November when 45 survivors (thirty of them wounded) surrendered.

13–15 November
The night of 12/13 November was quiet, then near dawn a mist formed and cut visibility to nil. At 6:45 a.m. a hurricane bombardment began on the German front line and a mine went off in the 1 July mine crater on Hawthorn Ridge. Around Serre, the 52nd Division began the defence of the village, which lasted for several days. Troops of the division had detected British digging in no-man's-land despite the fog and a patrol reported the British approach. Confusion caused by the mist allowed the British to get into the first two trenches north of Serre, which were eventually recaptured. After a quiet night, the 23rd Division troops from Infantry Regiment 62 at Beaumont Hamel, stood to at dawn in the fog and were surprised by the arrival of the post, which reduced tension; sentries then reported many footfalls in no man's land. The northern flank was devastated by the mine explosion and the front line was simultaneously deluged by shrapnel and mortar fire. The German troops followed the drill for meeting an attack, each man throwing a grenade as they lined the parapet and machine-gunners fired into no-man's-land. The British arrived at intervals in scattered groups, many smoking cigarettes and with their rifles slung.

Signal rockets were fired for the artillery but in the fog went unseen and the rest were thrown into no-man's-land to illuminate the British as they drew close, many of them falling into German trenches as they were shot. After about two hours, the British attack abated, when cheers were heard from Beaumont Hamel behind them and a line of German troops were seen in the mist, guarded by British troops. The mist lifted a little and many lines and waves of British troops were seen on the right flank advancing unopposed. A defensive flank was formed and fire opened on the British, causing many casualties, before a machine-gun began firing at them from behind and to the left, forcing them under cover. A machine-gun began enfilade fire from the right, causing many casualties. An unarmed German officer appeared and announced that he was a prisoner and that the British were through the support and reserve positions and in Beaumont Hamel. The Germans discussed their prospects and surrendered when British troops began bombing along the trench.

Further south, Infantry Regiment 55 (IR55) of the 38th Division was forced to withdraw to avoid being surrounded after the breakthrough at Beaumont Hamel, allowing the British to advance around St Pierre Divion and Beaucourt; the British taking 2,000 prisoners, including all of I Battalion, 23rd Regiment and its headquarters. On the north bank, the survivors of IR55 made a stand in the Schloss-stellung on the west side of Beaucourt, running towards Alt-Wurttemburgfeste (Old Württemberg Redoubt) from which, with part of the 223rd Division, they devastated two British battalions advancing closer to the river; its reserve regiment was rushed to Serre Riegel early on 14 November. On the south bank, the 38th Division was being relieved by part of the 223rd Division, which having been formed a month earlier from youths and returning wounded, was of limited efficiency. The British barrage here was accurate and St Pierre Divion was captured with the loss of 1,380 prisoners.

Attempts to reinforce the troops on both banks of the Ancre began immediately. Infantry Regiment 144 (IR144) of the 223rd Division was rushed to Beaucourt and Ancre Trench behind the village. A battalion moved up on the south bank of the river then crossed an improvised bridge to occupy Puisieux Trench but no counter-attack could be organised amid the chaos. Some German troops in Beaucourt were attacked from behind and by 10:30 a.m. the British were consolidating the village. Part of the 26th Reserve Division was hurried south from near Cambrai by lorry and forced march, then sent to join the remnants of the 12th Division around Beaumont Hamel. Ground to a depth of 2000 m had been lost in the Ancre valley and German troops fought hard to contain the British advance around Beaucourt and Grandcourt. On the morning of 14 November, British artillery cut the link between the Schloss-stellung and Alt-Wurttemburgfeste but British attacks were costly failures. South and east of Grandcourt, British attacks from Stump Road during the morning were repulsed. The German command believed that the British offensive had ended on 14 November and the German 2nd Army commander General Max von Gallwitz and Crown Prince Rupprecht requested leave (Gallwitz had to wait).

18 November
The British tried again to capture Serre by taking Soden Redoubt to the south and early on had success in confused fighting, when the headquarters of III Battalion, Infantry Regiment 77 in Serre was captured. In a costly defensive success, which owed much to the great assistance from German artillery, the British attack was defeated by the evening, with many British soldiers being captured as they tried to withdraw and their prisoners liberated. In the Ancre valley the 58th Division on the south bank, was being relieved by the 56th Division when the British attack began. The German positions began 300 m north of Regina Trench at Alter Dessauer Riegel (Desire Trench) which was held by patrols as a decoy away from Dessauer Riegel–Leipziger Riegel (Desire Support Trench), the main line of defence 150 m back in Kleine Mulde (Little Gully), an eastern extension of Stallmulde (Little Hollow). Stallmulde was 650 m south of Baum Mulde (Boom Ravine). About 100 m behind these defences lay Grimmaer Riegel, which the Germans were able partly to wire before 18 November. The last line of defence was Grandcourt Riegel (Grandcourt Trench) and machine-gun nests along Boom Ravine.

The British attack got forward 600 yd beyond Beaucourt, despite many casualties caused by massed German machine-gun fire and local counter-attacks. On the south bank the front of the 106th Regiment was broken and I Battalion 120th Reserve Regiment was destroyed by an attack from behind. The 144th and 29th Regiments defended Grandcourt, where the 29th Regiment was defeated and the survivors pushed into the area of the 144th Regiment further east. South of Grandcourt, at 6:30 a.m. the 173rd regiment had been overrun by the time they emerged from their dugouts. The 8th North Staffordshire pressed on and was cut off and eventually surrendered. German troops who had not been pushed back into Grandcourt Riegel, were ordered to retire there in the evening of 18 November. Further east the German defence of the Pys–Courcelette road was forced back, until a counter-attack stopped the British advance. By the evening, German defenders held ground either side of the road, in an arc between Dessauer Riegel and the east end of Regina Trench.

French armies
French operations south of the Somme were delayed by bad weather until 7 November. Bois Kratz, Pressoir and Ablaincourt were captured by the Tenth Army. Numerous German counter-attacks, including a big attack, after a two-day bombardment, at Bois Kratz and Pressoir on 15 November were defeated, after the Germans had gained a foothold at the east end of Pressoir and then been pushed out. North of the Somme, German attacks on the Sixth Army, from south of Bouchavesnes to Lesbœufs, captured the north corner and western fringe of St Pierre Vaast Wood but were repulsed along the rest of the attack front; French counter-attacks made progress on the northern spur of St Pierre Vaast Wood. On the morning of 16 November, the Germans entered Saillisel and Presssoir further south, by the evening they had been forced out; three German divisions had suffered many casualties. French airmen fought 54 engagements with German aeroplanes; on the night of 16/17 November, French night bombers dropped 1.5 LT of bombs on a railway station and aviation park. Preparations began for an advance to a line from Mazancourt to Happlincourt and Biaches, ready for a spring offensive.

Analysis
A 1st Army investigation of the débâcle at Beaumont Hamel found that the weeks of bombardment, lately from the flank and rear, had destroyed the German trenches and wire, although in the front line, most dugouts, 6 – deep, survived. Each morning the British simulated an attack, which sapped the alertness of the defenders. The real attack began after 15 minutes of Trommelfeuer (drumfire); the German defensive barrage failed to have much effect, due to visibility being nil in the fog, leaving the infantry unsupported. The 12th Division was blamed for lacking solidity and discipline and the divisional headquarters was severely criticised for inertia, which had only been remedied when the 1st Army headquarters took over. Edmund Blunden called the battle "a feat of arms vieing [sic] with any recorded. The enemy was surprised and beaten".

A dispute exists among historians as to the motives for the attack. Gough was visited by Kiggell on 12 November and told that a tactical success would be helpful at the forthcoming conference at Chantilly, although he emphasised that Gough was not to begin a battle under unfavourable conditions. During the writing of the Official History volume in 1938, Kiggell recounted that he had suggested the attack and had remarked that a "cheap" success would counter rumoured hostility from Lloyd George, just before the conference due on 15 November, as "an afterthought". Kiggell asked that Haig's later mentioning of his remark to Gough be omitted, to deny an opportunity for Haig's critics to criticise his motives. James Edmonds, the official historian, amended Miles' text to make Kiggell the origin of the political calculation, give due emphasis to operational considerations and deference to the tactical judgement of Gough by Haig and Kiggell

In 2005, Prior and Wilson claimed that Gough had been put in an invidious position and that having the meeting recorded by his Chief of Staff Neil Malcolm, was "unprecedented". Haig had arrived later and described to Gough some of his strategic thinking, that an attack would prevent the transfer of German divisions to the Romanian front, discourage criticism of France and Britain by pro-German opinion in Russia and would give him a success to take to the forthcoming Chantilly Conference, although he stressed that an attack should not be pursued at too great a risk. Prior and Wilson claimed that a small success on the Somme was unlikely to make much difference to Romania and Russia and was "sophistry". In 2009, Philpott called the "shock" that the Fifth Army gave to the Germans on the Ancre, an attack which demonstrated who had won the Battle of the Somme. Philpott described the grounds that historians have given for calling the battle unnecessary and politically motivated in a paragraph, then compared the battle with the attack of 1 July and quoted Ludendorff describing it as "a heavy blow".

The British had taken 7,000 prisoners; Edmund Blunden and Arthur Waterhouse, who took part, had written on the success of the battle and that the British had matched the Germans, who had defeated them at Beaumont Hamel on 1 July. Philpott contradicted Prior and Wilson and their claim that the War Committee had ignored Haig's "flights of fancy" and wrote that in October the battle "still had potential". Philpott described a conference at Boulogne, where Lloyd George failed to challenge the strategic consensus, was "maybe too pusillanimous" and should have resigned if he really opposed the battle. Philpott made the fate of Rumania the main concern of French and British politicians. [Haig's diary entry for 13 November, contains references to politico-strategic concerns relating to the battle but these are not "unprecedented". Similar entries are found on 10, 18, 19, 23, 26 October and 2 November, describing Anglo-French political and strategic relationships as they affected military operations on the Somme in October and November.]

Casualties
Casualties in the 32nd Division from 18 to 24 November, were 2,524, more than 50 percent being "missing". Losses in the 37th Division from 13 to 24 November were 2,469 including sickness as well as casualties. In the 51st (Highland) Division from 13 to 17 November, there were approximately 2,200 losses. Losses in the 2nd Division from 13 to 16 November, were about 3,000 and those of the 3rd Division from 13 to 15 November were 2,400 men. The 63rd Division lost approximately 3,500 casualties, from 13 to 15 November. The British Fifth Army had 23,274 casualties from 11 to 24 November and inflicted so many casualties (45,000 including 7,183 prisoners from 1 to 18 November), that two divisions were relieved twice, in what Ludendorff called a particularly heavy blow. In 1919, J. H. Boraston claimed 7,200 prisoners, including 149 officers.

Subsequent operations
On 19 November troops of the 19th Division defeated a German counter-attack at the west end of Grandcourt. Another defensive position was dug from the Ancre to Battery Alley 500 yd away from the Grandcourt line, from which the British retired, as they were overlooked from the south end of the Grandcourt line, where it was still held by the Germans. Puisieux trench was abandoned, when the 19th Division was withdrawn from Grandcourt that night. The Battle of the Somme lasted from 1 July to 18 November on the British reckoning. In the southern sector, the Fourth Army ended operations on 16 November and on the French sector, the final action took place on 14–15 November in St Pierre Vaast Wood. On 22 November, part of the 96th Brigade tried to rescue infantry of the 16th Battalion, Highland Light Infantry, who were trapped in Frankfort Trench south of the Soden Redoubt; the effort failed and the survivors surrendered.

The German (1st and 2nd), French (Sixth and Tenth) and British (Fourth and Reserve/Fifth) armies, settled down to endure winter on the Somme. The British kept pressure on the German defenders with artillery fire, air attacks during bright spells and propaganda leaflets, purporting to be from German prisoners praising their treatment, although mud, icy winds, sleet and driving rain may have had more effect. Illness and exposure became common among German troops and at the end of 1916 was almost universal, leading to numerous reports warning that the German troops in the area, were unlikely to be able to resist further attacks. British attacks resumed in the Operations on the Ancre in January 1917.

title: Battle of the Ancre


text:
Talk:Tucson, Arizona/Archive 1

Talk page: talk Archive 2: archive2

I grew up in Tucson and looking at the pronunciation it would seem that Tucson is pronounced "teeoosahn". The first vowel is not a dipthong. It should be pronounced "toosahn" or "tusQn" according to the pronunciation guide given. Anyone mind if I change it?
 * I don't know how natives pronounce it, but I always say "toosahn". I'm American, but an East-Coasterner.Tuf-Kat

Name origin
I readded the paragraph about the origin of the city's name. "The name Tucson comes from Chuk Shon, meaning "Spring at the base of the black mountain" in the Papago language of the Tohono O'odham native American tribe. The "black mountain" refers to the summit now known as Sentinel Peak, or "A Mountain", just to the west of Tucson's downtown area." node_ue reverted the article twice to delete it without discussing it on the talk page. Why delete good information? Isn't more, accurate information better than less? A brief discussion with node_ue on IRC led to several arguments against inclusion: A) this information should be in wiktionary, B) this falls in line with articles such as Warsaw and Lisbon, and C) advocation of a change in this text stems from intolerance and bigotry. To respond: A) again, I feel the more information in wikipedia, the better. Why make an article shorter when we have a paragraph of pertinent, accurate information to include? B) the names of Warsaw and Lisbon are given in the language that is used primarily by those cities. Warsaw and Lisbon are really the English versions of the city names.  In the case of Tucson, the city name is Tucson -- that's not the English version of the name in a different language, it is the name.  However, if there are many speakers of Papago in and around Tucson, I can understand including their version of its name in this article.  C) discussion of what is basically style is not a representation of intolerance. I hope that before continued reversions, node_ue will discuss the issue here or post a brief message telling us where a discussion on his Native American placename project may be held. Thanks! kmccoy (talk) 10:22, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * First of all, I hope you'll recall that I told you on IRC that if you added that paragraph back, I wouldn't revert it. Your assertion of otherwise is paramount to calling me a liar, which could be construed as a personal attack, although that would be unfaithful to the AGF policy on my part.
 * A)Most Wikipedians, in addition to Wikipedia policy, disagree with you. Any information that would normally be included in a dictionary entry belongs in Wiktionary rather than Wikipedia. This includes etymology information, which you are unlikely to find at many Wikipedia articles.
 * B)Then what do you have to say for Ceuta, Melilla, Danzig/Gdansk, Helsinki...?
 * C)This is not any ordinary discussion of style.
 * --Node 23:00, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * Name etymology is totally appropriate and even expected for encyclopedia articles - "Tucson" is unlikely to ever have a dictionary entry, and it would be perverse to make readers refer to a dictionary when they are right here looking at an article that purports to be "all about Tucson". The article history is very confusing, not clear who's doing what to who, but in any case my vote is to keep the etymology bits. Stan 13:59, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * FYI, by the time you posted this, there had already been a Wiktionary entry for Tucson for quite some time. Though it lacked a section about etymology, that could've easily been added, which I have just done.
 * --Node 23:00, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * Ah, Wiktionary continues to amaze. It's still true that etymology is common for encyclopedia articles - if they're missing from WP articles, it's more likely to be an oversight. See Mississippi River, Minnesota, and Idaho's amusing story, just to pick three with nonobvious names. The mention of etymology is conventional for US names, especially the Indian-derived ones - for some, like New York, the etymology neatly slips into the account of the history. Stan 04:47, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

We've had a further discussion on IRC regarding this, and I found that most people seemed to agree with my feelings on not including the parenthetical remark of (O'odham Chuk Shon). I'd like to repost some of my arguments here as to why we should A) not include the parenthetical remark, and B) include the etymology as a seperate paragraph. I feel that the format of City name (Language name: Other language name) is currently and should only be used when the official name of a place is in a language other than the language of the current wikipedia. This happens with the article on Munich. You'll notice that the en:WP article on Munich lists the German name of München. However, if you look at the de:WP article on München, you'll see that there is no listing of the English name being Munich. This is despite the fact that Munich has a sizable population of English speakers. (Lysine points out that Cardiff is another example, although one could argue that since Wales is bilingual, both Cardiff and Caerdydd are official names for the city and should be mentioned on each page...) Basically, I feel that placing this parenthetical statement implies that Chuk Shon is the official name for the city of Tucson. If this is actually the case, and the city is really officially known as Chuk Shon, I'd love to know that and it would be a good inclusion in an encyclopedia article on Tucson.

I really think that the name Chuk Shon is critical to include in the article as the origin of the current name, and including the paragraph in the opening section above the TOC seems a fine place to do that. Or maybe adding another section. It could also be mentioned, in fact, that the native people called the area Chuk Shon before Europeans created the city of Tucson there. I am just opposed to including it in the parenthetical version at the very beginning of the article. I think that node's project of including native language placenames for cities in this region is great, and I just disagree with how the placename should be presented.

Thanks! kmccoy (talk) 05:24, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * In that case, what about articles such as Sacaton, Arizona where the native name is not related to the etymology of the English name? Although Sacaton, Arizona is what the US Census Bureau calls the town (obviously they use English), and the municipality is officially called Sacaton internally, the official language is O'odham without a doubt.
 * --Node 08:05, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Again, you insist that it is not the "current" name. It is not the current English name, no, and it never was. But it *is* the current O'odham name. In addition, last time I checked, you don't live in the region. I don't know where you *do* live, but here not all Native Americans died hundreds of years ago. The majority of Native American languages in Arizona are alive and well (which is untrue of any other state in the country), being learned by children, and many of them have monolingual speakers. (Navajo, O'odham, Hopi, Havasupai, Walapai have monolingual speakers, others may as well; I'm not sure). Those languages in Arizona which are not doing well are mostly those spoken on the border with California. Living in the Phoenix Metro Area, I hear O'odham spoken around me fairly often (and occasionally Navajo). If I wish to learn it, I can get classes at Scottsdale Community College, or even U of A (in Tucson), which I actually plan to do this fall. Before the white man came to the Phoenix Metro Area, the only inhabitants of the land from just north of Phoenix to well across the Mexican border were O'odham (in some of their reservations near Phoenix, they share land with Maricopas who are originally from the Colorado River).

If you want, I can go to the trouble of asking Ofelia Zepeda who, unlike yourself (contrary to what you may want us to believe), is an expert in the O'odham language, what the current O'odham name for the city of Tucson is, though it's pretty much useless since I already know she will agree with me as even in the most recent addition of her textbook and other relevant books, Tucson is still referred to in O'odham as Chuk Shon.

In addition, although the official language of the city is not O'odham (in fact, I don't believe there *is* an official language), it *is* the official language of the nearby Tohono O'odham Nation (the second-largest reservation in the US, covering over 1 million acres) and is spoken by many O'odham living in Tucson, many of whom have lived there since well before my grandparents and my parents came to Arizona.

Interestingly, there is no O'odham name for Phoenix (to my knowledge) because the concept of Phoenix did not exist before the coming of white people (the villages in the area became Scottsdale, Tempe, Chandler, Goodyear, etc, but the boundaries of those villages extended into what is now Phoenix; what was not part of the villages had a very small and not very permanent population). (Unless one uses the name of the district in which it is, which I think might be Wehn Chekshani, although that has very different geographical boundaries than does the Phoenix Metro Area)

If you want to go up to an O'odham and tell him or her "The proper name in the O'odham language for the second largest city in the state of Arizona is 'Tucson', not 'Chuk Shon' as experts and dictionaries have told you", be my guest. It is simply not true, and you CANNOT change the truth, no matter how hard you try.

In addition, there is the arguement that the current government of Tucson is not legitimate (that they are an occupying force) and that true authority rests with, say, the Tohono O'odham Nation, meaning the official language would be O'odham and the official name Chuk Shon. Of course, that's pretty rediculous, and even O'odhams do not challenge the authority of the municipal government... at least not often, since it's pretty futile. Even though it's rediculous, though, NPOV means that you must remain neutral and not endorse either camp. (please do not respond to my last argument as it's not really serious)

--Node 06:45, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * The history lesson and context is interesting, but not really relevant. The bottom line - the version in place now (kmccoy's) actually gives much better treatment to the O'odham language than the previous one in parens, and it is indeed consistent with how other pages are done. I don't know why you are resisting it with such vigor. The folks in the IRC channel earlier gave their opinion and overwhelmingly supported this info being included, and not relegated to Wiktionary. Hopefully you'll agree from looking at the etymology of other city names here that it is appropriate to do so. Fuzheado | Talk 06:56, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * Perhaps you are not familiar with our argument. We are no longer arguing over whether or not to include that paragraph, but rather whether or not to include my remark in parens. I personally do not believe it gives much better treatment to the O'odham language... kmccoy continues to insist that the current O'odham name is *not* Chuk Shon, which is false. Next time you want to enter an argument, please make sure you're up to date.
 * --Node 07:59, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * It is clear I am talking about the parens. The parens should be taken out. That should be easy to understand. Fuzheado | Talk 08:56, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * No, it is *not* clear. I'll quote you: "The folks in the IRC channel earlier gave their opinion and overwhelmingly supported this info being included, and not relegated to Wiktionary." Therefore, you were not talking about the removal of the parens. Or if you were, your wording was *very* unclear.
 * --Node 11:31, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * I agree with User:Kmccoy, placing an alternate language name in parenthesis at the beginning of the article leaves the wrongful impression that it's a common second name and should not be included. --Buster 08:32, Jul 19, 2004 (UTC)

 * It *is* a common first name. Chuk Shon is often used to refer to Tucson. Just not in English. While after explaining himself I no longer believe kmccoy to be a bigot or racist, you have shown time and again that you have no regard for those who were here first.

 * (Just to clarify, this is in response to node_ue, above.) Actually, I'm not arguing that. I'm arguing that this is the English wikipedia, and in other articles we only include a foreign language placename when the official name of the place is in that foreign language.  (Munich, Warsaw, Lisbon.)  The city of Tucson, Arizona wasn't incorporated as "Chuk Shon" and just translated into English.  It was incorporated as Tucson, and this name was derived from "Chuk Shon".  I don't doubt your claim that the current O'odham name for the city is "Chuk Shon", but I also don't think that it's particularly relevant to the article.  The English name of "Munich" isn't included in München, despite the fact that the current English name for the city is Munich and a number of English speakers live there.  The same goes for Warsaw and Lisbon, two cities which you have used as examples.  (I'd love to see this standardized, but such is life on WP.)  Again, I think you've got a good idea in your project, I'm just disagreeing with you on the way to include these names.  I'm a little concerned with your implication that because you don't believe I live in the area I may not have input into this article on WP.  I don't see how this is true, and I also think it's odd that you make such assumptions about where I live.  In any case, it's freely mentioned on my user page that I live in Grand Rapids, Minnesota (Minnesota comes from the Dakota words meaning "sky-tinted water.") I wish that you would not take personal offense to my questioning of this inclusion -- it is not a desire to deny the existence of native languages or people, nor is it a desire to deny the origins of our placenames.  It's simply a desire to make this (and other) wikipedia article more clear.  Thanks! kmccoy (talk) 08:48, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * The difference between the English name of Munich and the O'odham name for Tucson is that the O'odham are the original inhabitants of Tucson, while English-speakers are not the original inhabitants of Munich. Those O'odham living in Tucson are not immigrants nor were their parents or grandparents immigrants, as would be the case with English speakers in Munich. Your mere comparison shows your general ignorance of the historical and current populace of Arizona.
 * In addition, Minnesota was, iirc, the name for a waterfall rather than what is now Minnesota. There is a difference there - Chuk Shon wasn't the word for Sentinel Mountain (though that is the black mountain to which Chuk refers), nor is it now. It's the word for Tucson. And only Tucson. Would you care to respond to my earlier question on this page regarding Sacaton?
 * Thank you very much, I appreciate your continued willingness to discuss matters in a civil manner.
 * --Node 11:16, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * I appreciate that the original inhabitants of the Tucson area are O'odham. Again you have made an assumption and then used that as a basis for a personal attack -- using language like "Your mere comparison shows your general ignorance of the historical and current populace of Arizona" only serves to lower the level of civility in this discussion.  I would say that the original name for the area is given proper consideration in the paragraph and the parenthetical remark is not only not needed, but also inappropriate in the English wikipedia.  Perhaps there should be some discussion of an O'odham wikipedia if there is concern that modern day people who call the city "Chuk Shon" are not being fairly represented?
 * I'm not drawing a comparison between the name of Minnesota and the name of Tucson. My reason for mentioning it was that you said "I don't know where you *do* live, but here not all Native Americans died hundreds of years ago."  Showing another assumption that isn't correct.
 * Looking at Sacaton, Arizona, I would say that if the city's name is officially Sacaton and not Ge'e Kih, then Ge'e Kih should not be in parenthesis after the city's name. If that name has significance to the city, it should be easy to find another spot in the article to connect it.
 * kmccoy (talk) 15:36, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Then you are clearly at odds with Stan regarding Sacaton. Well over 10% of Sacaton uses the O'odham language, and it is the *first* official language (along with Maricopa) of the Salt River Pima-Maricopa reservation of which Sacaton is the capital.

Yes, let's watch it with the juvenile stuff. The rule I would suggest is that parenthesized names in other languages should be in the lead if they are used by at least, say, 10% of the current local population, or they are in an official language of the country, or if the name appears a lot in old literature. Antwerp (city) is an example of the first two, the much-fought-over Gdansk is an example of the last. (Ironically, the minorities rule would likely require the inclusion of Spanish names for Southwestern cities before any Indian names...) Stan 16:18, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * Indeed Stan, except that in the United States, most cities have identical Spanish and English names, especially in the Southwest where many English names are actually Spanish words (Los Angeles is only one example). And does oral literature apply? I ask this because prior to contact with Spaniards, the O'odham only knew writing from petroglyphs (which, although they can tell a story, will generally not tell you the historical name of a place; see for example the petroglyphs decorating the cover of A Pima Remembers by George Webb) and from their limited contact with Aztecs (whose writing is nowadays considered by some to not even be a writing system), and even after that there was no standard for writing the language in Roman letters until relatively recently.
 * I'm not sure if I could call it "discriminatory", but I don't think it's fair to treat the names a language gives to things as less-than-equal just because the language hasn't been a written language historically.
 * Nowadays, O'odham texts talking about Sacaton will say Ge'e Kih, about Scottsdale will say S-washai Weshoni, about Tucson Chuk Shon, about Mesa Mohmli, etc.

--Node 23:51, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * Spanish versions would only be an issue if they were different, which in the Southwest would probably not be often. I suggested written literature only as a practical matter - for instance, people who read ancient authors need to know that Durres is the same place as Epidamnos and Dyrrhachium. Purely oral literature is kind of irrelevant to a Wikipedia that consists of text and images (how does one look up a sound?), unless it's been written down, in which it becomes part of the written literature. I don't know anything about the O'odham, so won't try to judge this particular case, just trying to elucidate some principles that might help reduce the wrangling the next thousand times this issue will come up. Stan 04:10, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I wonder if, in the spirit of compromise, we could find a place to include names such as "Chuk Shon" in articles like this that is not in the position of the article which I have a problem with? Perhaps a line such as "Tucson is inhabited by a sizable number of speakers of the O'odham language. In that language, the city's name is 'Chuk Shon'" and place it near the top of the article? That way my concern with not confusing it with the official name of the city is addressed and your concern with including the name used by a number of local people is addressed. Thanks! kmccoy (talk) 02:45, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * I find this to be completely unsatisfactory. I should like to remind you that my last revision to this article was itself a compromise - I was initally against the presence of that paragraph, which, in the spirit of compromise, I eventually agreed could stay if you let the parenthetical remark after the English name stay. However, it has become clear to me that no matter how much you pretend, you are not at all interested in compromise. I do not see your proposed solution as a compromise any more than I see the current revision as a compromise. The simple fact that Munich is in Germany and Tucson in the US should make it clear that the German version of the name is official in Germany, while the English version of the given name is official in the US.
 * You said previously that in an O'odham Wikipedia, it would begin something like this: Chuk Shon (Milgahn Tucson). However, being an O'odham Wikipedia, there would be no reason to include the English name, since it is of no historical significance whatsoever, and anybody wanting to know could click the interlanguage link to Tucson, Arizona.
 * Would it better suit you if the English article began like this: Tucson, also known as Chuk Shon... as is done in articles for alternative, non-official names of places and things? It would be better than your current proposed solution, but it lacks the specific recognition of the name Chuk Shon as being the O'odham name for the city rather than an alternative English name. Thanks, Node 04:48, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * I am fine with recognizing the name Chuk Shon as the O'odham name for the city. You seem to misunderstand my argument.  I just don't agree with placing it directly after the article title.  This is not the O'odham wikipedia.  This is the English wikipedia.  Including a sentence such as mine above makes it clear what place the name "Chuk Shon" has in reference to Tucson, whereas your proposals would be more appropriate for an encyclopedia aimed at teaching O'odham or aimed at bilingual speakers of O'odham and English.  My proposal should also be combined with a statement explaining that the name "Tucson" is derived from the O'odham "Chuk Shon", thereby demonstrating the two roles which the term "Chuk Shon" plays in regard to Tucson (as I noted a few posts back.) If the O'odham wikipedia didn't include the name of the town as it is known by the town officials (historical significance is important, node, but present-day realities are also important to note in an encyclopedia, especially with wikipedia's ability to stay far more current than print sources), that would be an interesting choice by the editors of that wikipedia, and one with which I would disagree (although I wouldn't have the language skills to edit it.)
 * I am unclear as to what your point regarding Munich in your previous post was, sorry.
 * Thanks! kmccoy (talk) 05:16, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * >>I am fine with recognizing the name Chuk Shon as the O'odham name for the city.
 * And I said you weren't?
 * >>You seem to misunderstand my argument. I just don't agree with placing it directly after the article title.
 * Which you have made clear time and time again.
 * >>This is not the O'odham wikipedia. This is the English wikipedia.
 * You're stating the obvious.
 * >>Including a sentence such as mine above makes it clear what place the name "Chuk Shon" has in reference to Tucson, whereas your proposals would be more appropriate for an encyclopedia aimed at teaching O'odham or aimed at bilingual speakers of O'odham and English.
 * How so? (O'odham Chuk Shon) in no way seems to me as if it's trying to teach O'odham (if this were the case, the entire article text would be bilingual with individual English glosses for each O'odham word and vice-versa), nor does it seem as if it is aimed at bilinguals (in such a case the name Chuk Shon would be used exclusively). My proposal makes it very clear that Chuk Shon is the O'odham name for Tucson, as well as the origin of the English name (as I said in my previous post, we have already made a compromise which was to keep that paragraph which I had previously opposed). Your "official language" argument is invalid for reasons I will outline later in this post.
 * >>My proposal should also be combined with a statement explaining that the name "Tucson" is derived from the O'odham "Chuk Shon", thereby demonstrating the two roles which the term "Chuk Shon" plays in regard to Tucson (as I noted a few posts back.)
 * My proposal *is* combined with a statement of such nature. Nobody is talking about removing that paragraph anymore.
 * >>If the O'odham wikipedia didn't include the name of the town as it is known by the town officials (historical significance is important, node, but present-day realities are also important to note in an encyclopedia, especially with wikipedia's ability to stay far more current than print sources)
 * Again you showcase your incredible ignorance of Arizona indigenous issues. For a present-day O'odham, the name Chuk Shon is not only a historical name but a "present-day reality". The O'odham name remains Chuk Shon, and as such would be the only name required in an O'odham Wikipedia.
 * >>that would be an interesting choice by the editors of that wikipedia, and one with which I would disagree (although I wouldn't have the language skills to edit it.)
 * And even if you did have the language skills, everybody else would oppose you and the decision would be repeatedly upheld no matter how many times you objected.
 * >>I am unclear as to what your point regarding Munich in your previous post was, sorry.
 * I will try to explain it better: since the official language of Germany is German, in any article on a German city, common sense dictates to the reader that the German name is the *only* official name, and whereas English is the national language of the United States of America, in any article on an American city, common sense dictates to the reader that the English name is the *only* official name on a federal and almost always a local level as well, no matter the relative placement of names.
 * Thanks! Node 15:35, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * Sorry, node, I wouldn't let such a proposal stand. "Tucson, also known as Chuk Shon" is not reasonable.  Nobody calls it that.  Tucson is the name of the city, the sounds of which are derived from Chuk Shon.  It is NOT also known as Chuk Shon.  RickK 05:24, Jul 20, 2004 (UTC)
 * Oh, I accept your apology, RickK. It's no biggie, since you don't hold ultimate authority over all decisions made on Wikipedia anyways. I also understand your misplaced concern that nobody calls it that; after all you have not interviewed every single person on Earth as to what they call the city, nor do you currently live anywhere in Arizona. I will help you with that one: Yes, some people do call it Chuk Shon. That would be well over 12000 people, by some estimates 30000. It is indeed also known as Chuk Shon. Thanks! Node 15:35, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Really? Where's YOUR poll? RickK 18:40, Jul 20, 2004 (UTC)

 * my* poll? The US census and estimates of population statistics in Northern Mexico.
 * Node 21:50, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * No, that would be a count of the number of people of that ethnic group, not a count of the number of people who CALL Tuckson Chuk Shon. I'm of various Celtic derivations, that doesn't mean I call Dublin Atha Cliath.  RickK 21:56, Jul 20, 2004 (UTC)
 * No, that would be a count of all the people that speak that language (the ethnic group is larger), which is basically a count of the number of people who CALL Tucson Chuk Shon. You may be of "various Celtic derivations", but would you write on a census that you are a speaker of Scottish Gaelic? Node 02:01, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * node said "Again you showcase your incredible ignorance of Arizona indigenous issues." I tire of this sort of abusive language, and I'm not going to allow myself to be subjected to it. I have made my points, and I am now finished discussing this with node.  This is not the first time that node has been asked to stop using abusive language and has continued.  A discussion with him is proving to be an impossibility.  Thanks! kmccoy (talk) 18:44, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * I would argue that that is not abusive language, but a simple statement of opinion and perhaps even fact. If you were to say "the sky is green", and I were to say "Again you showcase your incredible ignorance of celestial hue", would you say that's abusive too? I wouldn't. What I would consider abusive language would be something along the lines of "geez, you're so stupid" or "you're such an asshole", and for that reason I generally do not say such things to people on Wikipedia whether or not I would like to. There is a difference between saying "you are ignorant" and "you are ignorant to..." or "you are ignorant of..."; the former indicates general ignorance which I would personally consider an attack and/or an insult in most cases, whereas the latter indicates an assertion of a person's unfamiliarity with a specific topic. Seeing as 1. you are a Minnesotan, 2. the only reason you even know about this debate is because I mentioned something regarding it on #wikipedia and you subsequently decided I was wrong and decided to take a stand (since then I have offered a compromise, but you were obviously unwilling to compromise although at the time you pretended you were; once I implemented our compromise you decided that wasn't good enough), 3. you do not mention anywhere in your userpage any number of years living anywhere in Arizona, nor do you appear to have edited Arizona-related articles more than minimally (to say nothing of Arizona indigene-related articles), I think my judgement that you are in general ignorant to Arizona indigenous issues is logical, just as if you were to tell me I am ignorant of Minnesota indigenous issues, and that would not offend me because it's true. The Golden Rule (which I believe is mentioned in WikiLove, though I'm not sure) dictates that if I would not mind you telling me that I'm ignornant of Minnesota indigenous issues, I should not think twice before telling you that you're ignorant about Arizona indigenous issues, as long as I believe that to be true.
 * In addition, I have continously showcased my willingness to come to a reasonable solution by using polite language, including but not limited to so-called "expressions of gratitude". Your assumption that my remarks were made in bad faith are against the general Assume Good Faith policy, which since the beginning of this I have observed with you (not once have I said anything along the lines of you being in this argument just because you don't like me or want to irritate me)
 * I have also been offended by some of the things that you have said, but because of the AGF policy I have remained silent with regards to them and for that reason have avoided much unnessecary confrontation that would have occured had I not AGF'd.
 * I also hope you realize that such a withdrawl from a debate it tantamount to a general abstention.
 * Thanks. Node 21:50, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * Nonsense. It's just following the "don't feed the trolls" dictum, which I am now about to do.  RickK 21:56, Jul 20, 2004 (UTC)
 * No, it's tantamount to a general abstention. In addition, you assertion that by withdrawing from this discussion, you will be following the "don't feed the trolls" dictum, you are attacking me (or at least somebody in this discussion) personally much more than if you told me I was ignorant of Arizona indigenous issues. If you abstain as well, there won't be many people left in this discussion (perhaps Stan, Fuzheado, Buster...). Thanks! Node 02:01, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * Node_ue, a recommendation - brevity is the soul of wit. Your writing, "Again you showcase your incredible ignorance of Arizona indigenous issues," is at best acrimonious and at worst an insult. You consistently pull out the red herring that since none of us have ever lived in Arizona, we should all accept your view as gospel. Rather, we are debating points of style and consistency with other articles, and that does not require our travelling to Arizona and living amongst the people. Nothing mentioned so far has convinced the majority we should break from convention. Fuzheado | Talk 02:52, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * Would you be so kind as to quote me? I never said anything about how you guys should accept my view as gospel since none of you has lived in Arizona, nor is that my belief. Node 20:44, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * In addition, where does it say its convention to not include names like that? --Node 07:08, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Is this dispute still active? I would side with kmccoy and RickK. --Gary D 06:25, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Talk:Tucson, Arizona/Archive 1


text:
Category:Saga Prefecture

Saga Prefecture (佐賀県; Saga-ken) is a prefecture located in the Kyūshū region on Kyūshū island, Japan. The capital is the city of Saga.

title: Category:Saga Prefecture


text:
Wally McKenzie

James Wallace McKenzie (June 16, 1914 in Plenty, Saskatchewan – September 11, 1999) was a politician in Manitoba, Canada. He was a Progressive Conservative member of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba from 1966 to 1986.

McKenzie was the son of homesteaders who had moved to Manitoba from Ontario. In the 1930s, he earned extra money by performing in dance bands. He was educated in Saskatchewan and did not attend university, working as a grain buyer after leaving school. In 1939, McKenzie married Hilda Rose Pritchard. McKenzie served in the Royal Canadian Air Force from 1941 to 1945 and returned to his old job following the conclusion of World War II. When his employer was bought out by Pool elevators, he opened a grocery store in Inglis, Manitoba which he operated for 30 years.

From 1955 to 1963, he was a member of the Inglis town council. He also served as President of the North Central Hockey League in 1965.

He was first elected to the Manitoba legislature in the provincial election of 1966, in the riding of Roblin, defeating New Democrat Joseph Perchaluk by just over 200 votes. He did not serve in the cabinets of Dufferin Roblin or Walter Weir, and sat as a backbench MLA on the government side for the next three years.

In the provincial election of 1969, McKenzie narrowly defeated fellow incumbent Michael Kawchuk of the NDP in the redistributed riding of Roblin; Kawchuk's constituency, Ethelbert Plains, had been abolished. The NDP under Edward Schreyer formed government after this election, and McKenzie moved to the opposition benches. He was re-elected by an increased margin in the 1973 election, with the lack of a Liberal challenger making his re-election bid easier.

The Progressive Conservatives returned to power under Sterling Lyon in the 1977 election. McKenzie, easily re-elected in his own riding, was named Deputy Speaker of the assembly on November 24, 1977. He did not serve in Lyon's cabinet.

Amid the NDP replacing the Tories as the government and Howard Pawley replacing Lyon as Premier of Manitoba, McKenzie was re-elected again for the new riding of Roblin-Russell in 1981. He retired from politics at the 1986 Manitoba general election.

He died in Russell at the age of 85.

title: Wally McKenzie


text:
Ilish

The ilish (Tenualosa ilisha) (ইলিশ), also known as the ilishi, hilsa, hilsa herring or hilsa shad, is a species of fish related to the herring, in the family Clupeidae. It is a very popular and sought-after food fish in the Indian subcontinent, and is the national fish of Bangladesh and the state fish of West Bengal.

As of 2021, 86% of the world's total ilish supply originates in Bangladesh. The World famous Hilsa (ilish) comes from Ganges (Padma river) of Bangladesh. The fish contributes about 12% of the total fish production and about 1.15% of GDP in Bangladesh. On 6 August 2017, Department of Patents, Designs and Trademarks under the Ministry of Industries of Bangladesh has declared the recognition of ilish as the product of Bangladesh. As of 2021, 86% of the world's total ilish supply originates in Bangladesh which applied for Geographical indication (GI) in 2004. About 450,000 people are directly involved in the catching of the fish as a large part of their livelihood; around four to five million people are indirectly involved with the trade.

Common names
Other names include jatka,illi, ilish, ellis, palla fish, hilsha, ilih etc. (ইলীহ/ইলীহি: ilih/ilihi, ইলিশ, મોદાર/પાલ્વા: Modar or Palva, ଇଲିଶି, Sindhī: پلو مڇي pallo machhi, உள்ள மீன்/Ulla Meen, Telugu: పులస pulasa). The name ilish is also used in India's Assamese, Bengali, and Odia communities. In Iraq it is called sboor (صبور). In Malaysia and Indonesia, it is commonly known as terubok. Due to its distinguished features as being oily and tender, some Malays, especially in northern Johore, call it 'terubok umno' (to distinguish it from the toli - which species is rich in tiny bones and not so oily). In Myanmar, it is called (MY ငါးသလောက်) in Burmese which derives from the Mon language word ကသလံက် with က in Mon and MY ငါး in Burmese meaning fish.

Description and habitat
The fish is marine; freshwater; brackish; pelagic-neritic; anadromous; depth range of about 200 m. Within a tropical range; 34°N - 5°N, 42°E - 97°E in marine and freshwater. It can grow up to 60 cm in length with weights of up to 3 kg. It is found in rivers and estuaries in Bangladesh, India, Pakistan, Myanmar (also known as Burma) and the Persian Gulf area where it can be found in the Tigris and Euphrates rivers in and around Iran and southern Iraq. It has no dorsal spines but 18 – 21 dorsal soft rays and anal soft rays. The belly has 30 to 33 scutes. There is a distinct median notch in the upper jaw. Gill rakers fine and numerous, about 100 to 250 on the lower part of the arch and the fins are hyaline. The fish shows a dark blotch behind gill opening, followed by a series of small spots along the flank in juveniles. Color in life, silver shot with gold and purple. The species filter feeds on plankton and by grubbing muddy bottoms. The fish schools in coastal waters and ascends up the rivers (anadromous) for around 50 – 100 km to spawn during the southwest monsoons (June to September) and also in January to April. April is the most fertile month for the breeding of ilish. The young fish returning to the sea are known in Bangladesh as jatka, which includes any ilish fish up to 9 inches long.

Production
The fish is found in 11 countries: Bangladesh, India, Myanmar, Pakistan, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Bahrain, Indonesia, Malaysia and Thailand. Bangladesh is the top hilsa-producing country in the world, followed by Myanmar and then India.

86 percent of the total hilsa catch is taken in Bangladesh. Production has dropped in the other ten hilsa-producing countries; in Bangladesh, however, production reached 517,000 tons in FY 2017–18, up from 279,189 tons in 2006–07, as a result of a strategy implemented by the Bangladeshi government.

Food value
The fish is popular food amongst the people of South Asia and in the Middle East, but especially with Bengalis, Odias and Telugus of Coastal Andhra. Bengali fish curry is a popular dish made with mustard oil or seed. The Bengalis popularly call this dish Shorshe Ilish. It is very popular in Bengal (Bangladesh and India's West Bengal), as well as in Odisha, Tripura, Assam, Gujarat and Andhra Pradesh. It is also exported globally.

In North America (where ilish is not always readily available) other shad fish are sometimes used as an ilish substitute, especially in Bengali cuisine. This typically occurs near the East coast of North America, where fresh shad fish having similar taste can be found.

In Bangladesh, fish are caught in the Meghna-Jamuna delta, which flows into the Bay of Bengal and Meghna (lower Brahmaputra), and Jamuna rivers.

In India, Rupnarayan (which has the Kolaghater hilsa), Hooghly, Mahanadi, Narmada and Godavari rivers and the Chilika Lake are famous for their fish yields.

In the Indian state of Andhra Pradesh, hilsa takes on a special significance. Here, the term "pulasa" refers specifically to the larger, mature hilsa that migrate upstream along the Godavari River. This migratory journey is crucial, as it's believed that the Godavari's unique muddy waters contribute to the development of a richer flavor and firmer texture in the fish, compared to hilsa caught elsewhere." So, all Pulasa's are Hilsa's, but not every Hilsa is a Pulasa. "Due to this perceived superior quality and its limited seasonal availability (typically monsoon season), pulasa commands a significantly higher price and cultural importance in Andhra Pradesh. It is considered a rich delicacy, often referred to as the "king of fish" in Godavari Areas and features in celebratory meals and as a prized gift. The upstream migration itself is seen as a vital natural process, and the pulasa a reward for the patient fishermen who wait for its arrival. The High Price of Pulasa and common scams: The high cost of pulasa makes it a target for unscrupulous vendors. Finding genuine pulasa can be a tough task, as some may try to pass off regular hilsa as the more prized catch. Consumers are advised to be cautious and rely on trusted sources when purchasing pulasa, especially during the off-season. This regional distinction highlights the importance of habitat and migration patterns in shaping the cultural perception and value of fish like hilsa. It also emphasizes the challenges associated with ensuring authenticity and quality in the seafood market.
 * Pulasa – The Godavari King - Andhra Pradesh - [Not a regular Hilsa]

In Pakistan, most hilsa fish are caught in the Indus River Delta in Sindh. They are also caught in the sea, but some consider the marine stage of the fish as not so tasty. The fish has very sharp and tough bones, making it problematic to eat for some.

Ilish is an oily fish rich in omega 3 fatty acids. Recent experiments have shown its beneficial effects in decreasing cholesterol level in rats and insulin level.

In Bengal and Odisha, ilish can be smoked, fried, steamed or baked in young plantain leaves, prepared with mustard seed paste, curd, eggplant, different condiments like jira (cumin) and so on. It is said that people can cook ilish in more than 50 ways. Ilish roe is also popular as a side dish. Ilish can be cooked in very little oil since the fish itself is very oily.

Ilish in culture

 * In Andhra Pradesh, the saying goes "Pustelu ammi ayina Pulasa tinocchu", meaning roughly "It's worth eating Pulasa/Ilish even if you have to sell your mangala sutra.
 * In many Bengali Hindu families a pair of ilish fishes (Bengali: Jora Ilish) are bought on auspicious days, for example for special prayers or puja days like for the Hindu Goddess of music, art and knowledge Saraswati Puja, which takes place in the beginning of Spring and on the day of Lakshmi Puja (The Goddess of Wealth and Prosperity) and Durga Puja which take place in autumn. Some people offer the fish to the goddess Lakshmi, without which the Puja is sometimes thought to be incomplete.
 * In Bengal ilish is also used during wedding as tattwa gift. During Gaye Holud tattwa the Bengali Hindu and Bengali Muslim family of the groom presents a pair of ilish to the family of the bride. However, due to the scarcity of ilish, nowadays it is often replaced by Rohu in West Bengal, while the tradition continues in Bangladesh. In Bangladesh and West Bengal, ilish is often termed as the 'Queen' of fishes. It is popular among all Bengalis during monsoon which is known as the month of ilish.
 * In Bangladesh and West Bengal, a famous dish which tastes good with fried ilish fish is 'khichudi' (a special way of cooking lentils and rice together with some added herbs).
 * This fish is known as pulasa in Godavari districts of Andhra Pradesh State in India. The name Pulasa stays with the fish for a limited period between July-Sept of a year, when floods (muddy) water flow in Godavari River. This time the fish is in high demand and sometimes $100 per kilo.
 * Hilsha fish called Pallo Machi is important part of Sindhi cuisine, prepared with numerous cooking methods. It can be deep fried and garnished with local spices, can be cooked with onions and potatoes into a traditional fish meal or barbequed. The fish often has roe, which is called "aani" in Sindhi and is enjoyed as a delicacy. Often fried alongside the palla and served with the fish fillets.
 * The rivalry of East Bengal and Mohon Bagan, two football clubs of Kolkata (Calcutta) are celebrated by food. When East Bengal wins, an ilish (hilsha) dish is cooked by the East Bengal supporter. Similarly, when Mohon Bagan wins, a Chingri (Prawn) dish is prepared by the Mohon Bagan supporter.

Overfishing and possible extinction
Due to the demand and popularity of this species, overfishing is rampant. Fishes weighing around 2 to 3 kilograms have become rare in India, as even the smaller fish are caught using finer fishing nets as production in Bangladesh have increased. As a consequence of this, prices of the fish have risen. In the past ilish were not harvested between Vijaya Dashami and Saraswati Puja due to some informal customs of Odia and Bengali Hindus as it is the breeding period of the fish. But as disposable incomes grew, wealthier consumers abandoned the old traditions. The advent of finer fishing nets and advanced trawling techniques, and environmental degradation of the rivers, has worsened the situation. Fishermen have been ignoring calls to at least leave the juvenile "jatka" alone to repopulate the species. The fishing of the young jatka is now illegal in Bangladesh. This ban however has resulted in a rise in un-employment, as around 83,000 fishermen are unable to pursue their former livelihood for eight months every year. It has also led to the creation of a black market where jatka are sold for exorbitant prices. Furthermore, the changes brought about by global warming have led to a gradual depletion of the ilish's breeding grounds, reducing populations of the fish even further. Pollution in Indian rivers have worsened the situation, but due to slightly better waters the fishes are found more near Bangladesh delta. Owing to this situation ilish is used as a diplomatic trade item for COVID-19 vaccines too.

title: Ilish


text:
Bainbridge

Bainbridge may refer to:

People

 * Bainbridge (name)

Places

 * Bainbridge Township (disambiguation)

United States

 * Bainbridge Island, Alaska
 * Bainbridge, Georgia
 * Bainbridge, Indiana
 * Bainbridge (town), New York
 * Bainbridge (village), New York
 * Bainbridge, Geauga County, Ohio
 * Bainbridge, Ross County, Ohio
 * Bainbridge, Pennsylvania
 * Bainbridge Island, Washington
 * United States Naval Training Center Bainbridge, Maryland

Other countries

 * Bainbridge, British Columbia, Canada
 * Bainbridge, North Yorkshire, England

Other

 * Bainbridge College, a community college in Bainbridge, Georgia, US
 * Bainbridge Cup, a trophy in the game of pickleball
 * Bainbridge reflex, in Physiology, also called the atrial reflex
 * 5 ships named USS Bainbridge
 * Bainbridge, the former name of the John Lewis Newcastle department store in Newcastle upon Tyne, England

title: Bainbridge