Talk:First Battle of Gaza/Archive 1

Archive 1

Identification of infantry

Unfortunately Jim Sweeney has cut almost all references to the infantry units involved in this attack, making it very difficult for readers to differentiate infantry regiments from mounted ones. In this case I think these should be undone. What do others think?--Rskp (talk) 02:54, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

The Essex Regiment is an infantry regiment there is no need to write the Essex infantry regiment.Jim Sweeney (talk) 06:15, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

To the expert in the field but to a general reader they might think all regiments were mounted. --Rskp (talk) 06:56, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

That's why we use wikilinks. Jim Sweeney (talk) 07:16, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

But when the links are red and go nowhere - what then? --Rskp (talk) 00:36, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Then you edit the article so it clear, without making up names. Jim Sweeney (talk) 06:20, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

I have reverted the British unit names to the correct name for the time period as per the cites. There is no need to make up names for them. The Australian and New Zealand Mounted Division has been added to prevent an edit war between ANZAC or Anzac this is being discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history can I suggest you leave it alone until a consensus is agreed.Jim Sweeney (talk) 21:46, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Traps for uninformed editors

In the process of imposing one editor's idea of the correct unit names on this article, this editor has produced the following - "In the process the [7th Light Horse] regiment captured the commander of the Ottoman 53rd (Welsh) Division and his staff on their way to Gaza." The Ottoman 53rd Division was not, of course, Welsh. --Rskp (talk) 03:07, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

And again this editor has renamed the 1/4th Sussex Battalion, a Regiment. --Rskp (talk) 05:26, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

And again the 160th was not a (Cheshire) Brigade as this editor insists but a Welsh brigade according to his own order of battle. I'd call that lazy or sloppy. --Rskp (talk) 05:34, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Why cut a perfectly good link to the Birkshire Yeomanry and then add a 'Royal' to their name? No sources for any of this. So why make these mistaken edits?

Good catch its obviously the 160th (Welsh Border) Brigade, the 1/4th Battalion of the Royal Sussex Regiment is of course right, battalions are part of infantry regiments. Jim Sweeney (talk) 06:24, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that's right infantry battalions are part of infantry regiments and as such need to be clearly identified for the benefit of the general reader. If only you had read the article, you would have realised your mistake regarding the Ottoman infantry division when you called it Welsh. In the future, more care would be appreciated to avoid mistakes like your making up a completely new 160th Brigade.--Rskp (talk) 22:51, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Their identification as an infantry unit is by using the correct name 1st Battalion, London Regiment for example. Other units are also identified by the correct name Hussars, Yeomanry, Lancers, Dragoons, Light Horse, Mounted Rifles for the cavalry/mounted infantry. XX Battery, for the artillery etc. Anyone can make a mistake, why even you made one here, that's why everything thing here is a work in progress. Jim Sweeney (talk) 07:41, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Order of battle suggestion

G'day, currently the Attacking force and Defending force sections have long lists of units that took part in the battle. I wonder if it might not make sense to split this out into a separate article called First Battle of Gaza order of battle. This has been done on other articles with success (for instance Battle of the Bismarck Sea and Battle of the Bismarck Sea order of battle). That information could then be replaced with a few short paragraphs. This would help keep the narrative flowing. Anyway, just a suggestion. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 06:49, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Would get my vote. Jim Sweeney (talk) 13:01, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Interesting suggestion. But there is a precedent in the Battle of Megiddo for keeping an extended order of battle in a battle article. Clearly further discussion is required.--Rskp (talk) 04:45, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Original Research

This article uses several unpublished war diaries, and using them for references is original research. Jim Sweeney (talk) 13:34, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

The war diaries have been published on the web for some considerable time now. They have been used in the Battle of Mughar Ridge which was awarded a GA last year. At that time the use of these war diaries was subject to study and found there was no interpretation or analysis and therefore the use was within Wikipedia guidelines. For the benefit of readers the following post, which appears on the Battle of Mughar Ridge talk page, is included here. Please see that talk page for further info regarding this issue.

“ I'm not disagreeing that they're primary sources, but they are published primary sources, and there's no outright prohibition on them. I think that the OR requirement we need to judge them against is that "interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors". I'm not a great fan of this part of our policy, I'll admit, but in terms of making an OR claim, we'll need to point to where there is such interpretation, analysis or synthetic claim, rather than just noting that its a primary source. Many of them are also cited alongside secondary sources in this article to support particular points - I think rather than a general tag, it might be useful to ID which points of use are of particular concern. Hchc2009 (talk) 14:20, 8 January 2012 (UTC) ”

• • I'm sorry that I failed to sign this post yesterday. --Rskp (talk) 00:13, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Per RS noticeboard - consider them reliable for individual experiences, but not for most factual information. Also some have been accepted at FAC, so caution in use required. Jim Sweeney (talk) 10:57, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Copy violations

Putting copy violations in quotes is still a violation. Your not quoting someone just copying the book text. Jim Sweeney (talk) 05:55, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Jim Sweeney has identified two examples of what he calls copy violations

1. The original Powles reads The wagons of the Anzac Mounted Division were pulled by teams of mules, two in the pole and three in the lead, driven by one man from the box. These wagons and mules did such excellent service that the five-mule team was laid down for the Egyptian Expeditionary Force and they ultimately almost superseded the British four or six horse ride-and-drive teams.

This became in the Wikipedia article The wagons with their teams of mules, two in the pole and three in the lead, driven by one man from the box, did such excellent service that the five-mule team was laid down for the Egyptian Expeditionary Force as being the perfect transport for the work; and they ultimately almost superseded the British four or six horse ride-and-drive team.

2. And the original Powles reads On the day after the Rafa races the preliminary moves prior to the attack on Gaza began, and all roads and tracks possible for wheels were carefully reconnoitred as far as Belah and allotted to the different formations; for the force to be employed on this undertaking was to consist, for the first time in the campaign, of all arms—infantry, cavalry and guns, and was now called "East Force," consisting of the Anzac Mounted Division, Imperial Mounted Division (one Light Horse Brigade and two Yeomanry Brigades), the Camel Brigade and three Infantry Divisions—the 52nd, 53rd, and 54th, all under the command of General Dobell of West African fame.

This became in the Wikipedia article All roads and tracks were reconnoitred as far as north as Deir el Belah and by 22 March, preliminary moves had begun.

Sorry, forgot to sign this on 17 February 2012. --Rskp (talk) 07:35, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

References

Ottoman plane message

'The British press reported the battle as a success, but afterwards an Ottoman plane dropped a message that said, "You beat us at communiqués, but we beat you at Gaza."' - Aftermath section

It's good that the line is sourced, but I really think this article should be more clear on where this Ottoman plane dropped this message and what the consequences were. (For example, was it the military that was subsequently exposed for lying to the press? Was the press exposed for lying to the public?) It's a cute line, but it needs more detail to have real meaning in an encyclopedic article. Milhisfan (talk) 06:56, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, its an interesting thought. This quote is included because it shows the enemy was aware that the defeat had been misrepresent as a victory. Murray's report was the probable source used by the British journalists as it did misrepresent the defeat as a victory. (see Aftermath section where Murray claims 'we have advanced our troops ... 15 miles') Its likely that a pamphlet was printed and hundreds were dropped over EEF camps; one might have got lost. Murray did eventually loose his job over it and the 2nd Gaza debacle. --Rskp (talk) 07:51, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

You're right, it connects well enough. Appreciate the response. Milhisfan (talk) 08:52, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Pro British bias

Only the British side of the story is being told here, and the Turkish are relegated to being referred to as the "enemy". Poor even by Wikipedia's standards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.9.157.129 (talk) 12:00, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

I have now changed all instances of the word "enemy" to "Ottoman" except where it was in quotes to deal with some of the concerns raised above. The other issue highlighted will need more work though and I am not in a posn to assist with that. Anotherclown (talk) 00:06, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

As an english speaking researcher I have been limited to sources available in that language. I hope you will conduct your own research into the Ottoman side of this battle, and when you find the information you seek, add it to this article. --Rskp (talk) 02:29, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Unreferenced list in Prelude

There are a couple of paragraphs and lists in the "Defending force" subsection of the Prelude which need a citation. Is anyone able to add these? If so this article should meet the MILHIST B class criteria. I will add tags where they need refs. Anotherclown (talk) 10:50, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I've added the citations. --Rskp (talk) 05:10, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

No worries. That looks fine. Anotherclown (talk) 09:53, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Over use of quotes in the Aftermath section

Aftermath section currently consists of three block quotes, one from the Australian official historian and two from British generals. For a start I suggest that this is probably an overuse of quotes per WP:LONGQUOTE and WP:OVERQUOTE and that it needs to be rewritten to paraphrase where appropriate. Secondly be careful also not to give too much coverage to one side and not the other, as it seems to lack balance as it currently is (3 block quotes to sources from one side, zero from the other - shouldn't be using them anyway). This needs to be dealt with if you are going to take it to GA. Anotherclown (talk) 11:03, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Have cut them quite a lot. Is that enough? --Rskp (talk) 05:10, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes that is a big improvement. Are there any objective assessments (i.e. from historians - not participants) of the battle available in WP:RS? If so these could be used to expand the aftermath section a bit - perhaps one more paragraph. Otherwise it looks fine to me now. Anotherclown (talk) 10:08, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Overuse of quotes in Battle of Beersheba (1917)

[moved from RoslynSKP's talk page] Although better than most articles in the this series, this article also makes substantial use of quotes and block quotes, the majority of which I cannot see adding very much to the narrative, and would seem to be contrary to WP:LONGQUOTE and WP:OVERQUOTE. These need to be paraphrased where appropriate, and more often than not, simply deleted as the information they convey is mostly trivial or unencyclopeadic. As it stands this article does not appear to comply with the MOS. I have posted this here rather than on the article's talk page because I want to give you the opportunity to deal with the issue without me having to place a tag on it (especially since it has just gone through a GA review). This issue is of course present across most of the articles you have substantially contributed to, and has been raised previously, so would suggest you may need to examine those as well. Anotherclown (talk) 11:30, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Is this not an issue which would have been reviewed during the GA process? --Rskp (talk) 00:18, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

No response. Just at the moment I have rather a lot on my plate, and don't have time right now, to see what you are referring to. --Rskp (talk) 04:05, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

You know exactly what I'm talking about because you fixed the same issue when I raised it at Talk:First_Battle_of_Gaza#Over_use_of_quotes_in_the_Aftermath_section. Anotherclown (talk) 09:16, 27 November 2013 (UTC)