Talk:Battle of Tell 'Asur

Almost B Class

To reach "B Class" just a few things that need to be added is the casualties which references, and finally a map showing the coordinates. I realise there is already a map there, a second map that has the coordinates would be helpful to the article. Adamdaley (talk) 02:30, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Inf box

Why is the 1st Light Horse Brigade included? It was part of XX Corps. see text The main advance by infantry from the XX Corps began during the night of 8 March by the 53rd (Welsh) Division with the 1st Light Horse Brigade (probably operating dismounted), the 74th (Yeomanry) Division and the 10th (Irish) Division. - If you are included one minor unit of the corps they should all be included. Jim Sweeney (talk) 07:59, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

The 1st LHB was attached to the XX Corps if its not mentioned then it might just as well not have been there. The info box is to let readers know about the range of information in an article and its appropriate to show the 1st LHB was there. If you want to add all the divisions in the XX Corps at the time that's your decision.--Rskp (talk) 06:44, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

5th and 6th Regiment, Royal Welch Fusiliers

There has only ever been one regiment called the Royal Welch Fusiliers, not five or six as the text says. This regiment raised several battalions during the First World War and the 1/5th and 1/6th Battalions served in the 53rd (Welsh) Division [1]. For Falls to claim there were five and six regiments, throws serious doubts as to his ability as a military historian, if he can not even get basic facts correct. Jim Sweeney (talk) 21:36, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Its also difficult to check the citation against the book as its not clear which one its from. Jim Sweeney (talk) 10:06, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

It can only be Volume 2 Part I as Part II continues the numbering in Part I. Even British Official Military Historians make mistakes, but I'm not convinced that you have found one. You rely totally on a web site which has not been subject to the checks and balances of the publishing process, particularly for an official history. By the way, I have not found a reference to Falls claiming there were six regiments, but he does refers to the 5/R and 6/R on page 315 Volume 2 Part I.--Rskp (talk) 06:56, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Would you ever be convinced, follow the article links. You even admit you were wrong above he does refers to the 5/R and 6/R which your guessed stood for regiment. I rely on years of reading and experience, the web site used is an easy link to show your errors, and its author Chris Baker is open to scrutiny unlike some that you have used.

• Was the chairman of the Western Front Association [2]
• Given over 1,000 talks on First World War [3]
• Web site cited in other publications [4]
• Web site cited in books [5] [6]
• Cited by Google scholar [7]
• Web site recommended by Intute which confirms his membership of the University of Birmingham's Centre for First World War Studies. [8]
• Has had at least one article published in a journal [9]
• Published author - The Battle for Flanders: German Defeat on the Lys 1918 [10]
• Founder of Fourteen-Eighteen which provides research services for private clients, universities, broadcast media, museums, regimental associations and others who wish to locate, obtain and understand documents from the period of the First World War. [11]

and if they are not enough has been checked at the RS noticeboard. Jim Sweeney (talk) 17:31, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

There is nothing here to do with me personally. I did not admit I was wrong or that I made errors. This is to do with sources which I have accurately used and restate "Even British Official Military Historians make mistakes, but I'm not convinced that you have found one." Chris Baker's credentials are not in question here, but the checks and balances in the publication process of an official history, compared with those of publishing a web site. --Rskp (talk) 05:26, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

change from Action to Battle

Is a Google search sufficient justification, for changing the name of this article, without consultation? --Rskp (talk) 05:55, 10 August 2012 (UTC)