Talk:Sinai and Palestine campaign/Archive 1

Archive 1

Middle Eastern theatre of World War I

Please see Talk:Middle Eastern theatre of World War I#Rename? --Philip Baird Shearer 10:36, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Call in the cavalry

"Other films dealing with this topic include 'Forty Thousand Horsemen' (1941), and 'The Lighthorsemen' (1987)" That's a lovely bit of error, isn't it? Especially since "The Lighthorsemen" makes a point of demonstrating they weren't cavalry, but mounted infantry.... TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 00:59, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

New external links

I've just added links to topics on the Sinai and Palestine campaigns recently published on NZHistory.net.nz. They have been written by a professional historian (Dr Damien Fenton), and although focus is on the New Zealand experience they are also good general surveys of the topic with some excellent associated media. I hope adding these links this is acceptable. Jamie Mackay (talk) 06:29, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Commander of 52nd Infantry Division

Does anyone know the name of this person at the time of Battle of Romani? --RoslynSKP (talk) 04:24, 14 August 2010 (UTC) Also the commander of the 5th Mounted Brigade at that time? The fellow in charge at Affair of Katia apparently lost his job.--RoslynSKP (talk) 04:26, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Autogenerated citations

These don't appear to change readers access to sources but its impossible to know what 'autogenerated 1' refers to in edit mode. Could the editor who has gone to all the trouble of replacing plain English citations with arbitrary numbers please undo their work and help their fellow editors? --Rskp (talk) 02:55, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Redeployments to Western Front

"... a total of 24 British battalions made up of 60,000 men were sent to the Western Front." I know this sentence is cited (three times!) but the figures seem unbelievable. The paper establishment of a battalion was only 1,000 men. The figures from Liddell Hart in the article on the Battle of Megiddo (1918) seem at least more plausible. Two complete divisions, each with 12 battalions, were sent to the Western Front, and 9 out of 12 battalions from each of another four divisions, for a total of 60 battalions. HLGallon (talk) 09:52, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that. At the moment Woodward, Blenkinsop and Erickson are the only sources I've incorporated regarding this figure. But you have prompted me to look up Falls Official History and he confirms Woodward, Blenkinsop and Erickson. Falls writes that Allenby sent "upwards of 60,000 officers and men" from two infantry divisions, 9 Yeomanry regiments, five and a half siege batteries, 23 infantry battalions, five machine gun companies and disbanded 10 infantry battalions consisting of 7,000 officers and men although these were retained as reinforcements.

Clearly Falls thought it was unbelievable too, he concludes -

"Yet even more remarkable to contemplate than the extent of this invaluable aid to the Armies on the Western Front is the magnitude of the Empire's resources, which permitted him [Allenby] to maintain in these months of adversity an Army of four mounted and seven infantry divisions, fully equipped with all the material needful." [Falls Volume 2 Part II p. 421] Thanks for your interest. --Rskp (talk) 00:03, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

POV: Summation of Campaign

"... series of brilliantly fought actions by the Allies ... fought at the extreme limits ... the enemy was surprised, time after time by the audacity of large mounted forces to effectively operate so far from base, in extremely inhospitable country. These successful operations resulted in the Allied occupation of territory previously held by the enemy..."

Clapping the Allies on their shoulders is understandable and I expect that much in a work like those of F.M.Cutlack and H.S.Gullett. The latter one does it all the time: every plan the Germans and Turks come up with is nefarious and sinister, every move of the British is brave and dashing, and every command issued by the War Council in London is full of stupidity and the local commanders have to work around these obstacles.

Citing poetry of the winning side while congratulating them to "drove the enemy out", is certainly not NPOV. Other parts of the article are biased, too, but this one is one of the most obvious, so I placed the tag there. --Enyavar (talk) 22:39, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree and have toned it down. Can the poem remain as it could be related to by both sides; one moving forward and the other back but both sides losing friends. What do you think? --Rskp (talk) 01:11, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, much better - I had no idea how to start a NPOV summary there. I edited the paragraph again though, I hope it's okay. I left the poem even if I don't like it there. What do other people think, is that poem okay wit NPOV? Maybe make it a quote in a box so that it's not immediately text of the article? --93.129.80.92 (talk) 17:35, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I've tweaked the para also and added a cquote for the poem but couldn't get it to align without double spacing, which I don't particularly like. Is there some other way of getting it to align? --Rskp (talk) 00:03, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I removed the POV-section tag and put the poem into a quote-box after I found out how to use the </poem>-Tags. --Enyavar (talk) 17:13, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Quality of recent edits

[1] Cut corps commanders Harry Chauvel
E.W.C. Chaytor with the justification that 'only corps commanders at most not army' - Chauvel commanded the Desert Mounted Corps and Chaytor commanded the force which captured Amman in September 1918.

The following edits have been described by the editor as 'Clean up' when links have been cut and the names of units as they appear in the cited references have been changed without citations and without consensus.

[2] changed all references to Anzac Mounted Division to the Australian and New Zealand Mounted Division, cut 'infantry' out of names of infantry units, changed Battle of Romani to battle of Romani, cut links to Austrians, Germans and Ottomans, changed all references to the 5th Mounted Brigade to the 5th Mounted Yeomanry Brigade without citation or discussion having been concluded.

[3] cut links to Suez Canal, Australian

[4] Cut links to Imperial Camel Corps Brigade, Anzac Mounted Division and changed name to Australian and New Zealand Mounted Division, cut links to light horse and mounted rifle brigades

[5] Cut links to Anzac Mounted Division, and changed name to Australian and New Zealand Mounted Division, cut links to Imperial Camel Corps Brigade, Ottoman Army. Cut reference to 'Battle of Rafa' so sentence does not make sense. Cut link to Ottoman Empire, Chetwode.

[6] changed Anzac Mounted Division to Australian and New Zealand Mounted Division, added Yeomanry to 5th Mounted Brigade.

[7] cut links to World War 1, Egypt, Ottoman Empire, Battle of Gaza, Capture of Jerusalem, Battle of Rafa, sea bathing, 53rd (Welsh Infantry Division. Changed Anzac Mounted Division to Australian and New Zealand Mounted Division, Gaza, Beersheba, Mediterranean Sea, Jerusalem, Von Kressenstein . Cut the identity of the three infantry brigades which made up the 74th (Yeomanry) Division.

[8] Changed Anzac to Australian and New Zealand Mounted Division.

[9] Cut link to Istanbul.

[10] Cut link to David Lloyd George, Battle of Romani. Changed Anzac to Australian and New Zealand Mounted Division. Changed 'While conscription in New Zealand kept the New Zealand Mounted Rifles Brigade up to strength numbers of volunteers from Australia for the Anzac and Australian Mounted Divisions did not. [Kinloch 2007, p. 33] to 'While conscription in New Zealand kept the New Zealand Mounted Rifles Brigade up to strength numbers of volunteers from Australia for the Australian divisions did not. [Kinloch 2007, p. 33] in order to cut reference to Anzac Mounted Division.

[11] Cut link to Allenby, 60th London Infantry Division, 52nd Infantry Division, Battle of Romani, Battle of Magdhaba, Battle of Rafa, Second Battle of Gaza, Third Battle of Gaza, Battle of Mughar Ridge and Battle of Jerusalem. Cut link to First Transordan attack on Amman. Cut link and changed name from Anzac to Australian and New Zealand Mounted Division. Cut link to 54th East Anglian Infantry Division. Cut reference to Scinde Horse and link and cut reference to unit type ie. 36th Jacob's Horse 'regiment'.

Revision as of 21:19, 10 December [12] Changed 10th Infantry Division to 10th (Irish) Division. Changed 1/Leinster to 6th Prince of Wales Leinster Regiment.

Revision as of 21:11, 10 December [13] Cut link to Allenby, 60th London Division, Anzac Mounted Division and changed name. Cut links to Es Salt, Battles of Romani, Magdhaba, 52nd Infantry Division, Gaza Battles Mughar Ridge and Jerusalem battles. Changed name of 74th Division. Changed names of divisions in direct quote. Cut reference to Scinde Horse. Cut commanders titles

[14] Cut links to 1st Transjordan, 2nd Transjordan attacks. Changed Anzac Mounted Division to Australian Mounted Division.

[15] Changed direct quote "hungry, ragged, verminous, comfortless, hopeless, [and] outnumbered." [Falls 1930 Vol. 2 Part II pp. 444–6] to were "hungry, ragged, verminous, comfort-less, hopeless, [and] outnumbered." [Falls 1930 Vol. 2 Part II pp. 444–6] Changed Anzac to Australian and New Zealand Mounted Division, cut reference to infantry in infantry units. Cut link to Third Battle of Gaza.

[16] Cut link to Middle East

Are these edits of concern to editors? --Rskp (talk) 19:26, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

No Jim Sweeney (talk) 21:29, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

But Jim Sweeney, as all these edits were made by you, your opinion is already known. --Rskp (talk) 01:33, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Its MOS to link only on first use. Jim Sweeney (talk)

Original Research

This article uses several unpublished war diaries, and using them for references is original research. Jim Sweeney (talk) 07:49, 9 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) 10:53, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

The following appears on the talk page of the Battle of Mughar Ridge article where this discussion has been taking place

“ Jim, could you ID which ones haven't been published? The description in the wiki guidance defines publication as being "made available to the public in some form", and the current biblio all look available in either hard or soft copy. Hchc2009 (talk) 13:47, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

As I read it they have just been made available on the web as original documents. The first part of that description is - Base articles on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. The obvious problem is war diaries are written by persons involved in the events and could well believe what they have written is true, but have not had time for fact checking or accuracy and could even be trying to hide something to avoid embarrassment. General Smith could write we held out for some time against a much larger force. While General von Schmidt on the other side writes, we were surprised at how quickly they gave in when opposed by a force of equal size. Both believe what they have said is true, that's why it need historians to go through both sides and piece the jigsaw together. Long post but hope that explains my reasoning. Jim Sweeney (talk) 14:03, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

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)

Yes those alongside other sources, can presumably be removed as the secondary source covers the points. But some paragraphs use only the war diary for referencing. I thought it better to discuss first rather that several [original research?] tags.Jim Sweeney (talk) 14:27, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Agree, always better to discuss. The policies don't seem to prohibit just using a published primary source to support a point though - the guidance is listed here. Could you give an example of where you think a primary source is being used in the article against that guidance? Hchc2009 (talk) 15:57, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

it says Material based purely on primary sources should be avoided. There are one or two paragraphs based only on primary sources, while the material there may not be controversial and possibly can be removed from the article without any damage, they should be backed up with a secondary source if possible. Jim Sweeney (talk) 16:15, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

In fact looking again it seems all the material, with only a primary source reference can be deleted without causing any damage and that may be the best way to solve this? Jim Sweeney (talk) 16:20, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

How about highlighting which ones you propose removing here, and then if there's consensus, removing them in a day or so? Hchc2009 (talk) 16:21, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Ok what about removing those supported by other refs and then highlighting which others can be removed without damaging the article then seeing what's left? Jim Sweeney (talk) 16:23, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Seems sensible to me, although I'd note my role in this article has been limited to reviewing. Hchc2009 (talk) 16:29, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Ok the text for note six could be removed without any great damage, Ref 81b and Ref 97. The rest are used as the only source for large blocks of text and should be easily replaced by secondary sources. Jim Sweeney (talk) 17:13, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Please do not cut "large blocks of text" out of this article, which has been awarded GA status. There is no need to replace with secondary sources as the published war diary sources were assessed during the GA process as ok.--Rskp (talk) 02:51, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I see Jim Sweeney has gone ahead and placed original research tags in this article. Could he please remove these as its clear that there is no original research in this article - see GA review and comments by Hchc2009 above, if in doubt. --Rskp (talk) 02:58, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

There are large sections of this article that only have primary sources for references, these need reliable secondary sources added. Jim Sweeney (talk) 08:56, 9 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) 10:55, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I have reinstated the war diary citations. Please do not cut these citations as they acknowledge sources used in the editing of this article. --Rskp (talk) 00:09, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

”

Rskp (talk) 00:58, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

In 413 citations War Diaries have been used a total of 17 times The Anzac Mounted Division 5 times, the Imperial Mounted Division once, the New Zealand Mounted Rifle Brigade once, the 12th Light Horse Regiment twice, the 1st Light Horse Brigade twice, the 2nd Light Horse Brigade twice, the 3rd Light Horse Brigade 4 times. This does not constitute heavy use and the affiliated sources tag must be cut from this article and the Battle of Magdhaba where it has also wrongly been added. Only one War Diary the Anzac Mounted Division was quoted; out of 68 citations it was quoted 9 times. War Diaries are verified official documents which are reliable for limited use regarding operations. --Rskp (talk) 06:41, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

They are primary sources and some are the only citation used for sections of text. Jim Sweeney (talk) 07:43, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

When the attack on original research could not be sustained it was changed to affiliated sources. Neither argument can be sustained so the posts slides back and forth from one to the other. This is just time wasting.--Rskp (talk) 00:51, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Copy violations

Several paragraphs have been deleted as they appeared to be word for word copied from - Powles The New Zealanders in Sinai and Palestine. Jim Sweeney (talk) 20:24, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Good work. --Rskp (talk) 04:45, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

You can not add copied text to the article even in quotes, as your not quoting someone just adding copied text.Jim Sweeney (talk) 06:31, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes you can so long as its in quotation marks. But I'm now worried that you claimed a section of the Anzac Mounted Division report had been directly copied when it had not. So I'm now concerned about the accuracy of your claims regarding Powles. I hope this time your edits are accurate. Remember the Battle of Jaffa did not end the Sinai and Palestine campaign. This mistake was corrected here [17] I don't want to spend too much more time correcting your errors. --Rskp (talk) 00:26, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I have not claimed a section of the Anzac Mounted Division report had been copied. Trying to muddy the waters by claiming a mistake I editing does not get around the facts, you can not add copied text as has been pointed out to you before on your talk page. You can only quote what someone has said. You can not add copied text from a source as a quote. Jim Sweeney (talk) 00:33, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, you can add copied text from a source as a quote. It happens all the time. But it should be short, not a whole article. See the archived section of the Battle of Jaffa article for a reminder of how that article began? --Rskp (talk) 00:53, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

If you can you should be able to point out where in the MOS it claims you can add copied text. That is not a direct quote. Jim Sweeney (talk) 01:38, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Problems with redirection

As the Battle of El Burj is not mentioned in this article why the redirect? --Rskp (talk) 01:47, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Problems with size

At almost 200,000 bytes this article is bloated and difficult to read. It needs stripping down to reflect the campaign. It should only provide a summery of the campaign, using links to the campaign articles. For example its almost three times the size of the Western Front (World War I) a featured article. Jim Sweeney (talk) 12:17, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Clearly this campaign article is no where near being a featured article nor even a good article as its still being worked on.--Rskp (talk) 01:53, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

moving citation per WP:INTEGRITY

Moving the citation for the Turkish name for the battle, per WP:INTEGRITY and WP:CITEFOOT which states "The citation should be added close to the material it supports, offering text-source integrity. If a word or phrase is particularly contentious, an inline citation may be added next to that word or phrase within the sentence, but it is usually sufficient to add the citation to the end of the sentence or paragraph, so long as it's clear which source supports which part of the text." The information for this particular detail I have located on p. 195 of Erickson's Ordered to Die, which states, "After a bloody repulse on 11 April, the Turks halted their counter-attacks and began to dig in. The Turks called this the First Battle of the Jordan." No mention is made of any of the other Central Powers. None of the balance of the information in the paragraph is taken from the Erickson text, so the citation mark properly belongs after this detail, and not at the end of the paragraph. Neotarf (talk) 16:11, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Not Turks

Turks is a prejorative term during WW1. They were Ottoman soldiers. --Rskp (talk) 05:41, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Indian Princely states

Why all the flags from Indian Princely states in the infobox? These were men within the British Indian Army and were known as Imperial Service Troops. ChristiaandeWet (talk) 18:01, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

They were as I understand it completely funded by the individual rulers of the states listed. Certainly the three IS lancer regiments fought throughout the war in one discrete brigade, but not sure about the IS infantry. --Rskp (talk) 04:13, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps putting it under one flag would be better like the British Raj which technically they were soldiers of but as British Imperial troops. The infobox is too cluttered. Is fundng the reason for putting all those flags up? It would be like putting all the flags from the US states or Canadian provinces in infoboxes that involve them. ChristiaandeWet (talk) 16:54, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

If the US states and Canadian provinces each individually funded their own discrete units, then I suppose they would have a right to be acknowledged. I think the Princely states were acting autonomously, hence the emphasis on the names of the units. If they were just part of the British Raj then I would suppose the names of the units would reflect that. Sorry, I'm no expert in this, so can't give you a definite answer. --Rskp (talk) 02:25, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Judging by the comment here: Talk:Imperial Service Troops it would seem appropriate for them to be under one flag rather than the individual states. ChristiaandeWet (talk) 01:04, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Buistr seems very sure about using the union flag, but its difficult to know why. --Rskp (talk) 05:14, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Buistr is right about using the Union Flag (British India) because they were part of the British army. This should be changed to British India. It clutters the infobox. ChristiaandeWet (talk) 19:41, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

somewhat pedantically but Indian Army and Army of India but not British Army.GraemeLeggett (talk) 22:54, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree it is British Indian army I would also agree not British army. Chris Wet (talk) 23:08, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Will start changing Indian Princely states to British India. Chris Wet (talk) 15:50, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

• Are you sure the Indian Princely states which were not directly governed by Britain (see India#Modern India) should be deleted? --Rskp (talk) 05:20, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Read this for confirmation: Talk:Imperial Service Troops Chris Wet (talk) 12:14, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Report on condition of animals

What's the purpose of this section? As it stands, it shows the questions asked of Chauvel and the answers but it as written it doesn't seem to add to understanding of the campaign? Perhaps it could be rewritten to describe the reporting in a form other than a catechism. Further, are the conditions the animals (is more than one type considered, or is it only about horses?) suffered typical of the campaign as a whole? Did the report result in changes in treatment, the way the animals were used? It seems just a report and incomplete wihout commentary. Lastly - is it one large quote from a source, or the actual report? GraemeLeggett (talk) 10:25, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Article size

Is it possible to condense sections or to rely more on summaries from the various child articles? Can more child articles be used to hive off detail? GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:38, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

What are child articles? --Rskp (talk) 06:53, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't spot this question at the time. Anything with a {{main}} link is a child of this (parent) article. GraemeLeggett (talk) 10:35, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

File:AWM B00008 Pimple.jpeg

Rskp - currently the article uses a low quality version of this image which contains a very large AWM watermark which says 'Reproduction Not Permitted'. I have checked the AWM website and the image is indeed in the public domain so there seems to be no issue there. That said there appears to be a much clearer version available (without the large watermark). Suggest you upload this version and use that instead as the low resolution version currently used (which detracts from the article). Indeed it looks like it has been scanned or taken with a camera. The better version is available here: http://cas.awm.gov.au/item/B00008. Anotherclown (talk) 23:04, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

As there were no objections I've done this. Anotherclown (talk) 09:10, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

What does this mean?

This recent edit [18] doesn't quite make sense to me: "The Palestine campaign began early in 1917 and ended towards the end of 1918. Active operations which began at Beersheba ended, ended after eight months of active operations (interrupted by the Occupation of the Jordan Valley), with the capture of territory stretching 370 miles (600 km) to the north." Specifically "Active operations which began at Beersheba ended, ended after eight months". I would reword it myself but I can't penetrate the language. Can the editor that added it pls reword it? Thank you. Anotherclown (talk) 07:39, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks very much for pointing this terrible edit out to me. I've had a go at clarifying it. Please let me know if it needs further work. Thanks again, --Rskp (talk) 01:12, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Those changes seem fine. Anotherclown (talk) 08:43, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Neutrality

This article uses the term "enemy" no less than 25 times to refer to the Turks/Ottomans. That can't be considered neutral language surely? Please fix this. I would but as an IP I'm sure I'll just get reverted. 211.151.187.164 (talk) 10:43, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

My immediate thoughts on your issue.

Its a long article, some words may be used a lot. (Ottoman is used more than 100 times, "German" about 80, "Allenby" 60 times)

All instances of direct quotes are exempt because we are just reporting what others have said.

"Enemy" may be in use to add variety instead of using "Ottoman" especially if the opposing force is not specifically named. "enemy detachments"

"Enemy" may also be used in referring to orders given "enemy flank"

"Hostile" and other alternative words may be less than optimal for the meaning intended.

Are there any specific instances, where the word "enemy" is used inappropriately. Perhaps they should be addressed first, and see how serious you feel the issue is when they have been rectified.GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:28, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

I looked at all instances of "enemy" in the article and edited about half of them. I have removed the tag, since this was the only complaint the IP raised. It should be kept in mind that "enemy" is a relative term and can be used as neutrally as "east" or "left". Srnec (talk) 23:49, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello gentlemen. I share 211's concerns about the use of "enemy" here. Whilst I agree that it can be used to vary language, I think it needs to be used sparingly. "His enemy" is probably fine, but "the enemy" isn't (use of definite article indicates a POV). I've done a search through this article and the term still appears numerous times, and on each occasion refers to the Ottomans / Turks. If it was done equally to refer to the British Empire forces I think it would be acceptable (if needlessly confusing), but here it is clearly used to refer to only one side. Surely it is possible to just substitute it for "Ottoman" in nearly every occasion? Anotherclown (talk) 02:32, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Ac that use of the phrase "the enemy" to only refer to one side is breaching NPOV. Variations on "Ottoman" should be used IMO. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 04:06, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

• As an english speaking researcher, responsible for much of the editing of the Sinai and Palestine Campaign over the last three years, I have been limited to sources available in that language. There is not a lot written about the German/Ottoman side of the campaign and what there is, often does not specifically identify the German and Ottoman units, army or divisions involved so, 'enemy' is really the only term I can think of. Sometimes 'enemy' has been used when 'German and Ottoman forces' would be repetitive, but the meaning of the sentence lost, if the opponents of the EEF are not indicated. Are there any suggestions of other ways of approaching this problem?

As the associated articles have been researched and edited, this campaign page has undergone significant changes over the last three years. This will probably continue until all the articles are up on Wikipedia. Then it will be possible to re-edit this article and hopefully trim it down to a more reasonable size. --Rskp (talk) 01:47, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

• • Replacing 'enemy' with 'Ottoman' writes out the German commanders and forces also involved in the operations. --Rskp (talk) 03:12, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

I have made fairly lavish use of the suggested 'opponent,' so I hope that will assuage the ruffled feathers of the, obviously very experienced, blocked IP editor. Why the subterfuge? Is this IP an editor who has been in trouble and can't afford to be seen to be weighing in again? If so, is there any protection? Similar attacks have been made by an IP on the Capture of Damascus (1918), the Battle of Beersheba (1917), and the Stalemate in Southern Palestine articles. --Rskp (talk) 07:02, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Personally "opponent" doesn't work in all occasions either, although it is an improvement. Suggest these can be varied using terms like "defenders", "attackers", "Ottomans or Germans" (where we don't know their identity), or "Ottomans" (where we do know their identity) etc. As always find your characterization of any criticism of your articles as an "attack" to be instructive. They look like improvements to me, whilst the fact that several other editors have agreed above that the use of "enemy" is potentially problematic probably means they do to. Anotherclown (talk) 10:28, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

• These specific examples of attack by an IP cannot be lumped into Anotherclown's ideas about any criticism. --Rskp (talk) 04:40, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Further POV in your writing you need to consider, not necessarily in this article.

• The Ottomans always retreat while the British withdraw.

The words 'retreat' and 'withdrawal' are, according to the dictionary, interchangeable. It is only in your head that you find POV here. --Rskp (talk) 06:43, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Anyone with military experience will know that a withdrawal is a planned and often temporary move whereas a retreat is forced by the enemy and implies loss of control, equipment and morale. Since the Allies did most of the attacking and the Ottomans did most of the defending, it might well have been that the Ottomans often did retreat but if the narrative drops into this sort of cliche, then it becomes POV. My old manuals do not mention the word "retreat", implying that if one's own forces retreated, things had gone very wrong indeed. Per manual, one's own forces might withdraw to break off from an unsuccessful battle, to gain time by trading space, to make troops available for other tasks by shortening defensive lines, to abandon positions which have no tactical purpose or to lure the enemy into an unfavourable position. Obviously this is a British Army viewpoint, but it is probably a good enough starting point for analysis or description. HLGallon (talk) 11:40, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

OED gives retreat (among other less military meanings) as "The action or an act of falling back from a place or position, esp. after a defeat or when confronted by a superior force" and withdrawal in part as "esp. the removal of troops by way of retreat". But given that military writers may use the term more precisely, there is a bit too much scope for ambiguity in considering them absolutely interchangeable, so perhaps a checking to see if the actions in question are either a retreat with the enemy in (hot) pursuit, or a withdrawal having achieved purpose following a raid, or say for what Montgomery would describe as producing a "tidy line" (giving up a a potentially untenable position for a better overall strategic position). GraemeLeggett (talk) 09:17, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

The physical reality of the campaign was that in 1916 the Ottoman Army was pushed out of the Sinai Peninsular. In 1917 the Ottoman Armies were pushed out of Southern Palestine. During March and April 1918 during the first two Transjordan operations, the EEF forces returned to the Jordan Valley, but September and October the Ottoman Armies were pushed back out of the Transjordan, Northern Palestine and back into Syria. So call it what you will, the campaign speaks for itself. --Rskp (talk) 04:20, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

• The Ottomans have strong rearguard positions captured by the British after considerable fighting.
• The British ride/charge/attack through intense fire etc
  • Consider this line for example An hour later three aircraft bombed the 8th Light Horse Regiment's (3rd Light Horse Brigade) bivouac but they were chased away by four British planes If they had completed their bombing run there would be no need for them to stay and fight a superior, in numbers, flight and they left. So to say they were chased away is POV, especially when using a Australian War Diary for the source. They of course would have been impartial. Jim Sweeney (talk) 13:58, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

The Ottomans did a lot of retreating from Romani, from Magdhaba, from Rafa, from Beersheba, and their eight months old line, eventually from Gaza, from Tel el Khuweifle, from Hareira, from Sheria, from Jerusalem, from Jericho, from their line in the Judean Hills which had been held for nine months, from Damascus, from Aleppo. They did a lot of retreating and they did not recapture any of the lost territory. During the first two Transjordan attacks, the EEF withdrew from Amman and Es Salt and Shunet Nimrin before they were all finally captured during the Third Transjordan attack. This is not POV its how the campaign was fought. --Rskp (talk) 04:40, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

• Also the IP editor was blocked as they were editing by proxy see WP:PROXY not for any infringement etc.Jim Sweeney (talk) 20:58, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

The term "Ottoman" is appropriate throughout because in terms of command all the troops on the Central Powers side were "Ottoman", even though some units (and individuals) were German and Austro-Hungarian.

Does Jim Sweeney know that the Ottoman bombing run was a completed mission when the British planes arrived? If not, then the terminology is probably accurate, however biased the source. If we do know that the Ottomans were done their mission, then we could probably change the text to say that four British planes arrived too late to prevent the bombing. It's not a matter of POV, but of what we know. Srnec (talk) 03:35, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

No I do not know that, but then the primary source used would have no way of knowing either. That's why we should not use primary sources. Jim Sweeney (talk) 07:06, 26 October 2013 (UTC)