# Talk:Battle of Magdhaba

Hi, this is quite an interesting article. I've done a quick review of this article and have the following suggestions (they are mainly related to style and presentation, as I don't know enough about content in this regard):

Hill is listed in the Notes section (Citations # 20, 21, 46, 65), but the full bibliographic details are not included in the Reference list;
Woodward is cited, but the full bibliographic details are not included in the Reference list;
same as above for the works by Wavell, Carver, Cutlack and Pugsley;
be careful with how endashes are used in the article, sometimes they have been used when hyphens are required per WP:DASH, e.g. "seventy–seven" should simply be "seventy-seven";
be careful using terms such as "enemy". There are two reasons for this, sometimes it is a bit vague, but also it leads to an article that is written from a non neutral point of view;
the last two paragraphs of the Aftermath section need citations;
the Treatment of Casualties subsection of the battle would probably be best if it were incorporated in the Aftermath section;
be careful about how you capitalise the section headings, the Manual of Style prefers that only the first word is capitalised unless it is a proper noun, for instance "Treatment of Casualties" should be "Treatment of casualties";
the images might look better if alternated left and right throughout the article;
be careful about the spacing of the citations, generally I believe that it is preferred that there is no space between the final punctuation mark and the citation;
Anyway, I hope these points help. Cheers. AustralianRupert (talk) 11:15, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
Yes they are, thank you very much. --Rskp (talk) 05:39, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I think I have fixed most of the problems. Thanks very much for your interest and support, not to mention all the time you invest. Its really appreciated! :) --Rskp (talk) 23:35, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
No worries at all. It is good to see topics such as this being expanded and improved. I was hoping that there might be some more input in the peer review as I think this article could be taken to at least GA eventually. Anyway, keep up the good work. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:41, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
I noticed that the British was there as well in the article.  Shouldn't they be part of the "Associated task forces (nations and regions)" section? If so I can add it.  Adamdaley (talk) 15:03, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
Yes that is probably fair enough. AustralianRupert (talk) 20:21, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what a "fantass" is; it's not in my dictionary. Is it a piece of military equipment?--Miniapolis (talk) 20:49, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay in getting back to you but for some reason my watchlist is cleverer than me! Its a water tank/container designed to fit on one side of a camel - another one fitted on the other side for balance. There is a photo in Field Marshall Lord Carver's "The National Army Museum Book of the Turkish Front 1914-1918 Pan Grand Strategy Series; The Campaigns at Gallipoli, in Mesopotamia and in Palestine" between pages 186 and 187. Its photo No. 60 and shows a camel looking remarkably like the soldier with the brass hat. Thanks for your interest. --Rskp (talk) 02:59, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
ps I've just emailed the Museum to see if its possible to get a digital copy onto Wikipedia.

If there were no infantry in the battle who were they fighting reading the text in the Ottoman force section  - At Magdhaba the garrison had been increased from 500 to about 1,400 Ottoman soldiers; there may have been as many as 2,000, consisting of two battalions of the 80th Infantry Regiment (27th Infantry Division, attached to the 3rd Infantry Division for most of 1916). The 2nd Battalion, commanded by Izzet Bey (about 600 men) and the 3rd Battalion, commanded by Rushti Bey, were supported by a dismounted camel company. Two squads from the 80th Machine Gun Company Jim Sweeney (talk) 09:30, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, my mistake. --Rskp (talk) 06:41, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

World cat lists 2 publishers in 1938 or whenever it was; Vorhut-Verl, and another publisher which you have cut. I don't know this reference, I have merely added details from the world cat as they appear there. Please reinstate this information, unless you know which publishing house the edition quoted was produced by. --Rskp (talk) 06:47, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Like I said world cat only lists one publisher, the one that I have left. Equally there is no requirement to list every publisher for other editions and using "Publisher X or Publisher Y" just looks sloppy and indecisive to me. Anotherclown (talk) 07:58, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
Well I found two publishers for 1938 on World Cat, and as I was asked to provide details of this publication, and two publishers are indicated on World Cat, and as I don't know this source, I erred on the side of prudence and added both publishers. If you know that it was the Vorhut-Verl version that is referred to then I will happily leave it at one publisher. If not then, not. --Rskp (talk) 05:44, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Pick one - either is fine but not both. We aren't trying to sell second hand books, just list sources. No academic style guide that I know of would accept "Publisher X or Publisher Y". Like I said its sloppy. Anotherclown (talk) 22:21, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
Equally the OCLC used in the article links to Vorhut-Verl so lets just use that and move on. Anotherclown (talk) 22:23, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
I'm sorry but my point is that I don't know which one is correct as I have never seen the publication.--Rskp (talk) 00:08, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Why replace 3 mounted brigades and 1 camel brigade with ~6,000? In this infobox, what does ~ mean? --Rskp (talk) 03:20, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

the units cover the brigades etc the strength is how many each brigade had around 1,500 so ~6,000. Jim Sweeney (talk) 05:20, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
So 4,500 in 3 brigades and 1,500 camels? Were the camels on the same establishment as the mounted brigades? Does '~' indicate about? --Rskp (talk) 05:38, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Yes Jim Sweeney (talk) 05:52, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
PS Fighting strength of brigades three quarters of overall strength as one in every four men holding horses. --Rskp (talk) 06:12, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Australian and New Zealand Mounted Division has been used to prevent edit war between ANZAC and Anzac. The source for the name is the Australian War Memorial which uses ANZAC [1] Jim Sweeney (talk) 05:22, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

However 'Anzac' is widely used in the literature, is concise, accurate and easier to read. --Rskp (talk) 05:33, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
AWM4/1/60/10 Anzac Mounted Division War Diary". Canberra: Australian War Memorial. December 1916. is also a primary source (WP:PRIMARY) which is another problem.Jim Sweeney (talk) 06:00, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
I'm sorry I don't see your point. --Rskp (talk) 07:13, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Or rather, are you suggesting you agree with Anzac?--Rskp (talk) 07:14, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
The point is we should not be using primary sources. Jim Sweeney (talk) 06:32, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
So you discount Wavell, Hill, Bostock, Powles - the last two fought in the Anzac Mounted Division and called it that. --Rskp (talk) 23:16, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
Well it seems the commander Major General Chauvel used A & NZ as quoted in the First Battle of Gaza article. So maybe that is a better suggestion. Jim Sweeney (talk) 09:36, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

The Battle honours section heading needs to be changed suggest awards or similar as Battle honours were awarded to all the regiments who took part. and its clear from the quote that he's talking about medals. Jim Sweeney (talk) 05:51, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

What do you suggest?--Rskp (talk) 07:15, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
If you have another look at the quote  you will see he's talking about mentions in despatches as well.--Rskp (talk) 07:16, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Your suggestion of 'awards' is a bit odd given that its a lack of awards and honours that is the reason for the subsection.--Rskp (talk) 07:37, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
At the time a MiD was the third level bravery award for British forces, after the Victoria Cross and the Military Medal/Military Cross which was awarded depending on the recipients rank (cross for officers medal for other ranks). Award seems suitable or recognition ? Jim Sweeney (talk) 08:34, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
How about "Lack of recognition"?--Rskp (talk) 00:34, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

The numbers killed do not compute; 5 officers + 17 ORs = 12??
Anybody like to improve on what stands? "British casualties may have been as high as 163 of 146 known casualties, twelve were killed and 134 were wounded. Five of the killed and seven of the wounded were officers, while seventeen other ranks were killed and 117 wounded."
Ned de Rotelande 10:52, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

G'day, well spotted. I don't have the sources that the main contributor to the article used. However, my source (Coulthard-Clark) provides 22 killed out of 146. I've tweaked it accordingly. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:35, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

G'day, Rskp, the Battle of Magdhaba article appeared on the main page yesterday. During its time, an editor raised an issue about the British Empire casualties on the talk page. I have responded to this and I think I have resolved part of the situation (the break down of killed and wounded for the 146 number), however, I was not able to work out the comment about British casualties possibly being as high as 163. Can you please add a citation to this, or clarify it? Additionally, while trying to respond to the question, I found that the infobox doesn't quite match the prose. For the Ottoman casualties, currently the infobox says: "97 dead, 300 wounded, 1,282 prisoners". However, the prose in the Casualties and captures section says "Over 300 Ottoman soldiers were killed; ninty-seven were buried on the battlefield, and forty wounded were cared for". As such, I have put a "clarification needed" tag in the infobox. When you get a chance, can you please check your sources and adjust the infobox how you see fit? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 22:36, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

What 'main page' did this article appear on? Can you provide a link to it please?
The article appeared on the Main Page, in the "On this Day section" on 23 December. AustralianRupert (talk) 22:01, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
As to the casualties, from memory I revisited this section of the article some weeks ago during preparation for submission for a GA (which the article failed because of an edit war) and carefully edited the casualty section to reflect the sources quoted. From a quick glance at the history of this article it would appear Jim Sweeney has been doing considerable work and it may be that he is the person you need to talk to.--Rskp (talk) 20:21, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

No I have not changed anything to do with casualty totals. Jim Sweeney (talk) 21:35, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
G'day all. I think that at one stage the infobox previously said "97 known dead (reports of 300 dead), 40 known wounded, 1,282 prisoners". The relevent article version being this one: [2]. For me, I think both the current infobox and the relevent section in the article should be tweaked. Firstly, I think the sentence beginning: "Over 300 Ottoman soldiers were killed; ninety-seven were buried on the battlefield, and forty wounded were cared for" should be clarified. The wording in the article implies (to me at least) that the 300 figure is known, but from the old infobox information, it seems that it was believed. So, I think the sentence in the Casualties and captures section should be changed to: "British Empire forces believed that over 300 Ottoman soldiers had been killed, although only 97 bodies were recovered from the battlefield and subsequently buried. They also provided care to 40 wounded Ottomans." In regards to the infobox, I would propose changing it from the current: "97 dead, 300 wounded, 1,282 prisoners" to "97–300 killed, at least 40 wounded, 1,242 – 1,282 prisoners". Does anyone object to me making this edit? I'm happy to discuss alternative wording, etc. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 22:01, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

This article uses an unpublished war diary, and using them for references is original research. Jim Sweeney (talk) 13:34, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
These war diaries have been published for some considerable time and their use is within the guidelines of Wikipedia, which prohibits interpretation or analysis. Please see the discussion at Battle of Mughar Ridge talk page for the full discussion. Here is one of those posts -

From the Reliable Sources noticeboard - consider them reliable for individual experiences, but not for most factual information. Jim Sweeney (talk) 10:31, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
the affiliated sources tag has been added until this is resolved. Jim Sweeney (talk) 02:49, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
The affiliated sources tag has been cut. These war diaries are sanctioned to be used by Wikipedia when no interpretations or analyses are made. No such interpretation or analysis has been made of these sources. --Rskp (talk) 03:19, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
No they are not to be used for factual infomation, see above. Some paragraphs are only cited to the diaries. Jim Sweeney (talk) 03:46, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Are you questioning the veracity of War Diaries, which have been used since 1907, as official documents by both the Australian and British armies? These war diaries continue to be written up by unit's adjutants or intelligence officers, as they were during WW1, to this day.--Rskp (talk) 04:31, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Yes they are full of POV and unreliable taken by themselves. That why we don't use primary sources. Jim Sweeney (talk) 04:54, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Only the Anzac Mounted Division war diary has been used in this article; all POV has been cut. War diaries can be are unreliable if you think a regiment will give you a balanced view of a battle involving a brigade, division or corps. But they are the official daily record of each unit. The only war diary used in this article, is the division's war diary, not a regiment or brigade which might give only a partial view, and it is a reliable source to the extent it has been used in this article. Please cut the affiliated sources tag as its misleading. --Rskp (talk) 02:31, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Out of 68 citations the Anzac Mounted Division war diary has been quoted 9 times. This hardly constitutes heavy usage. War Diaries are verified official documents which are reliable for limited use regarding operations. A similar tag has been added to the Sinai and Palestine Campaign article where out of 413 citations only 17 are from war diaries. This does not constitute heavy use and the affiliated sources tag must be cut from this article and the Sinai and Palestine Campaign article where it has also wrongly been added.--Rskp (talk) 06:45, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Citations 33, 42, 56E and 64 are the only ones for whole paragraphs or sections of text. They are official documents but they are also primary sources and I think you will find they have been used 18 times in this article. . Jim Sweeney (talk) 07:38, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
I stand corrected. I forgot to add duplicate usage. Only factual information about the operations has been included in this article from just one published war diary. The Anzac Mounted Division's war diary Appendix 24, which is Chauvel's report on his Division's movements during the operation. This is the only part of the war diary quoted. There has been no interpretation or analysis made of this report, and it is available to all readers via the link to the Australian War Memorial's War Diaries subsection. This does not constitute an affiliated source.
This argument has shifted from a supposed problem with original research which has been addressed into a problem with affiliated sources. Neither attack on this article is credible.
This article has been subject to two assessments. Although the article failed, on neither occasion was the use of the war diary as a source, a reason for the failures. --Rskp (talk) 00:45, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

But the problem is there and instead of addressing it commenting here and removing the tag is no the way to go. The tag has been replaced I suggest as its nominated for a GA review you let an independent review decide, if they are used as per the reliable sources notice board - consider them reliable for individual experiences, but not for most factual information. Jim Sweeney (talk) 09:54, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
No, there is no problem with original research or affiliated sources in this article. They have already been assessed as OK and will be reassessed during the current GA review. I have removed the tag because you have not given any credible evidence that there is a problem with the sources in this article.--Rskp (talk) 07:06, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
Who assessed them as ok can you point to the discussion. The evidence is given above. Jim Sweeney (talk) 17:19, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
Yes, look up the two previous assessments and you will see that the sources were assessed as part of the process when no problems were found.--Rskp (talk) 03:34, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Jim Sweeney has repeatedly added this tag but has not given any reason for doing so and I have repeatedly removed it. No other editor has supported Jim Sweeney's action. 
I appeal to Jim Sweeney to stop trying to create a second edit war using this tag. His first edit war was last time this article was up for a GA review. Then he insisted on changing the name of the Anzac Mounted Division to the ANZAC Mounted Division. The MilHist Project supported Anzac Mounted Division twice; the second time against Jim Sweeney's second attempt of the Australian and New Zealand Mounted Division. --Rskp (talk) 04:20, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Once again there was a discussion but no consensus, or even vote. If there is a edit war as you suggest, why don't you wait for an independent review to assess the suitability of the primary/affiliated  sources. Jim Sweeney (talk) 09:55, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Per the Wikipedia Reliable sources noticeboard these are not affiliated sources - further Hawkeye7 also referenced several war diaries in the FA Battle of Sio and (from memory) several articles which have passed A class reviews, so there's no generic problem with using these primary sources in articles. My personal approach is to only use them to add extra details ...  The report used in the Magdhaba article was written by the commanding officer of the division and is used without analysis or interpretation to provide extra details. --Rskp (talk) 01:20, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Copy violations to Powles have been deleted. Jim Sweeney (talk) 14:16, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I have included the deleted two sentences in a cquote as you desire. --Rskp (talk) 00:09, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
don't know where this as I desire has come from. You can not add copy violations back as a quote - your not quoting someone just adding copied text. Jim Sweeney (talk) 00:11, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
I've just checked the Anzac Mounted Division report and there is no copy violation there. Yes, copied material is direct quotes and should be shown in quotes. But I'm now wondering, you were wrong regarding the Anzac Mounted Division report, how accurate are the Powles so called copy violations? --Rskp (talk) 00:15, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
I have never claime anything from the AMD was copied. You should know what text you have added from Powles. As for quotes you can only quote what someopne has said, you can not add text copied from a book etc as quotes. Jim Sweeney (talk) 00:20, 15 February 2012 (UTC)


### Failed verification a Failure
The original Cutlack reads An important patrol by Lieutenants Roberts, R. M. Drummond? and W. J. Y . Guilfoyle6 on October 25th en- countered no anti-aircraft fire over El Arish, and discovered [end page 43] signs of diminished strength in the Turkish force there. This observation was confirmed by another reconnaissance report two days later, and there quickly ran round the army the rumour of a coming new advance. Cutlack pp. 43-4.

This review is transcluded from Talk:Battle of Magdhaba/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Hawkeye7 (talk · contribs) 02:03, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
Reviewing. I will check the War Diaries. Have copies here. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:03, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality: 

"However, the battle of attrition on the Somme, coupled with a change of Britain's Prime Minister; David Lloyd George succeeded Herbert Asquith on 7 December, destabilised the status quo sufficiently to bring about a policy reversal" The semicoln is not right here. Re-word.
re edited. --Rskp (talk) 00:39, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists: 

Background:
Link "Anzac Mounted Division" (I know it is in the lead, but the two should stand separate.)
Unlink "Australian".
"Henry G. Chauvel" (US form) should be "Harry Chauvel"
"Major General" should link to "Major General (Australia)" here
"General Archibald Murray" "General" should link to "General (United Kingdom)" and it should be "Sir Archibald""Lieutenant General Phillip Chetwode" Sir PhillipLinks edited. Added Murray's title but Chetwode and Chauvel became knights later.--Rskp (talk) 00:39, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
No, that is not right. Chetwode was a baronet, and therefore had the title "Sir" from when his father died in 1905. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:19, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, my mistake. Title added. --Rskp (talk) 02:50, 26 March 2012 (UTC)"As a Major General, Chetwode had been in command" Major general should not be capitised here, as it is not part of a title.fixed --Rskp (talk) 00:42, 26 March 2012 (UTC)Prelude:
"They moved out without their 2nd Light Horse Brigade" should be "the" instead of "their"fixed --Rskp (talk) 00:42, 26 March 2012 (UTC)Any chance of adding geocordinates?
Not sure how this is done.--Rskp (talk) 00:39, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Done now. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:27, 26 March 2012 (UTC)Thank you. --Rskp (talk) 03:04, 26 March 2012 (UTC)Aftermath
"Lieutenant Colonel Granville" ->  "Lieutenant Colonel C. H. Granville"Initials added --Rskp (talk) 00:39, 26 March 2012 (UTC)Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources: 
Water. Before the pipeline was in operation, water was hauled on the rattler. However, this was also a major consumer of water, being a steam train.Have not been able to find this quote about water in the article. Maybe it was referring to the railways built to support the forward defences of the Suez Canal? --Rskp (talk) 03:16, 26 March 2012 (UTC)B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary: 
There's a "[not in citation given]" tag after fn 42I'm not sure why this tag was added, because the information regarding Chetwode's arrival and his organising of the supplies which made the mounted division more mobile is all contained in the reference. Perhaps its the assumption that this information could not have been known to von Kressenstein. Or, maybe its the page number, which is page 3 of Appendix No. 24 22 December 1916 09:10 but shows as page 31 of the online publication. --Rskp (talk) 03:04, 26 March 2012 (UTC)C. No original research: 

Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects: 
"The Egyptian and Ottoman Frontier" Technically speaking, Egypt was just a British protectorate, and still part of the Ottoman Empire, so there was no such frontier.Yes, I see your point. Have changed it to 'Southern Palestine'. --Rskp (talk) 03:11, 26 March 2012 (UTC)B. Focused: 

Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias: 

Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc: 

Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales: 

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions: 

Overall:
Pass or Fail: 
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Battle of Magdhaba. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111216202655/http://www.1914-1918.net/britdivs.htm to http://www.1914-1918.net/britdivs.htm
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110321175713/https://www.awm.gov.au/collection/war_diaries/first_world_war/subclass.asp?levelID=1338 to http://www.awm.gov.au/collection/war_diaries/first_world_war/subclass.asp?levelID=1338When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:40, 16 July 2017 (UTC)