Talk:Battle of Gazala

message: People interested in the North African Campaign could help us work out some issues regarding itnernational unit names at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (military units). Thanks. — B.Bryant 03:59, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: In the summary box I was surprised to see that the only allied combatants were from the UK. If I was a Polish, Free French, or Commonwealth/Empire veteran of this battle I'd be even more surprised. The Italians are mentioned on the Axis side... GrahamBould 09:09, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sure you know the score, so here's a link rather than the full content: . Leithp 13:25, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Combatants

message: I'm putting random notes here until I get to working on this article.
* The name of the British counter-attack was Operation Aberdeen —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Oberiko (talk • contribs) 15:07, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Things of note

message: I am deleting a short section on the San Marco Marines because the events occurred in September while the article is about the Battle of Gazala in June. I would also comment that:
* As far as I can see no-where else in this article have we dealt in such detail as to describe actions of single battalions, even in the most important actions. I suggest this piece should appear in a page dedicated to the history of the San Marco Marines
* A reference was given for this short section but the details of the action included (dates, numbers, prisoners etc) do not appear in the referenced article
*I'm also a bit uncomfortable with the reference because:
** it is a website selling board games and the page includes a link to purchase their Island of Death game. This qualifies it as spam. OK apparently the author is a PhD but can't we find a "proper" publication of his to support this article?
** It's rather "gung ho" (=POV)
Regards Stephen Kirrage talk - contribs 11:27, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: San Marco Marines

message: Did they not take part in this battle?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:47, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Zealand Division 

message: Out text states: "Throughout the Eighth Army 13 June became known as "Black Sunday"." But 13 June 1942 was a Saturday (see here). Am I missing something? Ericoides (talk) 07:40, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Good spot. I've checked the Clifford ref and it is indeed "Black Saturday". Stephen Kirrage talk - contribs 08:45, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Saturday

message: I updated the quote on the main page from what I believe is the correct quote found found here:
http://www.xenophon-mil.org/milhist/usarmy/desert%20warfare/desert%20warfare%20annexes.htm
I see the other quote is more popular on the internet, but those references are almost identical to what is also written here on Wiki; making me suspect they are all copies of each other. In any event, it makes more sense when you add the first comma. Forgive ignorance, I don't know how to update the main page "references". Llandale (talk) 16:59, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Undoubtedly Toppe would have written this in German and so variations in translations could occur. However, if you follow the link in the citation footnote it takes you to a photo of the original US Marines document. On page A-9-1 the wording is as it was originally here in the Battle of Gazala article. It may be the wording on the xenophon site has been "improved" but if one makes a direct quote from a document (as occurs here) one cannot change the wording it should be a direct transcription of the original document. I am changing it back to reflect the original source. Stephen Kirrage talk - contribs 17:03, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes I am new to this. When I first read it, I could not make sense of the first sentence, presumed it to be a misquote, and investigated. My original intention was to change the reference, not misquote the existing one. I see the original Marine reference has clearly marked page numbers; and this advantage may be compelling for purposes of referencing here.  I note it was done in 1990 and has no translation remarks.  The one posted on Xenophon was commissioned by US Army right after the war, which leads me to believe it was translated from the original German at that time (but I cannot find that out for sure).  The "out" instead of "our" typo in the Marine version strongly suggests that version was copied, as it could not have survived translation and review.  If it was copied, it was probably from the Xenophobe "original".  I suggest perhaps while the Marine version is a better "reference", the Xenophobe is a more reliable "source".  But, it probably doesn't matter.  I've added the previous sentence of the quote in order to mitigate the error of the missing comma in the next sentence. Llandale (talk) 20:50, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

text: Incidentally, I really hate seeing [sic] but that is just me.  I wonder if we could add [sic] for the missing comma?  lol Llandale (talk) 20:50, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: In answer to one question, the study was written by General Major Alfred Toppe, a senior officer in the quartermaster division of the Heer (Army). He was assisted by some nine other officers who had experience in Africa, including Fritz Bayerlein and Siegfried Westphal. It was compiled for the Army over a two month period of time in 1952.  The report was written in German and translated into English by E. Heitman, and reviewed by Captain N.E. Devereaux. Gunbirddriver (talk) 23:19, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  British are "quiet" 

message: Not decisive, the Eighth army survived it and won.Keith-264 (talk) 22:01, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Result 

message: Tidied references and citations, added a few oclc and isbns.Keith-264 (talk) 10:29, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  CE 

message: How come it states the Allies lost more tanks then they actually had (843 vs 1188)?  --154.69.62.124 (talk) 19:47, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: The numbers might be a mistake or conflicting data depending on the source. It can also reflect the fact that tanks are hard to knock out and harder to destroy. Damaged tanks get counted as knocked out then are repaired and sent back into the battle and get damaged again and so on. One tank can be "knocked out" several times.Keith-264 (talk) 09:00, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Allied number of tanks 

message: Had a dash at tidying the page and prose, moved a few pics which were squashing the text (are there any with the tank etc facing left available?). Changed the headers somewhat to shorten them, added a couple to break up the narrative and moved a couple of paragraphs around. Changed a few spellings to BritEng, OK? Keith-264 (talk) 17:28, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Got confused by the Rigel Ridge section until I realised that it was 13 June not 23rd.Keith-264 (talk) 19:04, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Tidied infobox and added a casualties section to the narrative.Keith-264 (talk) 14:15, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  CE 

message: @ User:Gunbirddriver, rather than ad hoc edits, would you like to discuss them here to avoid cross purposes? Thanks Keith-264 (talk) 15:43, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, you have made major changes to the article which has obscurred its narrative flow, have removed cited content, rephrased passages based apparently upon your own preference and have been removing images which were valuable and illustrated the events described.  I have been pretty busy but I am not in agreement with the direction that has been taken here. Gunbirddriver (talk) 17:19, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for replying, although I'm disappointed that you've inferred unconstructive motives. I have made some changes to the structure of the article and added citations where they were lacking, which I think are an improvement. I ask you again to look at the guidance on images and suggest that we compromise on the number to be included, to avoid cramping the narrative and slalom-ing it around pics on both margins. I have changed some images from left to right margin and looked for ones facing left for the right margin. I have copy-edited several sections to remove extraneous words and trim baggy sentences of unnecessary adverbs, adjectives and judgements, in favour of description of the content of the source. I've also cleaned up the references section. That said, I'm open to persuasion so perhaps we could go through your objections one by one? If it helps I'm not planning to edit the page again as I'm looking at Western Desert Campaign instead. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 18:45, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  recent edits 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Battle of Gazala. 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 http://www.webcitation.org/5iVZnyaAi?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.avalanchepress.com%2FAriete.php to http://www.avalanchepress.com/Ariete.php
*Added  tag to https://www.historyanimated.com/wwiianimated.com/index.php/el-alemein
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151119232943/http://www.theartofbattle.com/battle-of-gazala-1942/ to https://www.theartofbattle.com/battle-of-gazala-1942
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:29, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Is the article metric → imperial or the other way round? Thanks Keith-264 (talk) 14:55, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Metric? 

message: I note that the photo being quibbled about is captioned in its source as "Nordafrika, Tobruk.- Marsch britischer Kriegsgefangener". I'm not proficient in German but, like DagosNavy would be happier to see a properly explanatory caption such as "Allied prisoners leaving (or being marched from) Tobruk". (I don't care for "going into the bag".) In addition to the four British nationalities, those troops included a big variety of Empire guys and other Europeans. Their consequent sufferings at the hands of Italians and Germans surely merit better acknowledgement than crass generalisation as "Englische". Bjenks (talk) 03:37, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Quite right. I changed the caption to address your concerns. Gunbirddriver (talk) 09:37, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: @ Bjenks, your comments are OR and rather ill-mannered; Gunbird, I think you have rushed to judgement, I suggest a moment of reflection. The only thing we know is that the caption uses englische (sic), not abiding by this is OR.Keith-264 (talk) 15:04, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Uh? Where is my comment "ill-mannered?" And how can it be OR to remedy an obviously incorrect term in a German caption which originally used "britischer"?  Bjenks (talk) 01:20, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

text: Drat, I just can't get that 'britischer' link to work reliably. To see it, go to the pic's Commons page, then click on the Accession number link in the Summary section, then click on the resultant thumbnail pic. The Archive title is beneath, reading 'Nordafrika, Tobruk.- Marsch britischer Kriegsgefangener; PK "Afrika"' Bjenks (talk) 03:13, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Allied vs Englische 

message: Yet again you meddle with a lead rather than improving an article and altering the lead to suit, why? Regards Keith-264 (talk) 17:32, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Oops, you didn't meddle with the lead, did you.... ;O)Keith-264 (talk) 17:34, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent edits 

message: Some sources say it was just Rommel who planned the attack on Gazala , but some other sources say it was Rommel And Bastico (Axis commander in North Africa). Did they really planned together the attack or it was just Rommel. Thank you for anyone who answered. Jheeeeeeteegh (talk) 09:40, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: P.S. Never mind. I found a source tells that it was Bastico and Rommel that planned the attack . In conclusion. They planned it together the attack. Case closed Jheeeeeeteegh (talk) 01:06, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: They actually Planned it together by Bastico and Rommel. Case closed. Jheeeeeeteegh (talk) 06:29, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  One question 

message: Keith. Since stuffing too much in the infoxbox is not good. But here's my proposition. I'll add the corps command. For example. The Commander of the Italian XX Corps I'll add it's Corps commander but I will not add flags beside it. Is it okay or bad? Jheeeeeeteegh (talk) 12:19, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Because the Battle of Gazala was composed mainly of Corps from both sides. Just like El Alamein Jheeeeeeteegh (talk) 12:22, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: From Template:Infobox military conflict combatant1/combatant2/combatant3 – optional – the parties participating in the conflict. This is most commonly the countries whose forces took part in the conflict; however, larger groups (such as alliances or international organizations) or smaller ones (such as particular units, formations, or groups) may be indicated if doing so improves reader understanding. When there is a large number of participants, it may be better to list only the three or four major groups on each side of the conflict, and to describe the rest in the body of the article.
I would stick to theatre commanders and army commanders. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 13:56, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

text: I see, but I'll add the corps commander but no flags later Jheeeeeeteegh (talk) 05:20, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Please don't, it's overkill. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 11:20, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

text: Why? Is something bad is gonna happen on the page. Give me 3 good reasons for ireconsider the edit Jheeeeeeteegh (talk) 01:12, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: 1. See the policy above 2. I'll revert you and 3. I'll revert you. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 09:57, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Again. By that logic, Then the Pages like Operation Crusader and First Battle of El Alamein then needs to be shortened. The commanders corps for both sides will be removed, Ciao. Jheeeeeeteegh (talk) 11:51, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Command Corps of Axis and Allied Armies