Talk:Battle of Megiddo (1918)

message: Isn't destruction of Ottoman forces a war crime? It was not a military necessity, that's simply slaughtering. They were evacuating the soldiers and leaving the battle scene. I think it's worth mentioning in the article.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.227.112.182 (talk) 18:03, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  War Crime 

message: When did Allied troops actually reach Megiddo?  I'm fairly sure it was the 19th, but not positive, and the article itself does not say much about what happened there. --WikiMarshall 04:54, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Battle of Megiddo is a misleading name. The battle had little to do with Megiddo itself. The Battle of the Nablus Plain is more correct name, because actually there wasn`t much (if any) fighting in Megiddo, but elsewhere. The British choose to use the name for propaganda reasons, because of its connection with historical battles bearing the name Battle of Megiddo and its probable association with Armageddon.94.41.28.175 (talk) 05:55, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Megiddo 

message: The sentence "The Turks were not taken in by the subterfuge" appears at the end of the decription of British attempts to deceive the Turks as to the time and location of the attack. Although it is supported by a citation (Erickson, Ordered to die, p.198</ref>, this work is too expensive and uncommon to be readily available for reference. As a result, the sentence is unclear as to exactly what subterfuge (the pretend Race Meeting only, or the whole catalogue of camouflage measures) failed.
Mere sneering sentences like this fail, if the intention is to exculpate the Ottoman commanders from blame for the defeat. An expansion of the Turkish commanders' decisions and the intelligence available to them is required, if this sentence is not to be removed as out-of-place and irrelevant. HLGallon (talk) 02:07, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ottoman strategy / intelligence. 

message: turkish strength:
3,000 mounted troops,
32,000 infantry,
402 guns
what do these two mean??i think some western historians are expert only at exaggeration when to think about the armenian genocide numbers varying from 100thousand to 2 million Girayhan (talk) 18:43, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Add to the 35,000 specifically numbered infantry and cavalry, lots of artillerymen, drivers, gendarmes, line-of-communication troops etc. There is no exaggeration in the numbers. HLGallon (talk) 23:14, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Add to the 35,000 specifically numbered infantry and cavalry - they are already sitting in the 35,000: 3,000 mounted troops (cavalry), 32,000 infantry, lots of artillerymen - 402 guns, assuming that each gun is operated by 4-5 men we have 1600-2000 artillerymen, so we have about 38,000 of drivers, gendarmes, line-of-communication troops. It still sounds like an exaggeration to me. 94.41.28.175 (talk) 06:04, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: You evidently know nothing of armies, or military facts. Do you seriously think that an artillery unit consists of nothing but four or five men at each gun? The figure of 75,000 prisoners of war is cited. In fact, 35,000 bayonets and sabres to 40,000 troops not in the front line is a very high tooth to tail ratio. HLGallon (talk) 13:27, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Can we role it back a notch, there is no need for the highlighted text, in response to what seems a genuine question. Jim Sweeney (talk) 14:18, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Overall, the campaign resulted in the surrender of 75,000 Turkish soldiers. 

message: What is the source for the order of battle? --Rskp (talk) 06:05, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Ericson pp. 195-196 for Ottoman orbat, but Takabeg (talk) provided names of corps and divisional commanders, sources unknown but possibly Turkish wikipedia.  Lawrence (page numbers not to hand) for Arab Northern Army (and Lawrence points out that his numbers changed from day to day, or even minute to minute). HLGallon (talk) 12:13, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks very much for that. It looks to be a very comprehensive o of b. I've got some details of regiments etc. but am adding them to the divisional article pages, and linking them back to the battle article. I think they would be too detailed for the battle article, unless you think they would be ok. Someone has done a great job getting the links to the cavalry divisions articles (the only ones I've added to so far).--Rskp (talk) 05:47, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

text: It already has been. See under "Allied reorganisation". I've added the divisions' numbers, for completeness. HLGallon (talk) 03:36, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Order of Battle

message: Is it possible to indicate that the 53rd, 60th, 75th, 10th Divisions were reconstituted on the Indian scale and only the 54th  Division remained on the British scale? --Rskp (talk) 03:16, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: It already has been. See under "Allied reorganisation". I've added the divisions' numbers, for completeness. HLGallon (talk) 03:36, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Indian scale

message: Wavell shows No. 1 with the the 5th (Indian) Division and Wavell and Preston shows No. 7 with the 4th. Can these be updated? --Rskp (talk) 04:13, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Light Car Patrols in oob

message: Would it not be an improvement, if this section began with Erickson's August 1918 description of the Yildirim Army Group, even though it restates info in the infobox, before going into their deployment? --Rskp (talk) 01:31, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: OK. HLGallon (talk) 01:55, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ottoman disposition 

message: There have been a number of comparisons made between Megiddo and Beersheba by Bou, Hill, Woodward and DiMarco. Where should this discussion go? --Rskp (talk) 04:14, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I would suggest in the Sinai and Palestine Campaign, if anywhere. Otherwise comparisons will be duplicated between these two battle articles.HLGallon (talk) 15:41, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, will do. --Rskp (talk) 02:51, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comparisons with Beersheba 

message: During the war the pejorative 'Turk' was used but as the war was fought by the Ottoman Empire the troops should more properly be called Ottoman. Would there be any problem changing Turk to Ottoman?--Rskp (talk) 01:44, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: "Turk" is and was either a citizen or native of the Anatolian provinces of the Ottoman Empire, or modern-day Turkey, which are roughly the same regions; or, a member of the ethnic and linguistic group speaking the Turkish language. There is nothing pejorative about either usage. I agree that it might not be 100% accurate for articles on the First World War, given that the Ottoman army contained many conscripted non-Turkish (Arab, Kurdish, Azeri) troops, and volunteers from communities such as Circassians. Some division did consist almost entirely of Turkish troops (source unfortunately not to hand) but since the Ottoman Empire was based in Turkey and the backbone of its army did indeed consist of Turkish soldiers, the usage by British troops and commanders is understandable. HLGallon (talk) 17:18, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ottoman not Turk 

message: I'm please to see that the gist of my research, has been valued and incorporated into this subsection of the article, thereby improving it. I'm sorry to read the pithy, dismissive comments made by the editor in the process of incorporating my research and my references. --Rskp (talk) 03:17, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: He does have a point the Battle of Sharon and the Battle of Nablus, should be split off into their own articles with a only summery and a link here.Jim Sweeney (talk) 04:25, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Preliminary attacks 

message: The Nahr el Auja was by September 1918 well in the rear of the front line which had advanced in the coastal sector as a result of the summer attacks by the infantry and was no longer in the equation.--Rskp (talk) 02:37, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Accepted. It was still referred to as the "el-Auja front" or the "el-Auja position" (Lawrence, Seven Pillars of Wisdom, p.554, for example), but tactically, you are correct. HLGallon (talk) 03:36, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: There is now a problem with the XX Corps preliminary attack which you have merged into that Corps' main attack, which did not start until after the primary attack of XXI Corps on 19 September not before it on 18 September as it now appears. This is confusing as you have left the reference to the preliminary attack in the preliminary attack section of the battle. Would it not be better to start Allenby's plans off with a description of his overall plan, then go through chronologically? This would mean that the preliminary actions would be described first, then the initial breakthrough on the coast followed by the cavalry advance which occurred as a result of that breakthrough, and then the XX Corps in the Judean Hills and finally Chaytor crossing the Jordan. --Rskp (talk) 05:14, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Also accepted, provided that the narrative is not too much confused by small details.HLGallon (talk) 22:53, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Would you would like to reinstate those sections yourself to maintain the article's style? --Rskp (talk) 23:55, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Allenby's plan 

message: HLGallon has recently changed the dates of this battle from those which appear in the Battles Nomenclature Committee's report viz 19 to 25 September to dates which more closely approximate those of the Final Offensive Campaign. In justification he states: "As has been pointed out, BNC is a POV source, created for the narrow purpose of awarding decorations. This article encompasses the entire campaign to the end of the fighting." But the article is called Battle of Megiddo (1918) not the Final Offensive Campaign. The justification for the POV claim also appears flawed; that its authors represented only the British Empire and that the report was approved by the British Army Council and presented to the British Parliament, given that this is English Wikipedia not Turkish Wikipedia. 
While cutting the BNC as a source for the creative dating of the battle, I also cut the BNC as the source for the second paragraph of the introduction because it does not accurately reflect information in the Battles Nomenclature Report. HLGallon reinstated the BNC as the source for this paragraph even though "The Pursuit through Syria also formed part of the Battle of Megiddo" does not accurately reflect the BNC which describes the Pursuit forming part of the Final Offensive campaign. 
As this is the introduction section of the article there is no need for a reference here at all. I suggest to ensure the BNC is quoted accurately, the article be edited or the reference to BNC be deleted. --Rskp (talk) 01:21, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Incorrect. Infomation in the lead of an article should reflect that which is included in the body of the article and in such circumstances it will not require citation per WP:LEADCITE. However, if the information is not cited in the body then it will require citation in the lead. IMO the BNC is clearly a POV source as it represents the battle from the point of view of a single participant (i.e. the British), the fact that this is English Wikipedia is irrelevant. This doesn't mean it cannot be used, it just means you should just be careful how you use it. Where ever possible wikpedia articles should present the majority of the scholarship on the topic, not just that written by a single party to the conflict. What dates do the majority of sources provide for this battle? The BNC is not the be all and end all, its just a single source and a dated one at that. Anotherclown (talk) 12:21, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Persumably the BNC is authoriative in giving the dates against which the battle honours issued are known. GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:39, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem as I see it is that RoslynSKP (talk) or someone else used the BNC to impose an artificial "freeze frame" end to the Megiddo campaign on 26 September, leaving out the capture of Damascus. No other source I have read imposes this distinction, treating the destruction of the Ottoman armies and the pursuit and exploitation as part of the same operation or campaign. (I accept that Fall's voluminous Official History might make this distinction, but no Wikipedia article could ever involve the amount of detail of the Official History.) At the same time however, there remains a large paragraph in the lead detailing the separate parts of the battle, beginning "Within this battle several battles, actions and captures have been identified officially by the British ... ". Again, unless the Official History gives these details, the source is the BNC; and if the paragraph remains, so must the source. I see no problem using a source with limited scope (BNC) for some limited purposes (official nomenclature), but discarding it for others where more scholarly works cover the subject. HLGallon (talk) 17:10, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: So HLGallon (talk), if you are not going to accurately reflect the information in the BNC, why did you reinstate this source after I had deleted it? --Rskp (talk) 02:25, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Please read my preceding post. There is a large paragraph in the lead detailing a list of names used by the British, for which the cite is the BNC. Either it goes, or the BNC reference stays. HLGallon (talk) 10:35, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Carver (2003) p. 241 agrees with the BNC; that the Battle of Samakh and the capture of Tiberias on 25 September, 1918 brought "what became known as the Battle of Megiddo to a victorious conclusion." I have tweaked the para so it accurately reflects the BNC citation. --Rskp (talk) 02:02, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of Battles Nomenclature source 

message: HLGallon, there is nothing POV in describing the context, the set of circumstances, facts and the boundaries of the battle in the leading paragraph. In fact this is required information according to WP:MOSBEGIN. --Rskp (talk) 06:44, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: You have misinterpreted WP:MOSBEGIN. The paragraph you repeatedly revert to does not describe the context at all; that is done in the preceding sentence. Nor does it describe the facts; that is done in the following paragraph. Boundaries, whether in time or place are OK. However, it is very definitely a POV addition, being an overly detailed recitation of British definitions for each phase of the battle. Being the English-language Wikipedia is no excuse; WP:NPOV means neutrality, not anglocentricism. I will not revert this time. However, I am tired of you repeatedly reinserting grammatical errors, when you blindly revert. I will correct them; please do not detract from the article by reverting to them. HLGallon (talk) 08:16, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: My interest is to ensure clarity. The old introductory first para only quoted unidentified German and Turkish naming sources. You need to include the English names of the battle too for balance, and to identify who did the fighting and describe the area where the fighting took place. There is nothing POV in any of that. --Rskp (talk) 09:21, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV accusation 

message: The current first sentence is ridiculously opaque. Can one of you fix it? Srnec (talk) 01:21, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, but now what does "During this extensive set piece Battle of Sharon..." mean? Srnec (talk) 05:54, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Lead

message: There has been much argument over the precise definition of this force. Its composition is well-established (Anzac Mounted Division, 20th (Imperial Service) Indian Brigade, two battalions West India Regiment, two Jewish battalions Royal Fusiliers). This amounts to one mounted division and one understrength infantry division.
Please note that by 1918, a British corps had no fixed establishment, so claiming that it was not a corps or "corps-sized" because it did not control two or more complete divisions is incorrect. However, a Corps HQ did have a fixed establishment (of staff officers), which Chaytor's HQ lacked, so it is definitely incorrect to describe the force as a formal Corps. A "small mobile force" is a meaningless term. How small is small? The complete force would be no more mobile than its slowest infantry unit. The force might be called a reinforced mounted division, but clearly the British at the time did not regard it as such. Since the whole force was larger than a division, and had responsibilities as large in scope and area as any of Allenby's three "proper" corps, "corps-sized detachment", with clear order of battle, is the best way to define it. HLGallon (talk) 15:49, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Not unless you can provide a reference that it was a corps sized detachment. There are several references in the Chaytor's Force article not one suggest its more that a small sized mobile force , or a reinforced mounted division with 11,000 men. The force was part of the Desert Mounted Corps detached for operations on the right flank. Part of which was to deceive the Ottomen forces that there was a much larger force there and that was where the main attack was going to be. If you break the force down it was one division headquarters, four brigades and four independent infantry battalions with some supporting artillery. Also included was a transport echelon of 300 donkeys, seventeen tractors, thirty-four trucks, five ammunition lorries and fourteen supply lorries. The Desert Mounted Corps and the infantry XX and XXI Corps, by comparison had thirty and 120 ammunition and supply lorries for the mounted corps to sixty and 180 ammunition and supply lorries for the infantry corps. By using the same logic you have applied you can say XXI Corps under Bulfin was an army, five divisions and a brigade, is two corps sized formations which equals an army. The best way to define It is by what the references say. Jim Sweeney (talk) 10:20, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Please note what I said above. A Corps had no fixed establishment. Bulfin's corps could have had five, six or even more divisions, although that would become unwieldy. HLGallon (talk) 10:30, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chaytor's Force 

message: Re: your edit "Moved Hill quote from where it had been inserted between two contiguous sentences, to "Effects". May yet be removed, still too much copypasted text in article"
#The Wikipedia Copypaste page which you link to, states: "Brief quotations of copyrighted text may be used to illustrate a point, establish context, or attribute a point of view or idea." The information I added fits this perfectly. I don't know about the other copypasted texts you refer to, but this one by me comes from a published source, and the source is correctly cited. 
#This information was added between two paragraphs and makes much more sense where I placed it, as it does not refer to an effect which occurred after the battle, but to how the battle unfolded. Please move it back. --Rskp (talk) 03:51, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I will not move it. The two paragraphs are connected narrative. The quoted sentence, making note of a campaign over twenty years later, belongs in a more abstract discussion of the tactics used and is a non sequitur when inserted between them. As an aside, under WP:QUOTATIONS, "Attribution should be provided in the text of the article, not exclusively in a footnote or citation. A reader should not have to follow a footnote to learn whose words a quote is." I have already treated Ericson's quote in "Effects" in this manner. I will copyedit the rest of the article accordingly later. HLGallon (talk) 09:15, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: HLGallon you misrepresent the quote which simply draws attention to the similarities between Megiddo and the Blitzgrieg; both examples of manoeuvre warfare - one horse powered and the other tank powered. You do not own this article, see WP:OWNERSHIP so move the quote back. --Rskp (talk) 00:38, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: G'day, perhaps there is a middle ground? I don't think it quite worked where it previously was in the text when it was placed before the sentence starting "Over the next four days, the 4th Cavalry..." But having said that, in its current form, the quote seems a bit out of context to me and it probably needs attribution in text. So, if it could be worked into the text in an appropriate place, it might flow better, but it would need to be introduced in a way that the reader understands who is saying it and why it is important. Whether that is in the narrative of the battle, or in an analysis/effects section or something similar, I'm not sure.  Anyway, that's my opinion. It would be good if some consensus could be reached, so you can move on and focus on taking the article further; perhaps you should ask for a few other editors to give their opinion by posting a message on WT:MILHIST? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:02, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it worked right in the middle of the "action" as it were. It is a comparison looking back with much later events. That said, even if you took just the first part of the sentence ("brilliant in execution as it had been in conception; it had no parallel in France or on any other front"), it doesn't really belong in the battle description. It is also a single author's opinion rather than a summary of several authors, so an attribution is fitting, not perhaps as very necessary as if two opposing viewpoints were being described, but still important. GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:43, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

text: Sounds more like an rename of the section is required. GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:40, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  Still waiting for a response from HLGallon. --Rskp (talk) 04:28, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Questions for HLGallon 

message: "Falls p. 39" needs a date of publication as several different publications by this author are listed in the Reference section.--Rskp (talk) 05:16, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Curious citation 

message: Sorry that I don't know how to add a citation, hopefully somebody can help.
Under the "Capture of Damascus" sub-section of the "Aftermath" section, the second paragraph says "citation needed" at the end. Having literally yesterday finished reading Seven Pillars of Wisdon: A Triumph, I think a suitable citation can be found there. My copy is clearly not the same as the one given in the reference list for this article. Mine says "1922 text", and was published by Wilder Publications 2011.
The Tafas incident is covered in Chapter 134 (p523-527). The second (and larger) column of retreating Turks is covered in chapter 135 (p527-533).
Nwhyman (talk) 04:48, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adding a citation for Tafas