Talk:Battle of Omdurman

WikiProject Military history

(Rated Start-Class)

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions. Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. Additional information... This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please the following to the template call: | B1 <!-- Referencing and citations --> = y/n | B2 <!-- Coverage and accuracy --> = y/n | B3 <!-- Structure --> = y/n | B4 <!-- Grammar and style --> = y/n | B5 <!-- Supporting materials --> = y/n Associated task forces (nations and regions): African military history task force British military history task force Associated task forces (periods and conflicts): Early Muslim military history task force (c. 600 – c. 1600)

Churchill text

Is writing this article in a British view with the 'Dervishes' being "the enemy" NPOV? I think not.--Dittaeva 13:45, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

See the article. The second part is essentially a slightly modified version of Winston Churchill's original report from 1898. Of course it is heavily POV. On the other hand, I think there is a lot of value in having a first-hand historical document in there. Maybe the source should be stressed more. --Stephan Schulz 18:16, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Sure, I'm not requesting it be removed because it is POV, but if the second part is more or less written by Churchill it seems quite obvoiusly copyvio, and the least thing that should be done is to make it a quote which is probably more appropriatly placed in Wikiquote.--Dittaeva 20:38, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Is Churchill's work actually copyrighted? john k 02:37, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Actually, I think it is probably not, since it was probably published before 1923 (see Project Gutenberg copyright howto), it would be nice to have this confirmed though. That is according to US law however, under european law it protected 75 years after the author died, if it was covered by british Crown Copyright not assigned to the crown then it was covered by british copyright law 50 years after publication. When it is in the PD and is not a direct quotation, I suggest we just work through it and make it NPOV.--Dittaeva 09:58, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I seriously doubt it is copyrighted anywhere in the world. If a newspaper article from the second but last century is still under copyright, something is very wrong with our copyright system (ok, so it is...). Anyways, it was written in 1898, so while it would be protected under current law, it certainly fell into ~~--the public domain in the intervening time. --Stephan Schulz 11:50, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I would agree, however, that the Churchillian account is highly problematic as an encyclopedia article. Someone needs to go through and revamp the article. john k 02:38, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

modern weapons - so the natives would have prevailed against the imperialism of the Brits

as they were better movitvated fighters man to man not fighting for greed

I think this is a dangerous fallacy. We can go through the article and make it more politically correct (remove "enemies", "our side"...), but that will not change the factual base of the article. It will just hide the inherent POVness of Churchill's account. It might be good to dig out the original, unmodified text and precede it with a clear warning (or to put it into WikiSource and link to it). We can add whatever modern information is available in a separate paragraph.--Stephan Schulz 11:50, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

A few edits

OK, I'm always torn between amusement and outrage when I find articles like this. "Dervishes" are Sufi mystics that are chiefly known for their poetry and ability to twirl in place for long periods of time. I had a vision of British soldiers with Maxim guns gunning down 10,000 mystics twirling in white robes when I started reading this article. The term they called themselves was "Ansar" (supporters) - like Ansar al-Islam. Khalifa means successor, because the chief claim to fame al-Taashi had was that he came after the Mahdi. I've gone through and changed these, which were the most blatant POV I saw, and also the few things I know given my limited knowledge of Mahdists. I do like the operational detail of it though.

So the original reason I wandered over here from Omdurman was because I was wondering what people thought about moving this article to Battle of Karari and making this a redirect. And yes Google has a couple orders of magnitude more hits for Battle of Omdurman rather than Battle of Karari, but there's a case for historical accuracy to be made. The article clearly states the location of the battle was Karari (well, Kerreri before I changed it) and that the army moved on to Omdurman only after the victory. - — BanyanTree 02:23, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

OK this has been written ages ago but i still have to answer:

I disagree that the term Dervish is incorrect or inapropriate. All Dervishes don't do the twirling dance: you're thinking of the Turkish Mevlevi order. Other Dervishes are simply members of Sufi Muslim fraternities that differ greatly in practise. Read the Dervish article for more info. As followers of a Sufi preacher, the Mahdists could well be considered Dervishes. There are also, i'll concede, strong arguments against the use of this term, as Mahdism was as much a political as a religious movement, but even if this is the case the term was widely used at the time by different authors(Churchill among others). So it's no use saying they were "mistakenly referred to as Dervishes" as that term has historical significance. ie it's not for us to judge what is incorrect or not. Different people use different words for the same thing: Americans call trousers "pants" but British people don't go around saying "trousers mistakenly referred to as pants"!

Also with replacing "Dervish" by "Ansar", the article has slipped from a British to a Sudanese POV, as Ansar is the word the Mahdists used to define themselves. I prefer to simply use the word "Mahdist"(ie followers of the Mahdi) as this is more neutral.

As for renaming the battle... Historically(as in all the history books) it is called Battle of Omdurman. This is because Omdurman was the objective of the Anglo-Egyptians, and also the nearest significant town. Kererri(or Karari - as you will: transliterations from the Arabic are notoriously imprecise and subject to interpretation) was just an insignificant village(at the time) next to which Kitchener's army happened to camp. In point of fact, if you want to be really accurate the battle was fought on a plain near Karari, so you could try calling it The Battle on the plain between Karari and Omdurman but I'm not sure that would go down too well.

This article could do with improving (the German article is much better), and I'll be editing it soon.

Best regards Raoulduke47 19:34, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Last Cavalry Charge

This article states the 21st Lancers performed what became the last cavalry charge by a British Cavalry unit, but the Timeline of the British Army states for 8 November 1917, "About 200 men of the Warwickshire Yeomanry and Worcestershire Yeomanry charge with sabres drawn and defeat an Ottoman battery and a large group of Ottoman infantry at Huj. It was one of the last cavalry charges by the British Army." The National Army Museum states that the last British Cavalry charge occurred at the Battle of El Mughar, 13 November 1917, by the Buckinghamshire Hussars. This "last charge" issue could be perhaps clarified with a distinction between "cavalry," "yeomanry," and "hussars," but the cavalry page notes that yeomanry and hussars are subcategories of cavalry.

The Timeline page also adds this qualifier: that the 21st Lancers here "perform one of the last full cavalry charges." So what is the difference between a "cavalry charge" and a "full cavalry charge?"

Addmittedly one of the problems in history is definitively identifying something as the first or the last. So these cavalry charges are all qualified as "one of the last..." But, still, it would be great to be able to identify the last. [okay, it's my whimsy]

Can this "last charge" issue be clarified? --RedJ 17 18:05, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Not sure but you've persuaded me at least that Omdurman shouldn't be described as the last cavalry charge by the British. Lisiate 00:41, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

If I might, I think that the difference between a "cavalry charge" and "full cavalry charge" is purely in the element used in the charge. For instance, here, the entirety of the 21st Lancers were engaged, hence a full charge. However, at Huj and El Mughar, they were merely individual squadrons, not the entire unit. 69.116.223.226 (talk) 20:44, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Another account of the Battle of Omdurman

From "With Kitchener to Khartoum" by G. W. Steevens

"Battle of Omdurman" [1]

"Omdurman - Analysis and Criticism" [2]

Winston in South Africa

I have removed the image of Churchill "in South Africa", as it is clearly of a much older man, taken sometime after the Dardanelles affair (when he was serving in Europe not Africa). This 1898 picture from the Churchill Society would be more appropriate, if copyright allows - Bastie 12:58, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Casualties Discrepancy

We have somewhat of a discrepancy in the article. It says that 21st Lancers lost 5 offices and 65 men, yet Aftermath section says the total loss in all the forces was 48 men. Someone with sources of reference on the subject should look into this. Keije 18:39, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

• I noticed the exact same thing as I was reading through this article. I took the figure from the only URL linked already, although it admits that number might be a bit low. A more revised number would be nice, with sources of course. Vicarious 22:34, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Treatment of Prisoners

On one of those UK history programs it was said that Kitchener refused to allow relatives to tend their wounded. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.213.65.242 (talk) 15:44, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

War Nerd Article

Should Gary Brecher's article (http://old.exile.ru/2007-June-29/war_nerd.html) be included in the External Links section? The War Nerd is a relatively well-known commentator on war, and his insight could better help people to understand the battle. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elzair (talk • contribs) 20:06, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

BTW - this link is dead. Thomas R. Fasulo (talk) 00:35, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Picture Caption

I have taken the liberty to expand the caption for the picture "The Battle of Omdurman" I own a copy of this picture and the text at the bottom explains that the soldiers have been depicted in their regimental uniforms to identify them and supplies a key which corresponds to numbers included in the picture to enable the identification of the various troops. The original caption gave the impression that it was a historical error by the artist.--MarkBarl (talk) 14:27, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

The currect caption mentions how the uniforms had been changed on X date in India; however this is in Africa. The caption doesnt really appear to be rather useful; should these men be dressed in red or not?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 19:40, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

To be honest I have no idea if this affected the uniforms worn in Africa. My intention was to correct the assumption that it was an error on the part of the artist.--MarkBarl (talk) 15:18, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Mahdist flag

Is the Mahdist flag verifiable? SpinningSpark 08:06, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

This flag has been inserted as an icon in the infobox of this, and numerous other articles. It is not a very likely looking Mahdist flag. Sources that I can find make no mention of it and show quite different style of flags [3][4]. I cannot trace any source for this image; the Commons page gives the source as the corresponding bitmap image on Wikipedia and that page says the image was created "using free images found on wikipedia". I propose that the image is removed from all articles in which it has been inserted. SpinningSpark 08:06, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

If it can't be supported with reliable sources, then it can be fairly removed in my opinion. Hchc2009 (talk) 09:02, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I've done a quick google image search and the flag does seem to have one or two results that look similar, however as Hchc2009 says, if there is doubt it can be deleted and ask the IP to provide a source. Carl Sixsmith (talk) 09:48, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I think you will find that most of those trace back to Wikipedia or Flickr. One that doesn't [5] gives the source as a 1952 letter from Sudan public relations but with no verifiable reference. Not very convincing, given the late date and the personal nature of the claim. SpinningSpark 11:42, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

It might be worth having the flag in the article on the revolt, captioned as "a possible reconstruction of the Mahdist flag", I think? But in the infobox, no. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 16:21, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Don't see how the article body is any better than the infobox without a reliable source. This letter was supposedly written to Ottfried Neubecker who is certainly a high authority on flags, but if he did not publish the information we can only conclude he did not think it reliable, even if the letter actually exists at all - and there is not even an RS for that much. SpinningSpark 17:34, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

I'd agree that it shouldn't be in the infobox. To avoid potential visual bias issues - it's a bit odd to have two on one side and none on the other - it might be worth removing the UK & Egypt flags as well, if we can't find a workable Mahdist one. Shimgray | talk | 12:56, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Flag icons in infoboxes are not great at any time, IMHO. Rich Farmbrough, 22:44, 22 October 2011 (UTC).

This RFC has now been automatically closed by the bot. Since no one is actually supporting the flag in the infobox I have now removed it. Regarding the other flags, I decline to get involved in the "flags in infoboxes debate" and have left them alone. I leave that to others to deal with, but it probably should be discussed at some central location rather than here as it has wider implications. SpinningSpark 10:00, 13 November 2011 (UTC)